- This topic has 39 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Modern_humans
It was that simple a five year old could’ve of done it, explained by evolution of course but then you don’t understand evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc
Skip to 7:00 mins and watch the bit were it would be stupid not to accept scientific theories like atoms or evolution as fact, it would be "perverse". Then goes on to explain the evidence but you probably won’t understand. Just watch and then say evolution holds as much water as God.
I don’t know where human’s came from and wouldn’t hazzard a guess but I don’t believe that the evolution opinion holds any more water than the God one, personally.
I would suggest the two are not remotely comparable.
Evolution has a scientific basis – it is becoming increasingly possible to note subtle changes in genetic structure between generations.
Evolutionary change is subtle, almost imperceptible between each single generation but comparing over a number of generations the changes are obvious.
If you compare a human genetic profile from today with a predecessor, say, 1,000 generations ago the differences would be such they are different species. So a "human" of today would not be able to breed with a "human" of 1,000 generations ago because the genetic differences are so great – yes I know it isn’t physically possible but you get my drift.
Yes evolution is a theory but all science is theory and the theory changes as knowledge expands.
It is the role of scientists to develop, not necessarily prove theories. However it
is
their role to disprove existing theories and then use that evidence to formulate new theories.
That is why Newtonian theory has been superseded by, first of all Einsteins theory of relativity and then by his special theory. It is also now been proved that even the special theory of relativity has flaws and so the theory and understanding is, for want of a better word, evolving.
With religion and the God story it is an entirely different matter – as it is not possible to disprove the story by experimentation, as the central tenet of any religion is
faith
in something that cannot be proven or dis-proven.
When I was at school I was taught the Christian story as undisputed fact – which is clearly a wrong thing to do.
Similarly I was also taught about genetics, which I found fascinating, but with it being the late 60’s early 70’s the knowledge was relatively sparse and much of what we were taught as fact was in fact incorrect, like evolving from Neanderthals.
However those errors have been acknowledged as knowledge has expanded and that is how it should be and what I read about genetics now is far more enlightening and logical than it was 40 odd years ago.
With religion nothing has changed or evolved – it is no more than a myth and always will be.
(on the theory of special relativity I used to spend hours arguing with my physics lecturer that the theory was flawed but didn’t have the intellect to actually prove it was wrong – but I since smiled to myself as in the past decade or so there has been an acceptance there are flaws and much greater minds than mine have proved the flaws – so if Simon Pascoe is reading this – I told you so
)That’s calmed things down a bit.
Excellent post Paul, like to see the God squad argue with that.
It’s true! Evolution is NOT a fact, it’s just infinitely more likely than any religious theory.
Value Is EverythingGood post paulostermeyer,
"It’s true! Evolution is NOT a fact"
Just for the record, evolution is a fact!
Rumour has it that we didn’t evolve from Neanderthals now, btw. It was passed off as a fact a few years ago that we did. We never evolved from cromagnons either, they were bigger and better than us. Anything that can be properly analysed disproves evolution not the opposite.
The evolution from Neanderthals theory was always tenuous with a significant number of doubters and I for one don’t recall it being taught as fact at school
There’s near-universal acceptance (amongst scientists) that the Cro-Magnons were early Modern Man – us,
Homo sapiens sapiens
– and represent the first wave of
H s s
out of Africa and into Europe circa 40,000 years ago where they coexisted with the indigenous Neanderthals (if sub-species
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
or if species
Homo neanderthalensis
) until natural selection saw off the latter some 10,000 years later
One of the great unanswered questions is that of interbreeding between the two sub-species or species and if it took place the fecundity of the offspring: sterile or fertile…Intriguing or what?
Descent from Cro-Magnons? Well it depends how strong an emphasis you put on descent; it’s likely that the later Indo-European migrations into Europe a mere 10,000 years ago absorbed the long-established Cro-Magnon cultures and if one accepts that C-M was modern man then it’s likely at least some of their genetic pool lingers to this day
An intriguing hypothesis is ‘The Basques are Cro-Magnons’ or at least their direct genetic and linguistic descendents, so aberrant are the genes and language of those people
I will always remain sceptical about all this and all else; but it’s a fascinated healthy scepticism not a sullen ‘what do they know’ dismissal: knowledge evolves when errors are found
My Time Machine would have only a reverse gear
When I was at school I was taught the Christian story as undisputed fact – which is clearly a wrong thing to do.
Similarly I was also taught about genetics, which I found fascinating, but with it being the late 60’s early 70’s the knowledge was relatively sparse and much of what we were taught as fact was in fact incorrect, like evolving from Neanderthals.
.. my point exactly.
I do remember someone once arguing that some humans are more evolved than others and that didn’t work out too well in the end.
Do you think that some humans are more evolved than others and if some of us are which ones are they?
Do you think that some humans are more evolved than others and if some of us are which ones are they?
I think I’m more evolved than Ginger for sure!
Do you think that some humans are more evolved than others and if some of us are which ones are they?
Flipping heck – that is a deep philosophical question.
Certainly there is a great deal of diversification across the current human genome, especially in terms of geographical differences.
The most obvious one being darker skinned people nearer the tropics to lighter skin as you progressively move away from the tropics.
Or the adaptation of lungs and blood composition of those living at altitude to cope with reduced ambient oxygen levels.
I don’t think any group can be said to have evolved "more" than others – it has been a case of adaptation to circumstances.
However the future will be more interesting.
