Study help- What is the purpose of the evolution theory?

[Pond Scum]

Appologies to T/S

I'm not trying to go off topic in this thread but since he asked me a specific question I must answer.
No. Science has worked its way into society and become a super power. Scientific research controls everything. Hundreds of years ago Religion dominated. As long as science can dig deeper in the Earth and find things that will debunk religion it will continue to do so. Creating a society that is less religious and more scientific.

Science gives you a little more information than religion and you are now satisfied with that knowledge. In the future people will think you are mentally ill for what you believe today. The science of today will be obsolete and you will be seen as primitive

Well I don't exactly think things were better hundreds of years ago when religion dominated so I'm not sure where you're going with that. As far as scientific research controlling everything I can't believe we even have to have this argument. What's wrong with trying to figure out how the universe works? While I agree that the way scientific research is used and applied is often misguided or foolish it doesn't mean the knowledge itself is bad.

It is possible to be religious and and not anti-science. I'm not even sure why some religious people want to make it an either/or situation since science can't lose that one. What do you call the force that kept Jesus stuck to planet earth as it revolved around the sun and the moon controlled the tides? See what I'm getting at here? even in a religious context science still seks to explain how things work.

And your analogy between science becoming debunked like religion is preposterous. Science changes. If we find out that the theory of relativity doesn't hold up then a new scientific theory will take it's place. Science can correct itself and facts aren't subject to interpretation.

I'm sure right now you're reading all this from a computer that runs on prayer alone.

 

[b*braze]

To both K_Smart and flat money,

Does it account for the creation of humans then?

the past 500 years have been dominated by modern science and look at all the "L's humanity has taken in that span of time. modern science is stupid. these mofos can make a cell phone that can do your taxes and translate hindi to russian but they cant fix the damage theyve done to the water. im with u on your stance.

Lol @ science being the reason for humanity taking L's.

We take L's for the simple fact of being human. We make mistakes. We dealing with the same shit we been dealin with since before 500 years ago.

 

[glowy]

What class is this for?

 

[Scholar Jaw]

Can someone tell me what is the strongest support for natural selection as informed by Darwin?

 

[whar67]

1. Geographic distribution of animals.

If you go to south america you will find sloths. You will find fossils of sloths in the same area. You do not find sloths in other locations. (Well to be fair there are extinct sloths other than the Americas) If you look for marsupials you will find them almost exclusive in one corner of the world. This is evidence that species are mutable and are effected by their local environment. it alos supports the conclusion that changes within species are passed via sexual reproduction.

2. Observed examples of natural selection.

Several experiments have tracked bacteria through thousands of generations. Natural selection (changes in genetic makeup of the population) have been observed in all cases.

3. DNA evidence

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/04/0914609107.full.pdf . In particular I have always found pseudo-genes and ERVs to but slam dunks regarding evolution in general. ERV are retro viruses that get inserted into a DNA of a cell. When this happens in a germ cell (sperm or egg cell) the ERV is repeated in every cell of the new organism. Since we can align DNA amongst animals we can compare the presence of an ERV in our genome against a chimp's or a mouse. What we find is we share more ERVs with chimps than any other animal. When I say share I mean we have the exact same retro-virus at the exact same spot on our DNA. Since we know how ERVs get added to our gene code we know the only answer is we shared common ancestry with animals that we share an ERV with. While this does not support natural selection specifically it makes common decent a slam-dunk.

 

[Pond Scum]

Can someone tell me what is the strongest support for natural selection as informed by Darwin?

Try looking at the variations between species that only exist in Madagascar vs. those in Southeastern Africa. They obviously share common ancestry but after Madagascar broke off from the mainland they adapted.

 

[Scholar Jaw]

1. Geographic distribution of animals.

If you go to south america you will find sloths. You will find fossils of sloths in the same area. You do not find sloths in other locations. (Well to be fair there are extinct sloths other than the Americas) If you look for marsupials you will find them almost exclusive in one corner of the world. This is evidence that species are mutable and are effected by their local environment. it alos supports the conclusion that changes within species are passed via sexual reproduction.

2. Observed examples of natural selection.

Several experiments have tracked bacteria through thousands of generations. Natural selection (changes in genetic makeup of the population) have been observed in all cases.

3. DNA evidence

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/04/0914609107.full.pdf . In particular I have always found pseudo-genes and ERVs to but slam dunks regarding evolution in general. ERV are retro viruses that get inserted into a DNA of a cell. When this happens in a germ cell (sperm or egg cell) the ERV is repeated in every cell of the new organism. Since we can align DNA amongst animals we can compare the presence of an ERV in our genome against a chimp's or a mouse. What we find is we share more ERVs with chimps than any other animal. When I say share I mean we have the exact same retro-virus at the exact same spot on our DNA. Since we know how ERVs get added to our gene code we know the only answer is we shared common ancestry with animals that we share an ERV with. While this does not support natural selection specifically it makes common decent a slam-dunk.

Does Darwin really extend his theory to humans? Last question I promise

 

[fiat_money]

unless someone has lived for billions of years they cant OBSERVE evolution in the absolute sense. and unless u dug up and tested fossils yourself you can only trust what somebody else told u.

