Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 1268
view profile
History
Evolution. Page 50 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
American high schools don't really teach evolution, if they did there would be none of this fake controversy.


I am wont to believe that evolution is a theory. Theories are not meant to be taught, they are meant to be presented. It is the job of our schools to teach thought processes and let the students come to their own conclusions. Beliefs are the result of the conclusions reached by an individual who has been presented with alternative theories & taught to use their own mind, no?

"Science will flourish only in a society that cherishes its norms. The reason, openness, tolerance, and respect for the autonomy of the individual that distinguish the social process of science ... are norms desirable in every human community. They describe a world in which, we can agree, all of us want to live."
Gerald Piel
Science, 17 January, 1986

As far as I' am concerned, valuing humanity, tolerance & community take precedence over science. Whatever would make ayone believe that our society sould be ruled by science alone? Why the need to ascribe such importance to any one aspect of the human condition? do we choose our relationships based on scientific theory or evidence? do we parent our children thusly? react to our peers? our pets? our parents? mentors? what is truly important? What about a grasp on reality?

What the heck is the mater with everyone?!
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1269
Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2011 10:18:13 PM

As far as I' am concerned, valuing humanity, tolerance & community take precedence over science. Whatever would make ayone believe that our society sould be ruled by science alone? Why the need to ascribe such importance to any one aspect of the human condition? do we choose our relationships based on scientific theory or evidence? do we parent our children thusly? react to our peers? our pets? our parents? mentors? what is truly important? What about a grasp on reality?

What the heck is the mater with everyone?!

Well, first, this is a thread about evolution. If you don't think evolution has anything to say about the human condition, why post here? I don't post in threads about Nascar, because I don't care about Nascar.

However, you're wrong. Evolution has everything to do with how we parent our children and why our dogs follow our lead. When we started walking upright, it necessitated narrower hips. Which means smaller infants. Which means helpless children for a longer time. Which means that we needed to be tribal - it really does take a village, or at least a tribe to raise a child. When anyone sees a baby they feel protective towards it - that instinct was crucial to our survival as a species. We protect our children because evolution programmed us to do that.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 1270
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2011 11:06:14 PM
"However, you're wrong. Evolution has everything to do with how we parent our children and why our dogs follow our lead. When we started walking upright, it necessitated narrower hips. Which means smaller infants. Which means helpless children for a longer time. Which means that we needed to be tribal - it really does take a village, or at least a tribe to raise a child. When anyone sees a baby they feel protective towards it - that instinct was crucial to our survival as a species. We protect our children because evolution programmed us to do that."-halftimedad

Bad example, halfdad, a person, should they be so inclined, could just as easily argue that caring for children is a legacy from a God concerned with human affairs and spiritual development. I am not saying that I present such a case, only that it is equally supported by your evidence.

Not all "moral" behavior is driven by mere survival- particularly in the case of altruism. There are, too, numerous cases of species which show no regard for their young after the act of reproduction, many of which greatly exceed any mammal in the length of their tenure on this planet, e. g. salmon, oysters, and all plants.

The case of dogs is interesting in that human selection pressures have largely overtaken "natural", survival-oriented drives, very few toy breeds would survive for any time in the wild. They are weaker and stupider than their wild ancestors.

Similarly, Man has been dumbesticated by Woman, made weak and stupid, less fit to survive, and Woman, not surprisingly, despises him for it. Therefore, the persistent problem of friction between the sexes, bow wow.
 JukeBoxJumper
Joined: 9/23/2010
Msg: 1271
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2011 11:09:11 PM
My gosh... You do realize that a SCIENTIFIC theory has nothing to do with anecdote as assumed by our day-to-day conversation, yeah?

A theory is the highest level that science can elevate an idea and is the umbrella under which we find facts, laws, proofs and whatever else you need short of saying something is absolute (which Science never does).