It is only in the last few generations, no time at all in the process of evolution, that the world has "shrunk" and humans are now generally less confined in terms of location and where they settle.
Whereas a hundred years ago most people married / bred within their own, or a nearby, community, so a relatively narrow gene pool existed and any change would be relatively imperceptive. It was, generally, only explorers or marauding armies who mixed up the gene pools.
Now of course people are marrying / breeding across wider communities and, for want of a better word, between different races, so diversification is going to occur at a far greater rate than has ever happened in history.
It’s probably no bad thing – but it would be fascinating to see how it does develop.
Mmmm.. we are getting to the crux of the whole evolution debate/evidence I think.
You seem to think that darker skinned people live near the tropics and lighter skinned people live near the poles, due to their adaptation to the environment. This is really what is wrong with evolution, that’s basically not right. From the East of the Urals all the way around the globe to Iceland the indigeneous people are darker skinned, in the northern hemisphere? In the Southern hemisphere there aren’t any really southern land masses except terra del fuego and the folk there are of asian origin.
It’s not really a compelling arguement for me, more of an ignore what doesn’t suit the theory kind of observation.
A problem that doesn’t get addressed by evolution is ‘why life?’ Creationists argue that God breathed life into the universe. Evolution by it’s nature can’t have anything being created, only changing what already existed. Something can’t evolve from nothing can it?
I’m not arguing for either standpoint or believing one less than the other but I don’t think either is any more than a theory.
What I do believe is that nobody actually knows.
I’m not arguing for either standpoint or believing one less than the other but I don’t think either is any more than a theory.
Both are "theories" in the loosest sense, however evolution is a changing, evidential based theory, whereas the "God" theory is a dogmatic, take it or leave it, theory with not a single shred of evidence to support it.
Your definition of theory is a hypothesis, a
scientific
theory is one based on evidence, facts and laws. Evolution is a fact that makes an extremely strong case for the (
scientific
) theory of natural selection. Black holes are
scientific
theory, while wormholes are a hypothetical theory.
"A problem that doesn’t get addressed by evolution is ‘why life’?"
It isn’t a problem for evolution it’s a stupid question, it would be like questioning gravity with ‘why objects’? Science doesn’t answer why or philosophical questions because they are silly and don’t deserve an answer.
"What is the meaning of life"
"What’s the purpose of Earth"
"Why is the universe the way it is"
"Why is their objective morality"
"Why do people die"
"Why does intelligence exist in the universe"These are questions composed in the English language but just because it’s a question doesn’t mean it warrants answer, if I asked what’s the colour of happiness? A question but not one that deserves a logical answer, the same for your silly "why life?" question.
"How does the universe work"
"How did the Earth form"
"How did life originate"
"How old is time and matter"
"How Animals evolved their adapted features"
"How forces effect each other"
"How do animals die"
"How animals evolved intelligenceNotice the questions science does answer are how questions, if you rephrased your "why life?" With "how did life originate" it would deserve a logical answer.
"It’s not really a compelling arguement for me, more of an ignore what doesn’t suit the theory kind of observation."
It can’t be a compelling argument unless you know the argument! But I assure you the argument for natural selection is very strong and evolution is so well known and documented you would be perverse to deny it as fact.
"Evolution by it’s nature can’t have anything being created, only changing what already existed. Something can’t evolve from nothing can it?"
Evolution isn’t an explanation to how life originated but rather how life is so complicated, diverse and adaptable. It explains why birds have wings and why you have a brain, of course something can’t evolve from nothing but something can evolve from potential. It would be like saying you didn’t exist 100 years ago so how could exist now, well you know that 100 years ago you didn’t exist but had the potential to in the right conditions. The (
scientific
) theory of Abiogenesis explains how simple life could of had the potential to exist in the right conditions supported by noble prize evidence, facts and laws.
"What I do believe is that nobody actually knows"
We do know. What we don’t actually know is the origin of time and the true origin of matter or what was before the Big Bang but I’m confident science will have an answer in the coming centuries and millennia’.
It’s not a silly question, it’s just a question that evolutionists struggle.
I suppose what you are really trying to say is that, everything evolved after God created it?
If you doubt evolution then you have to accept all animals co-existed with each other, which means humans co-existed with dinosaurs. I’ll give you the compliment that you don’t actually believe all animals co-existed otherwise you would either be deluded or mentally challenged. You would also have to believe animals are not adapted to their environment, so crocodiles terrifying Kent and Lions roaming Paris.
So do you believe all animals have always co-existed, and do you believe polar bears live in Libya? If not then you have to accept evolution as the reason to why humans existed tens of millions of years after dinosaurs, how animals are so diverse and to explain their geographical distribution and adaptation.
It is a silly question, if you see a mountain it would be a stupid thing to say ‘why mountain?’ if we were discussing gravity it would be stupid to say ‘why objects?’. When discussing evolution it is stupid to say "why life?" If you say what is my biological purpose, it can be answered to reproduce. But that isn’t enough for people who think they are special, who think they have been specially created and designed in a specials ones image.
No if everything evolved (which everything doesn’t evolve) after God created everything then what created God? What created the creator of God? What created the creator of the creator of God? What created the creator of the creator of the creator of God? It’s just an ever ending web of lies, myths and plain stupidity.
Watch this two minute YouTube video and maybe it will explain why your question is unanswerable and "silly" to ask.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZ_fsG5uMg
)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.