Evolution

[Pikeman85]

I must say, you are suprisingly open minded.

 

I'm glad that Peregrine finally convinced you ;)

 

However I'm telling you what I know from the direct research and coursework myself. I plan on making a living on this all, I don't joke around about it.

[Darnoc]

OK, bring some of your stuff, Pikeman! I would really like to look into it.

 

But now I'm going to destroy everything everyone here has believed in :bleh:

I just read Immanuel Kant and I want to share with you, what he has to say about the topic. Whan Kant is right (and I think he is; what he says sounds very logical and reasonable) none of us is right!

 

OK, Kant said that we looked at things the wrong way. We always try to find out what something is by "circling" around the object and observe it. Now Kant says that this is impossible. He defines three fields: The subject ("I"), the appearance of the object and the object itself. Now we can never really observe the object itself (for doing this we would have to become the object itself, what is impossible) but only the appearance of this object. Everything concerning the objects themselves is a matter of belief and religion. Science is describing the appearance of an object and this appearance doesn't depend on the object but on the subject. To give you an example of the extreme sort:

 

Two guys see the appearance of an object, which could be an UFO. Now one of them is a believer, the other one not. The believer will now say "My god, I've just really saw an UFO!" and the none-believer will say "It is only an optical illusion!" (or something like this). Now Kant says that both aren't right, because they are only looking at the appearance of the object and the appearance depends on the subject who looks at it.

 

This rule counts for everything we encounter, this means, we can not make any absolute statements about any object. Appearances also depend on the way of thinking. We describe our world through space and time. With space Kant means the appearance of an object, with time the change of this appearance. After we observed appearances, we beginn to think and try to bring different appearances into a logical order. One of these methods is the principle of clausality (cause and effect). When I put fire on a dry paper it burns. This clausality and any other way of thinking is only existing inside the subject, also space and time.

 

The field of objects is only a matter of belief and religion, because we will never be able to say any absolute statement about any object. Science is trying to describe and explaining the appearances of those objects, philosophy is trying to explain why an object is appearing the way it is.

 

In the end this means that neither the sciences nor the religions can make any true statement about our world. It depends on the way we look at the world, who the world appears. When we try to look at the world logically, we will find logic and reason everywhere we go. If we belief in mystics, we will find that everything is a mystery.

 

Now to apply this theory to our topic: The way we think that life came into being depends on the way we think and how we see the world. Because of this, we can't think in terms of "right" and "wrong". We can only say: "The way I look at the world, what I found out is true and what you found out is wrong." The other person will say then the exact opposite of it. Both are neiter wrong nor right, because both aren't describing and explaining the objects themselves but the appearances of those objects.

 

Now that I destroyed everything you believed in (the absoluteness of scientifc prove :D ), I'll like to look at what Pikeman has to show. But please keep in mind not to say somebody is wrong because he has a different point of view, because both are only looking at appearances, not at the objects themselves. And of course not to blindly believe in something (concerning both sides), because everyone could be wrong.

[Akrid]

Sombody is not wrong because they have a diffrent point of veiw, their wrong because their wrong. It's the ability to realize this that makes us intellegent. Also they both saw a UFO, it was a UFO that is fact, because it was unidenified flying and was a object or appeared to be a object, that qualifes a UFO. Here in the navy even gas and star light optical illsions seen out to sea are classifed as UFO's. Evolution however is not somthing so trivial to understand, and it is all around us. if we can not understand evolution or proof it then we are dumb, because it's really not that hard to proof or believe. Have your diffrent view, thats not why I say you are wrong just becaue you have a mind of your own, the reason I say your are wrong is becuse of the context of what you say, when you say evolution is not true. And you even accept that lifeforms addapt and can change but only a little? why a little? what barrier stops a lifeform from addapting so far it becomes somthing else? nothing.

[Darnoc]

OK, then not an UFO. One says "I saw a spaceship from another world, aliens are visiting us!" and the other says "It is a natural phenomena!"

 

satisfied, acrid?

