By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - People or Religion, who corrupts who?

 

People or Religion, who corrupts who?

Religion causes people to... 25 18.12%
 
People want to do bad thi... 69 50.00%
 
It's a two way street, t... 33 23.91%
 
See results 11 7.97%
 
Total:138
DaRev on 16 May 2013
Jay520 said:
DaRev said:

snip


You've stated earlier that you agree that humans who move to different environments will adapt their bodies differently. If you agree withh this simple concept, then I don't understand why you are so against evolution.

When a species is segregated into two or more groups, then the different groups will change and adapt differently (which you agree with). The changes and adaptations aren't going to just stop; the groups are going to undergoe constant, subtle changes based on their differing habitats. After an extremely long period of time, there would obviously be an extremely large amount of differing changes between the two groups.

Eventually, the genetics and mechanisms of the different groups would be so different that they would no longer be able reproduce with each other, which is the definition of different species. Why is this so hard to accept? Do you think there's some sort of ceiling that the different groups will reach where they just decide "You know what...Let's stop changing. We've already altered ourselves too much."?

So what are your saying, that Humans are evolving, into some other species, even today?

Yes, I agree there is a limit to how much living things, including Humans, can adapt to their environment or their gentic coding. Which is entirely different from 'gene splicing' so far as such a thing is possible or allowed.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

Around the Network
DaRev on 16 May 2013
Scoobes said:
DaRev said:

Here’s what your scientist friends say when asked:

Is human DNA closer to chimpanzees or pigs?

Answer:

Humans and chimpanzees share a much more recent common ancestor than humans and pigs. This results in humans sharing more of their genome with chimps than they do with pigs.

Even though a human's genetic code is more like a chimp's than it is like a pig's, all eukaryotic organisms share a significant amount of genetic code, vertebrates share even more, and mammals share even more than that; a human's DNA more closely resembles a pig's than it does a lizard's, and it more closely resembles a lizard's than it does a bacterium's.

 

How close are pigs to humans DNA?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

if you compare humans to almost any other animal on the planet today, you would find that about 99% of the genetic structure is the same.

 

The simple fact is that not because a Monkey or a Pig or whatever animal’s DNA says it can have legs, eyes, brain etc, doesn’t make it human, nor proves or even suggests an evolutionary process. DNA that closely resembles human DNA doesn’t make it human or prove evolution. Apparently we could have evolved from a fly or a banana giving the evolutionary opportunity.  Sharing close DNA makeup does not mean that moss evolved into a rose, a gold fish into a whale nor a monkey into a man – that is just want scientist theorise and have been on a never-ending pursuit to prove it as fact, and until then, calls it fact nonetheless.

Anyways, I tire of this discussion.

Only looking at the code only gives a small part of the picture. We share DNA similarity because most of life codes for very similar proteins, but specialised and vastly different functions. The proteins we use in digestion are very similar in structure and sequence to the proteins bacteria use and have the same chemical mechanism of breaking down other proteins. Therefore the DNA structure is very similar. We can track how these proteins evolved by going from simpler forms of life to more complex forms. We can see how even the smallest of changes in the sequence can lead to radical changes in the activity, function or environmental preference of a protein. Now move that further and go from a simple life form to a more complex one and we see how that leads to integrations of different protein domains to form larger complexes that can have multiple functions. Collectively these then have major physical effects.

There's more to it than just the paragraph above too. We also now know of the effects non-coding RNA can have on how genes are expressed and how that can lead to chemical modification to the DNA without changing the sequence which in turn can shut genes on or off. These can then be passed on from parent to child; small evolutionary changes with no change to the inherent sequence.

The processes of evolution have been observed (mutagenesis, epigenetics, integration of retroviruses in our genome) and even used/manipulated in the lab to create new biopharmaceutical drugs, biofuels and even battery components. You can deny evolution all you want but you'll certainly be using products that have been manufactured by manipulating the theory of evolution (if your diabetic for instance, some insulin producers use a trypsin enzyme that has undergone directed evolution for processing).