How is this even up for debate?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1272
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2011 11:25:23 PM
Bad examples Hibernian..
What we define as "altruism" comes in many forms. The act of swimming upstream against the current, between the bear claws to spawn is a species driven form of altruism by salmon. Plants perpetuate themselves by going to seed and as noted by studies, plants do communicate chemically with each other. Oysters exist to be bottom filters, absorbing human waste and toxics, and are notorious for giving humans food borne illnesses, thereby protecting other oysters.

I agree with some species of dogs having the brains bred out of them, but mutts, coyotes and wolves are every bit as altruistic as other mammal species.

You "Man has been dumbesticated by Woman, made weak and stupid" comment belongs more in the misogynistic forums at Happy Bachelors or Men Going Their Own Way. Unless you were just kidding and being ironic. If it were not for fermented beverages, there remains some doubt that men would have ever been domesticated. It was a mutual benefit where men stayed around long enough to grow the crops for fermentation and became tolerable enough for women once they had a buzz on.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1273
Evolution.
Posted: 9/9/2011 10:56:44 PM
Krebby...explain to all what analytical thinking with neutrality means?
Evolution is pretty darned complex and very fascinating.
 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 1274
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 7:23:24 AM
Why should we teach something that is not defined? What is Evolution? To one person it means one thing and to another individual it means something else all together.

Which Evolution should we teach? The rapid introduction of new species into the timeline or the slow gradual process that occurs over millions of years. Does evolution include transitional lifeforms, or do new species explode into exsistence? Should we use the theory that animals came from plant-life or that because of plant-life animals were able to come to orgin?

I dont see how we can responsibly teach an idea with such a lack of agreeable and provable pricinples and laws. Its not like teaching 2+2=4 or that a question mark belongs at the end of a question, or that Sodium and Chloride mixed correctly can produce Salt. Until more evidence can be shown to support a defined Evolution, I do not feel safe presenting it to children.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1275
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 7:51:17 AM

Why should we teach something that is not defined?


A standard dictionary should be sufficient for that.


To one person it means one thing and to another individual it means something else all together.


I'll go with what the biologists say.


Which Evolution should we teach?


How many kinds have you got?


The rapid introduction of new species into the timeline or the slow gradual process that occurs over millions of years


Define "rapid introduction of new species into the timeline." Are time travelers bringing new species from the future?


Does evolution include transitional lifeforms


Yes since all forms are transitional life forms.


or do new species explode into exsistence?


Um...that would be "creationism."


Should we use the theory that animals came from plant-life or that because of plant-life animals were able to come to orgin?


What!? Where the hell does it say that!? Do you have a citation, other than Answers in Genesis?


I dont see how we can responsibly teach an idea with such a lack of agreeable and provable pricinples and laws.


Well then, I guess we'd better drop any mention of Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics or...wait a minute! What the hell does "agreeable and provable principles and laws" mean!?


Its not like teaching 2+2=4 or that a question mark belongs at the end of a question, or that Sodium and Chloride mixed correctly can produce Salt.


Of course it's not. They're different curricula.


Until more evidence can be shown to support a defined Evolution, I do not feel safe presenting it to children.


What, you mean like biology, paleontology, DNA... And what do you mean by "safe?" What, do you think the teaching of evolution is going to result in the little darlins' heads exploding?
 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 1276
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 8:24:02 AM
Oh so you want to use your idea of evolution.

You'll go w/ what the biologist say? Which one, give me some names and their views. Do you really believe that all biologist have the exact same idea of Evolution?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1277
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 8:30:59 AM
You'll go w/ what the biologist say? Which one, give me some names and their views. Do you really believe that all biologist have the exact same idea of Evolution?


Can you cite specific points of divergence that are a problem for our current understanding of evolutionary biology? Or are you just going to resort to the typical creationist tactic of making broad, sweeping generalizations while demanding specifics from the "evolutionists?"