 

Perhaps I should give a simpler example: You make fire, throw a paper in the fire, it burns and is soon comsumed by the flames. Now, what did happen? "Paper is made of wood, which is made of Carbon, which is capable of burning, provided that oxigen is at the place. Because this was the case, the Carbon inside the paper burnded" would most people say. But in reality, this wasn't what you observed, it was, what you did interprete.

 

Now, this was the appearance you saw, when you look at it neutral: 1. A fire 2. A paper 3. Paper touches the fire 4. The paper turns black where it touches the fire 5. The paper beginns to disappear

 

What did happen? Could be also a fire-god which ate up the paper, couldn't it? It all depends on how you look at the appearances of those objects. But you will never, never be able to describe the objects themselves!!!

 

And you're right, acrid, someone is wrong because he is wrong. But the problem is not this. The problem is that we aren't able to tell, if someone is right or wrong, at least not in an absolute way. Even more, we will never be able to tell if anything at all is right or wrong. If we could really observe the objects themselves and not only their appearances then we could say someone is right or wrong. But because this will never be the case, we can't say someone is wrong.

 

These appearances do change with the way we look at the world. Not our way of looking at the world does change, because of the appearances we observe. What you call evolution can look very different, when you have a different way at looking at the world.

 

I could turn around your question and ask: Why do you think that nothing can stop lifeforms from changing? When you say "What is stopping them from changing? nothing!" Then you are already assuming that nothing is stopping them. Your way of looking at the world is changing the appearances of things. You think "I never saw something stopping lifeforms from changing, so I assume that there is nothing to stop them". I think "I didn't observe any lifeform evolving to a higher lifeform, so I assume that it doesn't happen". We are both neiter right nor wrong, because we are not describing what the object is itself, we are interpreting the appearances of this object the way we look at it.

[Akrid]

And you're right, acrid, someone is wrong because he is wrong. But the problem is not this. The problem is that we aren't able to tell, if someone is right or wrong, at least not in an absolute way. Even more, we will never be able to tell if anything at all is right or wrong. If we could really observe the objects themselves and not only their appearances then we could say someone is right or wrong. But because this will never be the case, we can't say someone is wrong.

 

Ok two can play at this game. So if you can't proof somone is wrong ever, then you can't proof I'm wrong by saying your wrong that nothing can be said to be wrong for sure, thus you could be wrong, but then I was wrong because I was only right when you where wrong that right is wrong and AHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

*head explodes

 

Lets get real here. If you see a apple with your eyes and feel it with your hands and taste it with your mouth, then by all human standards you can be right to say that apple exist, oh sure it could a illusion put there by aliens for some test on human eating habits, and it wasn't really a apple but a alien brain, and sensors beamed into your head to make you think otherwise, but I would say despite that small chance you can still say the apple exist by human standards. We debate using facts, ideas, opinions, and resources that are based on human intellect, and not a perfect god like understanding, but the best brain's on this earth none the less. So with our super brains (super by earth standards at least) we know everything based on what we deem as fact, and human fact is as good as is gets untill some higher being appears. Now if somone says there is a fire god that eats the paper, he may have his reason for believing this (ignorance) but by knowing better and knowing facts I can find out what scientificly happens to the paper and yes I can prove him wrong, because facts are made by finding the most reasonable explanation and having enuff supporting evidence to show it's obiously true, and obviously there is no fire god so you are still wrong to say there is no wy to prove somone wrong, because if that was the case then, well read the paragraph above.

 

//I know this is gone OT but I just had to stop the "nothing can be truly known" side debate here. If it continues past this thread then it's really just pointless spam.

[Ancalagon]

*Just stares blankly, and a bit drool falls from the slack-jawed mook.

 

I...Is...Is this.....HEAVEN??

 

:blink:

 

Or...just...really really OT?

[Peregrine]

Yes, it is really off topic. Please, let's keep this discussion about evolution.