I understanding what you're saying above (but not anything prior to that), however, that still does not prove evolution IMO. For example, a stalk of sugar cane doesn't just turn into bio-fuel if left unaltered for millions of years. Millions of years later that stalk of cane will be the same, albeit with slight modifications based on its environment. However, it would never be anything other than cane, unless it has been altered, unnaturally, at a molecular level - that's not evolution.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

DaRev on 16 May 2013
ToraTiger said:
DaRev said:
dsgrue3 said:
DaRev said:

Pal, for a seemingly smart dude you really seem really blinded, and we’re already established that you’re one-side, so I should be surprised. I mean can you not see the flaws in your arguments, by simply looking at the definition you posted, which exists in bubble. That definition means nothing to anyone that is not a scientific person – i.e. it is biased, subjective and one-sided, like your thinking.

Words like “conceived” “imagination” “devised” “scientifically” mean almost nothing in a factual context, and especially to religious people. It’s like scientists that “devised” years ago that the atom was the smallest particle, but years later found out it was not. Science is only based on what you can prod in the here and now, and what you can’t prod now is not fact but is in fact just theory.

Here is another word “assume” – which is a bit unscientific I know, but it fits in with your type of reasoning. For you can only assume evolution is fact, not matter how much you try to use words like “conceived” “imagination” “devised” “scientifically”, it still all boils down to an assumption, whether scientific or otherwise. What is not an assumption and is in no way just “conceived” “imagination” “devised” “scientifically” is human reproduction – Humans make Humans – Evolution doesn’t make Humans. For when a black man fucks a white woman, and a brown baby comes out, those subtle changes are not evolution. They are code that has been put there by a creator. People didn’t evolve into some white and some black, and some fat and some skinny and all the subtle little changes that make up the human race. So why do prod little butterflies for changes and when you find the same subtleties you think its evolution? It has all been coded into what makes us human.

The scientific method is based upon axioms, deductive logic, inductive logic, and experimentation. Asserting that it is assumption shows a complete lack of understanding to it.

The assumption has no impact upon what is experimentally or logically valid. You can't assume something and then confirm it unless it is true. 

i.e. The assumption that the Earth is flat will never be true, whereas the assumption that Humans are primates will be true.

The Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom was posited in 1913, that's far removed from "a few years" ago, and far before we had microscopes powerful enough to confirm the existence of electrons, protons, neutrons...which weren't confirmed until 1932, so I'm not sure where you get your information (your ass?) but it's utter nonsense.

I am not suggesting evolution is a fact, simply that it is the best possible explanation for the procession of life based upon observation, experiment, and logic with quite literally no dispute whatsoever within the scientific community. 

You should invest in an anthropology course if you don't understand why there are some black and some white people. (Hint: regional)

There are certain confirmations about evolution which are proven. While the overarching theory remains as such, the pieces are assembling.

Some facts for you, since you love them:

1. Micro-evolution is confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

2. DNA confirms that Humans, Chimps, and Apes share a common ancestor.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

3. Inbreeding poses serious complications ranging from birth defects to death. (Whoops, there goes Creation!)

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

4. Cephalopods have better eyes than humans. (Thank God for the inferior eyes?)

Advantages - No blind spots, can see polarized or unpolarized light, ability to focus at different distances.

http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/cephschool/CephalopodVision.pdf

That should be enough to keep you entertained for a while.

 

Here’s what your scientist friends say when asked:

Is human DNA closer to chimpanzees or pigs?

Answer:

Humans and chimpanzees share a much more recent common ancestor than humans and pigs. This results in humans sharing more of their genome with chimps than they do with pigs.

Even though a human's genetic code is more like a chimp's than it is like a pig's, all eukaryotic organisms share a significant amount of genetic code, vertebrates share even more, and mammals share even more than that; a human's DNA more closely resembles a pig's than it does a lizard's, and it more closely resembles a lizard's than it does a bacterium's.

 

How close are pigs to humans DNA?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

if you compare humans to almost any other animal on the planet today, you would find that about 99% of the genetic structure is the same.