Oh, and could you answer the question about what the "dangers" are of teaching children about the facts of evolution?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1278
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 9:17:21 AM
Yeah, this is clearly somebody who doesn't understand science. We don't know everything about matter, or gravity, or light. Heck, you just need to watch a season of Big Bang Theory to see that there are lots of disputes about the nature of the universe around us. Apparently that means we shouldn't have the periodic table up in science classrooms according to this guy.

Teaching chemistry and physics would be "dangerous" if all scientists aren't in agreement about m theory.
 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 1279
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 9:50:13 AM
my favorite word "science". Everyone loves to throw that word around. I can prove to you today what 2+2 = and can prove it over and over w/o fallacy. I can add a certain amount of one element to a certain amount of another and everytime the same result will be observed. If I throw a rock up in the air, everytime it will come down. No species has ever been obsereved to evolve to a new species. Where is the science?

I did name some disputes about Evolution.
 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 1280
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 11:35:23 AM
There's that term again, scientific fact. Really? Apply the scientific method to Evolution please. Tell me why there are no forums disputing how an engine works, or what molecules are in water. why is there no dispute on how a baby is conceived? Thats b/c I can produce observable evidence again and again w/o variance. If Evolution were a scientific fact, there would be no dispute.

You did tell me what any of those orginaztion's views on evolution were. And i did not state that noone agrees on an idea of Evolution. I said there are different theories on what and how evolution is/occur.

I love the idea that if I dont believe in Evolution I have to be a creationist, like those are the only 2 possible explanations. Why do I have to believe in either? There could be other explanations. But thats the problem w/ most evolutionsist and creationist , it has to be their way; again that is not science.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1281
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 11:40:08 AM

No species has ever been obsereved to evolve to a new species. Where is the science?


Well, that would be wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm
etc.

Or are you thinking evolution is like Pokemon?

In the meantime, you STILL haven't answered my question regarding what the "danger" is of teaching evolution to children.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1282
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 11:44:59 AM
Tell me why there are no forums disputing how an engine works, or what molecules are in water. why is there no dispute on how a baby is conceived? Thats b/c I can produce observable evidence again and again w/o variance. If Evolution were a scientific fact, there would be no dispute.


That's because neither of those particularly speaks to the fact that humans aren't necessarily the special creation of a magical sky magician or aliens from Planet W (for Whatever). People just don't like to think of the possibility that yes, we are in fact animals. Just animals that are really smart.


Why do I have to believe in either? There could be other explanations.


Such as? I notice how people who "dispute" evolution so rarely have viable alternatives. Actually, they never have viable alternatives. Odd, that.


If Evolution were a scientific fact, there would be no dispute.


Then you really don't understand science, do you.

 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 1283
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 12:06:12 PM
I dont understand your definition of science. Again, please apply the scientific method to evolution. You're confusing science w/ scientific theories. The idea that nothing can be proven is hogwash. Thats how i can distinguish the difference b/w science and what your trying to sell me.

It doesnt matter what I believe or what you believe, I dont have to have an alternate theory. The truth is the truth rather I believe it or not. The truth might be something completely different than any theory in place now.

I will never believe a theory that at its core is based on SPONTANEOUS GENERATION- the orgin of life from inanimate matter. This was DISPROVEN over a hundred years ago, and is still done so today in 3rd grade classrooms around the world.

Evolution does not have science on its side, and the fact that so many evolutionist think its their way or God shows me the motive behind the theory.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1285
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 1:53:26 PM
Evolutionary theory is quite scientific and on very solid ground, regardless of your poor understanding of both. Theory explains fact. Evolutionary theory explains the observation of evolution. It does NOT propose that evolution occurs, it provides a well-substantiated explanation for why the fact of evolution is observed in the ways it is.


The idea that nothing can be proven is hogwash. Thats how i can distinguish the difference b/w science and what your trying to sell me

Don't confabulate math with science. Science is an exercise of the scientific method, which obtains explanations by elimination of impossibilities. Math doesn't work that way. Math is a very important logical tool in the sciences, but in itself it does not meet the definition of a science.


I will never believe a theory that at its core is based on SPONTANEOUS GENERATION- the orgin of life from inanimate matter.