[Akrid]

I could turn around your question and ask: Why do you think that nothing can stop lifeforms from changing? When you say "What is stopping them from changing? nothing!" Then you are already assuming that nothing is stopping them. Your way of looking at the world is changing the appearances of things. You think "I never saw something stopping lifeforms from changing, so I assume that there is nothing to stop them". I think "I didn't observe any lifeform evolving to a higher lifeform, so I assume that it doesn't happen". We are both neiter right nor wrong, because we are not describing what the object is itself, we are interpreting the appearances of this object the way we look at it.

 

You created the idea of somthing stopping adapting life forms from evolving. You created the idea for no reason other than you have never seen evolution happen, even though it takes at least hundreds of thousands of years and our speck of nothing lives couldn't possibly hope to see a dog transform into a bird right befroe our eyes. However Evolution has supporting facts, that have been brought up several times before. There is no facts or anything to point to somthing stopping evolution from happening at a certain point other than creationist wanting to foil the concept of evolution because it may go against their religion.

[Darnoc]

Acctually, did you ever observe, how the process of a burning happened on a molecular level? Did you ever observe, how the moleculs inside the paper begann to change and became CO2 and H2O? No, nobody has. We acctually see a paper and a fire. we see how the paper is consumed by flames. We see how H2O and CO2 are left, after the paper has dissappeared. We assume that these are the rests of the paper which has burnt down. With our logic we conclude that those remains must be what was earlier the paper, but in fact we don't know. Now no one is doubting that this isn't the way it happend (if you did, you're stupid). But still you can't say that someone is wrong, when he gives you another explanation, because you aren't even able to prove that you are right (of course it is very likely that the process of burning is happening the way we think nowadays it does).

 

With evolution and the origin of life it is the same. We see how lifeforms change under certain circumstances (different environmental conditions). We now assume that this process leads to higher evolvement after it happended enough. For this we assume that there is no border for genetic change.

 

I'll give you know a complete different interpretation and I will state exactly what is assumption and what is fact. There is a border for genetic change (assumption), so higher evolvement is not possible (assumption). All the fossils we find are meddled the way that the littlest forms are at the bottom (fact). I don't say "least complex", because that is in fact not true. We never found a place in which all lifeforms followed up from least complex at the bottom to most complex at the top (fact) (even when the paleontoligist want to make us believe that it is that way; they get their results through comparrision between different sites, not through one site in which the whole history of earth is like in a book: least complex on the bottom, most complex at the top; this information I've got from a paleontologist I know personally). Now fossils are in fact minerals. We know from geology that when you put different kinds of minerals and stones in water, the littlest will settle down on the bottom, the biggest at the top. We see the same in fossil sediments (fact). So you could explain all the fossils by just saying that they were caught in a huge flood and then the littlest settled down on the bottom and the biggest at the top (assumption).

 

Now you will say "But this must have been a really huge flood and such a flood never existed". True, we don't have any evidence for such a thing happening. But look at some facts. There are fossils of trees which go through several sediments (fact)! If our today theory is true, this tree must have been in a process of fossilizing for several millions of years. One part of it must have been a fossil, while the other one was still living and this isn't possible (assumption)! Something else from ethnology: Why does almost every culture on this planet have a legend of a huge flood covering the whole earth (fact)? We know from ethnology that only really remarkable moments are remembered through several thousands of years and in different cultures (fact). Now almost every culture (and on every continent) has a flood legend (fact). It must have been such a remarkable moment in history that it was remembered by almost every culture on this planet through thousand of years (assumption)! Also genetic biologists found out that a "bottleneck-event" has happended in early human history (fact). A "bottleneck-event" is, when almost the whole population is wipped out and only some survive and become the origin of a new population.