Evolution may be a slow process, but that does't mean no biological evolution has been observed by humans. A simple example is that all modern domesticated dogs are descendants of the gray wolf; because of various mutations and breeding, the species is now extremely diverse. On a much shorter timescale, the evolution of bacteria can be observed well within a human's lifespan.

 

[Disciplined InSight]

Appologies to T/S

I'm not trying to go off topic in this thread but since he asked me a specific question I must answer.

No. Science has worked its way into society and become a super power. Scientific research controls everything. Hundreds of years ago Religion dominated. As long as science can dig deeper in the Earth and find things that will debunk religion it will continue to do so. Creating a society that is less religious and more scientific.

Science gives you a little more information than religion and you are now satisfied with that knowledge. In the future people will think you are mentally ill for what you believe today. The science of today will be obsolete and you will be seen as primitive

...............................................

 

[whar67]

Does Darwin really extend his theory to humans? Last question I promise

Yes. Humans are the product of an evolutionary process. Darwin's book Descent of Man discussed this aspect of evolution.

 

[Pond Scum]

...............................................

thrilling insight there.

i challenge you folks to find me a society based on religion somewhere in history that wasn't completely oppressive or dysfunctional. you're living in fantasy land which is understandable since you've chosen to make mythology your belief system and knowledge your enemy.

 

[Scholar Jaw]

Yes. Humans are the product of an evolutionary process. Darwin's book Descent of Man discussed this aspect of evolution.

But in the Origin of Species (only relevant book for this work Im doing), he discusses natural selection mainly through animals and doesnt really expand on this theory with regards to humans. Yh?

 

[Disciplined InSight]

thrilling insight there.

i challenge you folks to find me a society based on religion somewhere in history that wasn't completely oppressive or dysfunctional. you're living in fantasy land which is understandable since you've chosen to make mythology your belief system and knowledge your enemy.

Wrong because I don't follow the Euro-centric angles of religion. You and many others continue to get religion and spirituality confused and they are not the same. You call it "mythology" just because you can't see YHWH with your eyes.

 

[Pond Scum]

Wrong because I don't follow the Euro-centric angles of religion. You and many others continue to get religion and spirituality confused and they are not the same. You call it "mythology" just because you can't see YHWH with your eyes.

ok then. i still challenge you to find a society based on religion somewhere in history that wasn't completely oppressive or dysfunctional since what i was actually talking about was you supporting the notion that there is some kind of parity between science and religion and that somehow our society is flawed because of our focus on science vs. religion (although i might just misinterpreted that last part).

A unicorn looks a little like a horse but that doesn't mean that a horse is like a unicorn.

also, i never saw a flu virus before either but when i get sick i don't think i have bad spirits in me. i call it mythology because it is mythology.

 

[Disciplined InSight]

ok then. i still challenge you to find a society based on religion somewhere in history that wasn't completely oppressive or dysfunctional since what i was actually talking about was you supporting the notion that there is some kind of parity between science and religion and that somehow our society is flawed because of our focus on science vs. religion (although i might just misinterpreted that last part).

A unicorn looks a little like a horse but that doesn't mean that a horse is like a unicorn.

also, i never saw a flu virus before either but when i get sick i don't think i have bad spirits in me. i call it mythology because it is mythology.

Yes oppressed and dysfunctional because of the Euro-centric factors controlling it, which I do not follow..yet you continue to call it mythology. Why? Because you heard someone and others say it or have you found proof?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Yes oppressed and dysfunctional because of the Euro-centric factors controlling it, which I do not follow..yet you continue to call it mythology. Why? Because you heard someone and others say it or have you found proof?

He saying that because what your saying sounds mythical. As in a myth. What is spirituality anyway? can you give us a definition?

 

[whar67]

But in the Origin of Species (only relevant book for this work Im doing), he discusses natural selection mainly through animals and doesnt really expand on this theory with regards to humans. Yh?

This is quite correct and was intentional on Darwin's part. The Descent of Man would be written a couple decades later. He does not mention man in Origin of Species but he does also not exclude him.

 

[Disciplined InSight]

He saying that because what your saying sounds mythical. As in a myth. What is spirituality anyway? can you give us a definition?

Spirituality is discovering the essence of the inner man (spirit) through acknowledging the Creator YHWH and recognizing who we are in Him and His son Yeshua through the Holy Scriptures. Everyone has an inner man and it's revealed that your spirit is the real essence of you, not your outer man. Certain books of the Holy scriptures throughout history have been tampered with and mistranslated because of the Euro-centric factors for manipulation and control, like for example, the anthropomorphic views of the Creator which you and others possibly view in your opinion as "a bearded man in the sky" but people that think like that are indoctrinated into that Euro-centric culture..and that's called religion. They're being foolish. But in essence of true spirituality you cannot take ALL the scriptures and throw them out because of it.

 

[Rizzo-da-Great]

Which kind of evolution do you refer to ? Evolution guided by intelligence ? [like technology evolves]

Or blind "creatorless" evolution ? [which is as absurd as thinking you could write a meaningful letter just by randomly pressing keys]

lol this old fuck, id love to hear how blind evolution is absurd, i dont think you understand what evolution is

 

[Rizzo-da-Great]

Wrong because I don't follow the Euro-centric angles of religion. You and many others continue to get religion and spirituality confused and they are not the same. You call it "mythology" just because you can't see YHWH with your eyes.

you cant see her with anything, shes not real