Evolution

[Pikeman85]

A) Evolution should not be based upon belief. If any of you "believes" in evolution, I suggest you read a biology textbook until you accept it on the basis of evidence, rather than just thinking it's true because it's the only "atheistic"/"agnostic" or "secular" creation/origin you can find.

 

Next, in regards to why other members of the Great Ape family did not evolve at the same time we did... well, evolution generally occurs when two different gene pools have been isolated, so there isn't a way for it to normalize and stay generally the same. Thus, lets say part of the homonids that eventually led to chimpanzees lived in one type of area, those destined to have human descendents, another. Due to the climate/geography/etc, the humans to be developed further upright posture (though not completely so) as well as larger craniums, with 300 cm^3 as opposed to 75-90 cm^3.

 

That would lay the stage for the next development, because by this time the two gene pools are too different to interbreed, and this happens successively over many, many, many generations, you may just get a new family/class/order whatever.

 

That takes a great deal of time though. Heck, even a new species generally takes at least a decade or more. And that's of insects.

[Pikeman85]

Seeing as there hasn't been any opposition to this topic, except for someone writing about demons, which has absolutely nothing to do with the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time, I must say that this argument seems to be over, with science clearly winning.

 

If anyone would like to disprove me, please, do so.

 

(And yes, the point of this point is to provoke debate. I figure saying "We win!" might be enough to get some of you to make some sort of argument, or research something. Anything that makes people think... is good!)

[confused]

i would like to dosagree but i will stick to the scientific side

[Pikeman85]

Disagree with what?

[Magatsu]

"God" does not exist. cause:

1 single induvidual with the power to create and destroy at will, would not be able to develop a personality. because if all began with nothing - there would be no circumstanses to develop from.

 

People look at existense as a straight line with a beginning and an end.

I think its more as a circle. i believe the universe always has been and always will be. As einstein said "Energy can not be destroyed or created, it only changes form"

 

"as sure as there is death after life, there is life after death" plain logic.

 

Opposites attract eachother. As a scale, if one side gets more than the other. The more it struggles to go to the opposite side. As a machine of eternity, forever tipping in opposite directions creating movement.

 

People ask themselves "what is the meaning of life?"

 

Isnt the gift of beeing "aware" meaning enough?

 

I think there is perfect balance in the everlasting universe.

People think death is the end of everything. its just a time of transfer...

 

Where there is a beginning of something new there is an end of something else.

Nothing is eternal exept the eternity in beginning and ends, transformation.

 

If ANYTHING was allowed to be constant, the scale of balance would tip over. And all existence would seize to exist. But i am, so im aware of the facts that its not.

 

The past-Now-The present, our blessing an curse. This means also that we are forced to live over and over and do the same mistakes and actions again and again and again...

 

If this IS true then i would understand why there is no other worlds here. Cause every civilization finding out this truth and believing it, would logically destroy them self to archive a new state of life, so they again can live with the false hope of "a better state"

 

Example:

If one has it all, he wouldnt be happy after a while. and in the end the feeling happines would seize. and he wouldnt be happy anymore but passive... death inside. No goal or ambition, nothing NEW.

 

im glad there is "good" but without evil "good" wouldnt exist either.

 

Im getting tired, time for bed. i could just kill myself it wouldnt matter.

But ill guess ill "enjoy" the rest of this little life to i yet again can die to be reborne with the gift of not knowing...

 

 

(reincarnation is an advanced scientific theory that im way to tired to write now :D )

 

 

 

i think religion was invented as a form of control, or something lonely lonely people came up with to give them false hope that they matter and that someone loves them.

[Peregrine]

First, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to the debate about evolution. If you want to discuss reincarnation and stuff, fine, I'll split it into a new topic. So in your next post, either explain the connection to evolution, or post that your points are off topic and I'll make a new thread for it.

 

And here's why none of it is relevant. Even if every single one of your points is true (which I will not concede), it says nothing about evolution. You can't (sanely) claim that all of history is just a cycle. Our existence changes, evolution is just an extension of that. There is no contradiction with your theory. It works just fine that our entire known history is just one tiny part of the balance, and everything will be undone/shift back on a time scale far too large for us to observe.

 

Now, on to the fun part... proving you wrong!

 

"God" does not exist. cause:

1 single induvidual with the power to create and destroy at will, would not be able to develop a personality. because if all began with nothing - there would be no circumstanses to develop from.

 

Not true. Part of the traditional definition of "god" involves unlimited power. A god could develop a personality simply by deciding that it wanted to have one. Assuming that it didn't have one to begin with.