The connection you make is false. While it is true that biology in general accepts both evolution and chemobiogenesis, it is NOT true that chemobiogenesis is at all part of or required for evolutionary theory. Life evolves. Evolutionary theory explains how. Neither the facts nor the theory hinge upon where that life came from in the first place, and evolutionary theory was never proposed in the first place as an outgrowth of biogenesis. In fact, the reverse is true.


This was DISPROVEN over a hundred years ago, and is still done so today in 3rd grade classrooms around the world.

This too is false. A scientific experiment can only disprove that which it's designed to disprove. Pasteur's experiments only demonstrated that bacteria and multicellular life forms will [can] not arise de novo in a sealed flask under the conditions provided. Those conditions actually included products of pre-existing life, under conditions bearing no resemblance to pre-biotic Earth, on a time scale which is not even remotely similar to what was available. Miller and Urey made a good start on simulating more realistic conditions, and there has been no shortage of additional experiments since those, which have demonstrated pretty much all of the processes thought to have led to life. Those include formation of nucleic acids, formation of RNA chains, formation of self-replicating RNA, and formation and growth of phospholipid layers. To expect life to arise from boiled meat in a flask in one month in a grade three classroom, would be moronic. To draw grandiose conclusions because it does not ,is almost as bad.

I would have to say that the phrase I quote from you above truly broadcasts your woeful understanding of what science involves.

Krebby - I do not address "time", because time does not have the influence over evolution that most people think it does. Evolution is driven by reproduction, and reproduction is tied to organismal biology as well as population size.

Most mutation takes place in the production of germ cells. While those cells inevitably inherit the mutations of the parent, they also suffer numerous errors during meiosis and mitosis. Virtually all of the mutation types I have mentioned, are likely to take place while cells are replicating to produce sperm and eggs. Of the millions of sperm in every ejaculate, every one will have numerous mutations. Some of those will obviously be inviable, but critical errors are likely to eliminate such combinations long before they would ever be noticed. Now combine those germ cells, and a few more errors can occur, though far fewer.

Pursuing the process, the key to evolution actually taking place is that those mutations must reproduce and repeat the process. In elephants, that's likely to take 40 years, to go from millions of mutated germ cells, to a mature elephant, to a mature offspring. I count it that way because a parent can only succeed if at least one child actually reproduces. A sterile or dead child is equal to a parent not reproducing at all. In humans, that time span can be reduced to 30 years. In many smaller vertebrates, it will be two years. In bacteria, it might be 20 minutes [minus the sexual combination of gametes, but WITH all the mutations associated with cell replication]. For simplicity though, a single generation is normally used, especially as we often calculate multiple generations from there.

So there's the "time" aspect. An organism which reproduces in 10 minutes can go from two individuals to 128 in an hour. I won't extrapolate those numbers to 20 years - they are clearly vast, with every individual being a unique combination of mutations. That's a LOT of opportunities for adaptation. An organism which reproduces in 20 years would require 120 YEARS to achieve the same variation as bacteria achieve in an hour.

Now the population aspect, and at this point it's a simple one to explain. A population of two bacteria will be 128 new variants in an hour. A population of 10 bacteria will be 640 new variants in an hour. In other words, five times as much variation, five times as many chances to adapt. A large population with a slow reproductive rate can evolve faster than a small population with a high reproductive rate. Humans are evolving 10000 x faster than our background rate because we not only live longer and healthier than we did two millenia ago, but because our population is now on the order of seven BILLION, not five to ten MILLION. Each new individual is a unique adaptive opportunity, and in the case of humans, there are a whole LOT of individuals now.

Once those mutations exist, they generally continue to exist, so long as reproduction happens, and they thus build upon each other with each generation. Since most organisms [including humans] don't stray too far from home, those traits will build up in local populations. Examples include any racial or cultural characteristics - hair color and texture, height, eye color, skin color, the five or so types of malaria resistance, HIV immunity, Tay-Sachs disease, the "Roman nose". While largely trivial on the surface, these traits are all good illustrations of how mutations arise and spread within a limited geographic area. And they do this even more now that our population has grown so much.

