Adam and Eve or Evolution? (1 Viewer)

[sladehk]

Evolution my comrades!

 

[Dreamerish*~]

i don't know whether to believe it or not... but it's kind of convincing. when you look at apes and monkeys, the way they use their hands is so similar to humans... and apes have periods like humans do
not that you needed to know that... kind of gross... lol

 

[Pace Setter]

well the monkeys and apes will always continue to reproduce and give birth to only monkeys and apes, but sometimes there are "mutants" which have different genes than what they should have as monkeys or apes. years ago there were probably some monkeys which gave birth to babies with mutated genes. it doesn't happen overnight, it takes thousands of years for ancestors to develop into different species.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/problem.html

Could you give a brief explanation on any problems/mistakes made in the above article? At least the ones that contradict your level of certainty on these "mutated apes?"

 

[Dreamerish*~]

oh i'm not certain i described it right...
it's something along those lines, but it's all in the past science classes now '-_-

 

[Dreamerish*~]

and well, i don't know if you have ever done any science subjects
but when we look at an article we have to decide
1. is it reliable?
2. is it valid?
by reliable we mean, is it consistent with other sources which speak of the same topic? and by validity we mean - how was the information gathered? and who is it written by? what credentials do they have?
so your article there was neither reliable nor valid as it is NOT consistent with other sources of evolution and i seriously doubt anyone could trust a science site written by someone whose views are slanted towards religion.
science is not subjective. it should be left to the hands of true scientists whose aims are to gain knowledge through discovery. scientists usually don't do their research to prove religion wrong, because it's likely that they are already convinced about that.
i don't see why religion has to always strive to diss science because the two can live together peacefully. you have to admit, the world would be pretty crappy if it wasn't for science.

 

[Pace Setter]

but when we look at an article we have to decide
1. is it reliable?
2. is it valid?

It only starts becoming unreliable/invalid when the cold statistics and "facts" are incorrect. Is that the case here?

and who is it written by? what credentials do they have?

Look these two terms up in the dictionary(right now): ad hominem, appeal to authority. Either of those terms describe the method you've used there to dismiss this author.

so your article there was neither reliable nor valid as it is NOT consistent with other sources of evolution and i seriously doubt anyone could trust a science site written by someone whose views are slanted towards religion.

As above, please respond to the information that's presented in the article, rather than the author, his/her credibility, method of obtaining information, anything else that is exclusive from the argument that's presented here.

The opinion that's presented by the author may not identical to that of many others. However, next time you go around dismissing opinions, dismiss the cold hard stats and figures presented, rather than the conclusion alone.

science is not subjective. it should be left to the hands of true scientists whose aims are to gain knowledge through discovery. scientists usually don't do their research to prove religion wrong, because it's likely that they are already convinced about that.
i don't see why religion has to always strive to diss science because the two can live together peacefully. you have to admit, the world would be pretty crappy if it wasn't for science.

It'd be useful if you stuck to the topic-i.e. mutations.

 

[Xayma]

As above, please respond to the information that's presented in the article, rather than the author, his/her credibility, method of obtaining information, anything else that is exclusive from the argument that's presented here.

The article assumes that any harmful mutation will make the animal unable to reproduce. This is not always true. A harmful mutation is one that makes it at a disadvantage, this does not necessairly lead to death.

If we consider something such as hayfever a harmful mutation, it would not prevent them reproducing however it would put them at a disadvantage.

Harmful mutations can also be compensated through other means, also if you notice humans do have alot of harmful mutations this was caused by early inbreeding in small populations making us more likely to develop cancer then other creatures such as mice. Of course genetic predispositioning to cancer wouldn't affect most early humans.

The article makes ALOT of assumptions without much backing to it.

Also those with advantageous mutations are able to breed more then others, competition for mates is minimal as the one with the advantageous will likely be better equiped to mate.

 

[Dreamerish*~]

well, it's just a little hard to ignore the fact that the article on evolution and mutations is written by a clearly religious and objective author, who is manipulating "cold hard facts" by assumption and contradiction in order to dismiss the evolution theory.
maybe you should read an article by someone who has their interests purely based on science?
just a small example http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_4.htm
scientists aren't trying to prove religion rubbish - they're just doing their job to understand the world better. but why is religion always at science's throat?

 

[thaoroxy2001]

Wow....this thread has been going on for a while.....Evolution is still the number one belief I suppose....

 

[Dreamerish*~]

it sure has...
it seems that people aren't interested in accepting each other's beliefs but rather to fight over which side wins...
so i give up and i'm gonna say.... evolution all the way!

 

[sladehk]

evolution is the only scientifically explainable solution

 

[zeropoint]

I'll have to do some research to answer this question (*groans and googles for a searchable online bible*) but basically... the answer I've got in mind is one which many will not like.

And as for humans having cognitive thought 200,000 years ago? I don't really know, it's not a field which I'm interested in so I don't know much about it. But I did have to do some anthropology related research a while back and stumbled across something I didn't know.

Xenophanes (570-475 BC) knew of three colours of the rainbow only: purple, red and yellow; Aristotle (384-322 BC) spoke of the tri-coloured rainbow. By examining language, as late in the life of the race as the time of the primitive Aryans (not more than 15 or 20,000 years ago), humans were only conscious of, or only perceived, one colour!