 

People look at existense as a straight line with a beginning and an end.

I think its more as a circle. i believe the universe always has been and always will be. As einstein said "Energy can not be destroyed or created, it only changes form"

 

In this universe. As I've said elsewhere though, we don't know anything about what came before us. Therefore we can not apply any laws of our own reality to it.

 

"as sure as there is death after life, there is life after death" plain logic.

Wrong. There may be "life" in the sense that our atoms may eventually become part of another organism, but the "soul" (don't have a better word for it) that makes us what we are does not have to follow the same rules. Especially if all of it is just the thoughts/memories/etc stored in our brains. All of that would be lost. There may be another person in the future with some of my atoms, but all that is "Jonathan Parke" will be lost forever.

This "logic" only applies if you're talking about philosophy and literature.

 

Opposites attract eachother. As a scale, if one side gets more than the other. The more it struggles to go to the opposite side. As a machine of eternity, forever tipping in opposite directions creating movement.

 

Which is relevant to this discussion how? I'm sure there's a point to that comment, but I can't find it.

 

People ask themselves "what is the meaning of life?"

 

Isnt the gift of beeing "aware" meaning enough?

 

My thoughts exactly, there doesn't have to be any higher purpose.

 

I think there is perfect balance in the everlasting universe.

People think death is the end of everything. its just a time of transfer...

 

Proof? Again, a nice philosophical idea, but its not relevant without evidence. Provide reasons why it is required that our "soul" continue after death. NO law of the universe (that we have found yet, I'll admit that) requires that it do so.

 

Where there is a beginning of something new there is an end of something else.

Nothing is eternal exept the eternity in beginning and ends, transformation.

 

Again, a nice philosophical point. But just because something sounds nice doesn't make it true. Provide evidence or concede that your comments are meaningless.

 

If ANYTHING was allowed to be constant, the scale of balance would tip over. And all existence would seize to exist. But i am, so im aware of the facts that its not.

 

Once again, provide evidence for your claims. Why would existence cease to exist if some part of it was eternal. Provide evidence for this unalterable balance. And by definition, your balance violates that statement. Because for any of it to be relevant, the balance itself must be eternal!

 

The past-Now-The present, our blessing an curse. This means also that we are forced to live over and over and do the same mistakes and actions again and again and again...

 

Wrong. Why would things have to cycle around exactly the same way? Our world as we know it could be far different if only minor details in the past were changed.

 

If this IS true then i would understand why there is no other worlds here. Cause every civilization finding out this truth and believing it, would logically destroy them self to archive a new state of life, so they again can live with the false hope of "a better state"

 

Only if the society was composed of idiots. Thankfully people like you don't run our world. I fail to see the logic in self destruction as you describe. All that would produce is one less civilization in the universe.

 

Example:

If one has it all, he wouldnt be happy after a while. and in the end the feeling happines would seize. and he wouldnt be happy anymore but passive... death inside. No goal or ambition, nothing NEW.

 

Ok, and your point? So humans probably can't deal psychologically with "having it all". This is psychology, not a fundamental law of the universe.

 

im glad there is "good" but without evil "good" wouldnt exist either.

 

No, we'd just find a new standard of good and evil. But irrelevant to this discussion anyway, since "good" and "evil" are human inventions.

 

Im getting tired, time for bed. i could just kill myself it wouldnt matter.

But ill guess ill "enjoy" the rest of this little life to i yet again can die to be reborne with the gift of not knowing...

 

Please do. Just to be sure you never get control of our civilization and decide to destroy it in search of rebirth.

 

But more seriously, you're wrong. ONLY if you are reborn in the exact same form does your statement mean anything. Which you have yet to provide any evidence for other than nice sounding philosophy. If you're depressed and feel your life doesn't matter, fine. But don't make a scientific argument out of it.

 

 

(reincarnation is an advanced scientific theory that im way to tired to write now :D )

 

No, its not even close to a scientific theory. Only someone ignorant of basic science could claim it as a valid and accepted "theory", advanced or not. You have provided no evidence to support it. NO law of the universe demands reincarnation be true. Nice sounding philosophy does not equal scientific proof.

 

i think religion was invented as a form of control, or something lonely lonely people came up with to give them false hope that they matter and that someone loves them.

 

FINALLY, another valid point. I agree completely. Religion is no more than a human invention, created because most people have a psychological need for it.

[Stormscape]

*sits down in a comfy chair*

ok, I'm gonna be here awhile.

Now then mortals, plain and simple: evoultion was concoted by your creators in order to control you. But you believed in us so dearly.