 

OK, perhaps something like this happened in early history. But there couldn't be enough water to cover the whole earth, could it? Yes, there was probably enough water to cover the earth: In our atmosphere (from no one everything is assumption based on observations). When almost half of the water, which is now mostly in our oceans, was in the atmosphere and then would have fallen down through a catastrophic event (meteorite? The remains of a huge meteoric impact were found in Yucatan several years ago), this would have covered the whole earth. An atmosphere with a lot of water in it would provide a very good protection from solar radiation and would give an equal climate on the whole planet, even on the north pole and in the deserts, because of the green-house-effect provided by the water in the atmosphere. This could be the paradise, golden age etc. which does exist in legends of every culture. The meteorite hitting the earth could have started the movement of our tectonic plates, which are still moving, but very slow. After the hit, the plates would have moved very fast which resulted in our present situation. Immagine a catastrophe like this: huge meteorite hitting the earth, very heavy earthquakes (heavier than we have them today) and volcanic erruptions all over the earth, all the water in the atmosphere falls down because it cools off (dust of the meteorite shields off the sun) and coveres everything. Because of the now moving tectonic plates, they crashed into eachother, resulting in the rise of the continents above the water line. Still today water covers almost everything on the earth (about 70%). Wouldn't you think that such a catastrophic event would be remembered by thousand generations to come? The end of the golden age, the extinction of almost all of the human race and most of the lifeforms existing at that time (now only existing as fossils).

 

Now you will say that this theory can only be true, when our earth is still young, but geologists have found out that it is in fact 4.5 Billion years old! This is only the case, when you do assume that such a big catastrophe as described above never happened and everything is going as slow as it is today (principle of uniformitarinism). But when you assume such a catastrophe as described above, all would have been time-lapsed and our earth would be only about ten thousand years old! Another observation speaks for a young earth: The lack of neutrinos in solar radiation. Neutrinos are created in the process of burning hydrogen to helium. When our sun really has such a big amount of hydrogen, so that it could burn for billions of years, there must be more neutrinos! But the solar radition doesn't have this amount, so it can't have have enough hydrogen to burn for such a long time. In fact there are so little neutrinos, that our sun could only burn a little more than ten thousand years. Which fits perfectly with the theory stated above.

 

Now there are of course a lot of arguments against this theory, I could add big list to this, so could probably you. The only thing I want to state here now is, that both evolution and creation have so much arguments against them that both can't be 100% correct. There are flaws and faults in both theories so neither of them is really true and both are about the same probable.

 

This is an assumption, based on observation as is the higher evolvment of lifefoms. It is just a different interpretation of the facts, as higher evolvment is an interpretation. And both are about the same probable, because they both base on observations and interpretation of those. I don't believe either of them, because both can't prove it absolutely (I always try to search the absolute truth, if this is possible at all). Now you can choose, what fits you more. I for myself like the creation-flood theory better, it somehow gives me a good feeling that there is something higher, some purpose to it all. But do as you like. What I said and what you said isn't the absolute truth and we won't find it for a long time, perhaps never. It would interest me, how you counter-argument the arguments of the theory I stated above (the base theory is from the book "The Genesis Flood" by J. C. Whitcomb and H. M. Morris, but there was a lot added later on from other scientists; I could scrap together some other books and articles and give you my sources). Perhaps the truth lies in between, as it is with most things (at least as I experienced it).

[Akrid]

Well now your argument seems to have taken a better turn towards debating.

 

Now there are of course a lot of arguments against this theory, I could add big list to this, so could probably you. The only thing I want to state here now is, that both evolution and creation have so much arguments against them that both can't be 100% correct. There are flaws and faults in both theories so neither of them is really true and both are about the same probable.

 

Who said the arguments where 100% correct. We don't understand a lot of the human mind but we know it thinks and it's there in all our heads (most of ours anyway :lol: ) I simply see evolution as the most feasible way to explain all the diffrent life forms and how we come to be, and how we are on this world but we weren't always, as we all know. But nobody was around when the human race started out thats around today. And early man was poor at recording facts and history, and when man became better at recording things man started to make things like homes and better tools and beer. But nobody that knew the first people ever was advanced enuff to write about them, so the first people must have been primitive, hmmm, like apes? what does this point to? nothing you want to see, thats for sure.