The sense of fragrance seems to have developed even later. It is not mentioned in the Vedic hymns and only once in the Zend Avesta. Musical sense has existed for less than 5,000 years and it does not exist in more than half the members of the race. These recent additions to human senses could be evidence of human evolution and moral progress. How can we fit in this in an organically static brain?! There's some evidence that the cerebral cortex is still evolving, which opens some really interesting questions about human capability! I digress.

Thus, 20,000 years ago we can imagine how the world must have appeared to humans: lacking in variety of colour, sounds and smells. The connotations of this are significant, lacking in outer sensory perceptions, they may have lacked in the ideas of beauty, symmetry etc. and concepts of goodness, compassion and purity that we can perceive today.

But yeah, I will try to offer some discussion about cr04's observation tomorrow after I recharge with a little sleep.

Whoa, hold on. The human senses have not developed with anywhere near the rapidity you purport. Notably, primitive musical instruments fashioned by the Neanderthals have been found dating back 43 000 years. I don't have time to refute your other suggestions right now, but I think they are grossly exaggerated.

 

[Iron]

I think this idea deviates from the larger question of God's existence. Adam and Eve are accepted by many as being symbolic and not literal.
I dont think it would matter how a supernatural being created the universe. The point creationists should argue is that he did create, in whatever way he deemed fit - such as evolution...not that I buy into this sort of thing

 

[thaoroxy2001]

I think this idea deviates from the larger question of God's existence. Adam and Eve are accepted by many as being symbolic and not literal.
I dont think it would matter how a supernatural being created the universe. The point creationists should argue is that he did create, in whatever way he deemed fit - such as evolution...not that I buy into this sort of thing

all I can say is ...... repped =)

 

[Pace Setter]

Xayma- So harmful mutations don't necessarily cause death all the time. Would they have done so most of the time, some of the time, or is it a statistical anomaly? I don't think the article mentioned that sort of stat. Apart from this oversight, I doubt whether this article was intended as a categorical proof against mutations as a possible catalyst for evolution-rather, it's intended to bring in the element of doubt into a theory that's generally accepted as foolproof.

Dreamerish*~- The hallmark of science that separates it from many other belief systems is that it that any valid theory or law should be able to stand the test of countless counterproofs/counterarguments against it. Not only is this a necessity of science, it is encouraged. Now, here are two requests from me: 1. Look ad hominem up in the dictionary, and make an attempt to both; understand it, and, restrain yourself from using it in the future when it comes to any form of argument. 2. Next time someone presents an article/argument, etc against any part of evolution; don't immediately assume that they're advocating creationalism.

 

[Stan..]

There is proof of the evolutionary theorem. However none for Adam and Eve.

 

[Dreamerish*~]

Xayma- So harmful mutations don't necessarily cause death all the time. Would they have done so most of the time, some of the time, or is it a statistical anomaly? I don't think the article mentioned that sort of stat. Apart from this oversight, I doubt whether this article was intended as a categorical proof against mutations as a possible catalyst for evolution-rather, it's intended to bring in the element of doubt into a theory that's generally accepted as foolproof.

Dreamerish*~- The hallmark of science that separates it from many other belief systems is that it that any valid theory or law should be able to stand the test of countless counterproofs/counterarguments against it. Not only is this a necessity of science, it is encouraged. Now, here are two requests from me: 1. Look ad hominem up in the dictionary, and make an attempt to both; understand it, and, restrain yourself from using it in the future when it comes to any form of argument. 2. Next time someone presents an article/argument, etc against any part of evolution; don't immediately assume that they're advocating creationalism.

hmm... so science needs this kind of proof to be accepted. to undergo all your criticism and "proof" of errors and still be valid. well then, where is your proof that adam and eve existed?

 

[Pace Setter]

As I said, just because someone has a slight problem with evolution doesn't mean they accept the literal adam and eve/various other conventional creationalist story(ies). It's a popular assumption that someone is either one way or the other. Not always the case.

 

[mitochondria]

*frown*

Up to this point I think everyone should go back and read Dreamy's first post in this thread U______U including Dreamy herself It is prefectly fine to defend or promote your believes but I seriously think nobody shuold, at the same time, try to disprove/attack other people's believes.. Which is what some of us have done..

Let's face it, if you have a predisposed believe your brain will automatically cloud your judgements towards other similar or contrdicting beleives, whether they favour or contradict your very own believe.. I think ultimately, the idea here is to understand what actually each other's believe is instead of debating whether one's believe is correct. So why don't we do that instead of trying to disprove other people's idea?

Learn to read both sides of the story..


hmm... where is Lainee?

 

[Xayma]

Xayma- So harmful mutations don't necessarily cause death all the time. Would they have done so most of the time, some of the time, or is it a statistical anomaly? I don't think the article mentioned that sort of stat. Apart from this oversight, I doubt whether this article was intended as a categorical proof against mutations as a possible catalyst for evolution-rather, it's intended to bring in the element of doubt into a theory that's generally accepted as foolproof.

No what it did was assume that all embryo's with a harmful mutation would be unable to continue breeding. If that was the case humans wouldn't have any harmful mutations except for those born with mutations yet we have many harmful mutations that indicate ancestors with it.

It isn't foolproof it is a theory not a law. Thats why modifications are made to it.

How about creationism? It is accepted as more foolproof by those that believe in it.