We had given you great powers.

To see ghosts

great physic powers

ability to cast spells.

But over the thousands of years, you slowly forgot. history omitted much things to protect the innocent.

I am deeply saddened at how shallow you have become. ghosts are real. but many do not wish harm. their mission is to make you believe again. I am afriad it is to late for the physic pwoers though. but how do you think the pyramids were built? that's how...

You see, all the lands in the Elder Scrolls are real. they are other realms, different planes from this one. This is one of the many mortal planes.

*gets up and walks away, and across the sea to Atmora*

[Pikeman85]

Reincarnation has nothing to do with science. Nothing whatsoever. I beg of you, please try to post your "theory of Reincarnation" in a scientific, peer-editted journal.

 

Furthermore, none of your points, including reincarnation, have anything whatsoever to do with evolution.

 

And for the record, and this is little known, but if you'd like, I'll get the sources for it, matter /can/ be created and destroyed, so long as it is a particle as WELL as an anti-particle, that then annihilate each other. They're called virtual particles and have been observed to happen in space.

 

It doesn't really break the law of conversation of mass (but it certainly does bend it! Although one could argue that it does break it) As the universe has the exact same amount of matter before and after.

 

It's rather interesting. I thought it was a lie at first, but it seems to be supported by evidence. I'll get links later, but I'll probably post in another thread, as this thread is about /evolution/ and not the creation or destruction of matter, not reincarnation, not demons, and definitely not RELIGION!

 

From now on, if you don't have a scientific problem with evolution, even if it IS brought on from a creationist upbringing, there's a good chance I won't answer it. Peregrine seems to do a very good job at it anyway (and blast it, he's faster than me!)

 

If you'd like a specific question asked or answered on this topic though, ask me. While I don't have a degree yet, I do have more knowledge of biology than the common joe off the street.

[Magatsu]

Peregrine, i rest my case.

 

When i just read over what i have written , seeing the lack of information (not to mention evidence). i can clearly understand if you got provoked (i mean when i thought a bit now of what i have written, it would do me a worse psycho than dagoth ur)

 

I know i got a little of topic, (havent slept for 48hours writing it too)

 

The Only point i was actually trying to explain, was the last one about evolution and its opposite : religion.

And i just dont think there was a beginning and a end. I mean if there was NOTHING. Than nothing can come of it. Emtyness cannot become anything.

 

 

 

Regarding Evolution, everything advances to something new i believe, but everything will eventually be destroyed. Like the world we live in now will be destroyed (most likely by ourself) but that a new planet is created of gas and matter somwhere and that water will be created and organisms will start developing again to lifeforms as on this planet now or slightly diffrent regarding temprature and stability. That will happen (you dont deny that do you?)

 

I find it hard to express what i really mean about things, english is not my 1. language.

 

 

I was wrong in many of the things i wrote.

 

"The meaning of life" people wonder.

 

im happy cause im aware... that i can feel. That i have people that loves me and that i have people i love. thats meaning enough.

 

I believe in science... i believe in evolution.

And i think that if people want to be religious(believe in god)

And that makes them happy thats ok.

 

Me for one refuse to live in a world of lies, i choose to see the truth no matter how hard it is. like choosing pill in the matrix. I choose evolution, sciense. not religion.

 

"God didnt make men, men made god"

[Pikeman85]

"Evolution" does not have an opposite. It is just a scientific theory. Not a philosophy or way to run your life. Sure, some people get that out of it, but then they are adding on to it.

 

The only thing that the theory of evolution states is that a population of organisms genetic make-up changes over time! That is all!

 

As for our Earth being destroyed.

 

A) Yes, this would probably happen in an infinite universe, to have EVERYTHING repeat (including you or I) however we do not live in what can truly be termed an infinite universe, as it does have boundaries (and lastest scientific evidence says it may be shaped somewhat like a soccer ball)

 

B) Even if something repeats exactly, which is unlikely seeing how many things would have to go precisely the same, including very, very small things, like a certain mouse getting eaten by a certain hawk at a certain time. One second would likely throw things off. If there is a little more energy from the sun coming in, everything changes. Etc

 

So the likelihood is, is that it won't happen in our finite universe.

 

However it is also nothing to do with evolution!

 

Change of genetic make-up of a population of organisms over time!

 

If you argue against any other point or idea, it's not evolution, it's something else!

 

Also, Incanus, you never did respond to my post to you on the science of evolution. You asked for scientific evidence, what are your thoughts on what I wrote? If you have any disagreements with it, feel free to ask about them, I'm now pretty much done with finals.