 

The simple fact is that not because a Monkey or a Pig or whatever animal’s DNA says it can have legs, eyes, brain etc, doesn’t make it human, nor proves or even suggests an evolutionary process. DNA that closely resembles human DNA doesn’t make it human or prove evolution. Apparently we could have evolved from a fly or a banana giving the evolutionary opportunity.  Sharing close DNA makeup does not mean that moss evolved into a rose, a gold fish into a whale nor a monkey into a man – that is just want scientist theorise and have been on a never-ending pursuit to prove it as fact, and until then, calls it fact nonetheless.

Anyways, I tire of this discussion.



+1,000,000. I was having the same argument with a someone at school, and I used that exact same metaphor that humans could of evolved from vegetables, wood or Pokemons using the evolutionary logic. Such a fiasco. o.o And also to

Your right, that in itself throws a wrench in the whole idea of evolution simply from ape(-like) creatures.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

MikeRox on 16 May 2013

People. Simple as.

As a species we are selfish, greedy, destructive and careless.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Jay520 on 16 May 2013
DaRev said:

So what are your saying, that Humans are evolving, into some other species, even today?

Yes, I agree there is a limit to how much living things, including Humans, can adapt to their environment or their gentic coding. Which is entirely different from 'gene splicing' so far as such a thing is possible or allowed.

 

Yes, all populations are evolving always, even today. However, we should say we are experiencing microevolution rather than macroevolution. Macroevolution is usually used in the context of a population evolving into a new species, which it doesn't look like humans are doing for reasons below. All microevolution means is a change in the gene pool of a population. This is something every population experiences because of mutations, new alleles entering/leaving a population, sexual selection, differential fertility, etc. 

For humans, I think it's misleading to say humans are headed towards a new species (macroevolution) since (a) the human gene pool is lkely never going to be seperated, and (b) because of how comfortables and easy our lives have become, it doesn't look like humans are ever going to reach an environment that encourages a different body-type from our own. We are growing smarter, taller, and bigger though (this falls under macroevolution, however) - whether you think that's evolution or simply improved technology and medicine is a different story, I suppose. Microevolution is constantly occuring, but may not lead to macroevolution becaause of the above reasons.

I'm not sure why you think there is a limit to how far a population can change. Sure, if a population stays in a fairly safe, comfortable, and stable environment where their current form is very well-suited for that environment (like humans), then large differences will not be favored and macroevolution will not occur. But that's not because there is a limit on how much a population can adapt; that's because the species has already adapted enough to reach a point where they've become so well-suited for their environment, that any more benefits will only be tiny.

However, for a relatively primitive species, or a species that has been introduced to a new environment, it would be very different. When a species is in an environment that it hasn't adapted to, it seems fairly intuitive that certain characteristics - which are well-suited for that environment - will be favored over others; and these characteristics can be quite different from the original characteristics of the species. If substantial change is required before the population is most efficiently adapted to the environment, then the changes may become so different that they become a new species (macroevolution). If one species is seperated, then they will experience independent evolution (because their genes have be seperated), and different evolution which can lead to two different species after a LONG time.

 

And this is my rudimentary, and perhaps flawed, understanding of evolution summed up in four paragraphs. Suffice to say, if you really want to learn more - or anything about evolution - then seek a credible source, don't ask me. In fact, I'm a little worried that you have these genuine questions, yet are asking them on this forum to random strangers. This is probably why you have such a bad impression of the theory in the first place. A forum can be a good start-point for knowledge since it can lead you in the right direction by sparking an interest into further reading, However, don't rely on forum-goers to give you a quick, easy, and an accurate explanation of evolution. Any explanation from a forum-goer should not be trusted. Any summary of evolution in four paragraphs should not be trusted. So this post is a double whammy.

tl;dr - Don't trust anything I just said. I just tried to give you an extremely quick, understandble, and hopefully accurate (but likely inaccurate) explanation of the very deep theory behind the basis of evolution...which is inherently flawed on so many levels. Please go read about it to at least receive a basic understanding of the theory, which it's clear you don't have.