Evolution does not require long time spans. It requires reproduction. The more, the better.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1286
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 2:45:21 PM


What does spontaneous generation have to do with evolution?


Without it... you don't get evolution

Same as any creation event...

No first cause, no big bang theory

No spontaneous generation, no Evolution theory


False
False
False
and wrong.

Evolution occurs regardless of how life arose. Magically put bacteria in a petri dish or fruit flies in a vial, and they evolve. REGARDLESS of how they got there in the first place.

The Big Bang Theory exists to explain the observation of an expanding universe. A first cause is irrelevant and not integral to the theory. Whatever the cause, the universe is still observed to expand from a single point. The Big Bang proposes that...are you ready? The universe expanded from a single point. Gosh, what rocket science.

With or without spontaneous generation, evolution occurs. Cattle arose from aurochs, horses from wild horses, chickens from jungle fowl, dogs from wolves, subway mosquitos from marsh mosquitos, Lake Murray shrimp from Japanese shrimp, and birds from other theropod dinosaurs. The origin of life is irrelevant to the fact that evolution occurs.




That's called a false dichotomy... if your not with me your aginst me argument.

I'm surprised that you can recognize a logical fallacy, considering your dependance upon them.



It isn't a false dichotomy as it isn't an either or, it is without one you don't get the other.

You're right. Different fallacy. Same crap, alternate pile. cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1287
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 3:09:05 PM
Affirming the consequent is also a fallacy.


How did they get into the petri dish to evolve that's the question I'm interested in?

Your interest is irrelevant. Life exists, life evolves. There is no logic which makes evolution contingent upon how life arose in the first place, while still being in accord with evidence. Once the life is in the petri dish, it evolves regardless of how it got there.


If no fruit flies or anything is put into a petri dish... nothing evolves in a petri dish

And there's no life on Mercury. What's your point?

In point of fact, the whole argument is ludicrous. Evolution is observed and obviously observable. Care to argue the validity of electrical theory as well? Oh wait...electricity is "just" a theory and there's no evidence it exists.

I have to go have an intellectually stimulating conversation with my shoe now. I'm feeling my brain cells being sucked out by this forum.
 Paul Overton
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 1288
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 3:26:06 PM
Ok so lets say we're at a period in time where no creature has wings. Where did the information to grow wings come from? If there has never been wings, then how were wings manufactured into the DNA. Where did the information to bulid the right combonation of proteins come from?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1289
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 4:16:11 PM


What does spontaneous generation have to do with evolution?


Without it... you don't get evolution

Same as any creation event...


Well, I think the first part of that has been pretty handily dealt with. Your absolute aversion to anything you interpret as a "creation" event is telling, however.


No first cause, no big bang theory

No spontaneous generation, no Evolution theory


And a nice attempt at a thread hijack.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1290
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 4:17:38 PM

Even if evolution is not dependent on Spontaneous Generation, your God-less ideology is! The only way evolution is not dependent on spontaneous generation is w/ the help of intelligent design.


BINGO!!!!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1291
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 8:14:18 PM

"A major fault, for example, is the fact that, along with the materialist principle, Darwin introduced into his theory of evolution reactionary Malthusian ideas." - Trofim Lysenko


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism


"Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.[1]"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_ghost_of_lysenko.html
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1292
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 8:15:23 PM
Well, Krebby may not have intended to, but he inspired me to clean my fridge.

I'm sure that's some sort of evolutionary response. I was worried that there were lifeforms that might outcompete me in another week and I'd be homeless.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1293
Evolution.
Posted: 9/11/2011 6:22:50 AM
I'm really not trying to be disrespectful here. But that whole circular logic thingie...I'm thinking that really only convinces peyote habitues. I haven't even had a cup of coffee yet. Way too early for a peyote button.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >