0

I think researchers are still looking for the common ancester of apes and humans which they are investigating weather the common ancester even came from earth or space (or at least some of our ancesters).

Not really true - there is no consideration given to the possibility of descent from space. We have quite a bit of 'hominid' (considered the common great ape ancestor) evidence. If you are interested, you can see the fossil evidence here - this includes some of the creationist arguments. The concept of the 'missing link' was mostly a media invention rather than a scientific concept.

Well to help prove my case below I have a quote directly from a recorded documentary about darwins theory which says the 'max planck institute' is researching if some of our ancesters came from space. So from 'max planck institute' point of view there is a great possibility of some of our ancesters comming from space and one day they will find proof.

At the max planck institute for evolotion and pathology in lipeson, research has been conducted for several years and dna analysis to establish the exact relationship between humans and apes. Darwins vision as I understand it would have been that there would be a single common ancester and that you can relate everything living to this common ancester and what science has done since then is fill in those details. So what do those branches look like? And which branches do humans evolve from for example? And what percentage of these branches are allocated to the different life forms on this planet? And thats something thats still evolving itself and that we're still learning about. There's a greate deal of diversity out there that we know nothing about.
...
Since darwins time, theres been great interest in questions to human races. Weather humans can be classified into races and if so how can they be related and how did they come about and so fourth. What we now know on genetic evidence substanciates that at least that some of darwins own thinking even though that you have different varieties of humans or at least what appears to our eyes of different varieties that underneath, underneath the physical appearance differnces one might see that there is really nothing else different about humans...

0

Well to help prove my case below I have a quote directly from a recorded documentary about darwins theory which says the 'max planck institute' is researching if some of our ancesters came from space. So from 'max planck institute' point of view there is a great possibility of some of our ancesters comming from space and one day they will find proof.

You must have put the wrong quote in. there was nothing in your quote to suggest ancestors came from space. I would rather have a link to the Max Planck Inst. than a quote from a documentary that only mentions the words Max Planck Inst. - do you understand the difference?

0

You must have put the wrong quote in. there was nothing in your quote to suggest ancestors came from space. I would rather have a link to the Max Planck Inst. than a quote from a documentary that only mentions the words Max Planck Inst. - do you understand the difference?

It is at the end of the first paragraph. To make it easier it is this section:

And what percentage of these branches are allocated to the different life forms on this planet? And thats something thats still evolving itself and that we're still learning about. There's a greate deal of diversity out there that we know nothing about.

0

It is at the end of the first paragraph. To make it easier it is this section:And what percentage of these branches are allocated to the different life forms on this planet? And thats something thats still evolving itself and that we're still learning about. There's a greate deal of diversity out there that we know nothing about.

I do not understand this queston - there has been no problem found in any of the DNA trees studied so far in that

  1. All the DNA strands studied so far have identical handedness
  2. Most of the Linnaean taxonomy (started in 1790) has been verified via DNA

An example of Linnaean taxonomy for people:

  • Domain: Eukarya
  • Kingdom: Animalia
  • Phylum: Chordata
  • Subphylum: Vertebrata
  • Class: Mammalia
  • Cohort: Placentalia
  • Order: Primates
  • Suborder: Anthropoidea
  • Infraorder: Catarrhini
  • Superfamily: Hominoidea
  • Family: Hominidae
  • Genus: Homo
  • Species: Homo sapiens

True but....?
It is amazing just how much we do not know

0

[QUOTE
The point I want to make is that there was no 'survival of the fittest' genetics thingy going on. It was purely a culture clash.


There is no doubt that colonization was, in most cases, a brutal and traumatic experience for the native peoples of what ever country affected. That the migration and mingling of races and nations would have taken place eventually, is not in question, nor is the spirit of exploration, discovery and quest for knowledge of the world land/sea mass and makeup. But this great spirit of adventure was hijacked by a section of humanity whose only motivation was greed and plunder, and in this pursuit, they displayed the worst examples of all that is base and crass in humanity, and which, hopefully, future evolution will remove. As you say, the native races didn't stand a chance, on the one hand, from influx of diseases and bacteria, from which their immune system had no defence, and on the other, the sheer brute force that was often used against them.

0

Of course evolution is believable
Creationists are evidence that some of us are much closer to ape than others

0

Of course evolution is believable
Creationists are evidence that some of us are much closer to ape than others

I wouldn't agree with that, yes, a lot of creationists just don't want to hear any contrary theory or explanation but, there are a few eminent scientists who are just as closedminded, when their theories are questioned. On a fairly recent radio broadcast, Richard Dawkins, the eminent Engllish scientist and Darwinian scholar, said this: "Darwin solved all the mysteries of existence; all that we know about life, marine, animal, human etc". "Darwin, through his science lost his faith, he discovered the superfluousness of a creator" On a recent BBC TV programme, which I saw, he said, in effect, we have took God out of the equation, we have given you the knowledge of how the world is, so go and use it. Charles Darwin, undoubtedly, contributed enormously to our understanding of of life on Earth, he didn't say their was no creator, he called himselg an agnostic (one who does not accept the traditional icea of God/Creation). Richard Dawkins is an unquestionable heavyweight in the sceintific world, and science , in general, has increased our understanding of ourselves and the Universe but, sweeping statements like: "the superfluousness of a creator", "explained all the mysteries of existence", and then adopting the role of "Masters Of The Universe" while giving us the Big Bang Theory, chance and chemical reaction, to explain all the rest, only proves, like the rest of us, they have got 'feet of clay'. The Universe is a lot more sophisticated than that.

0

I wouldn't agree with that, yes, a lot of creationists just don't want to hear any contrary theory or explanation but, there are a few eminent scientists who are just as closedminded, when their theories are questioned. On a fairly recent radio broadcast, Richard Dawkins, the eminent Engllish scientist and Darwinian scholar, said this: "Darwin solved all the mysteries of existence; all that we know about life, marine, animal, human etc". "Darwin, through his science lost his faith, he discovered the superfluousness of a creator" On a recent BBC TV programme, which I saw, he said, in effect, we have took God out of the equation, we have given you the knowledge of how the world is, so go and use it. Charles Darwin, undoubtedly, contributed enormously to our understanding of of life on Earth, he didn't say their was no creator, he called himselg an agnostic (one who does not accept the traditional icea of God/Creation). Richard Dawkins is an unquestionable heavyweight in the sceintific world, and science , in general, has increased our understanding of ourselves and the Universe but, sweeping statements like: "the superfluousness of a creator", "explained all the mysteries of existence", and then adopting the role of "Masters Of The Universe" while giving us the Big Bang Theory, chance and chemical reaction, to explain all the rest, only proves, like the rest of us, they have got 'feet of clay'. The Universe is a lot more sophisticated than that.

Thats a scary quote,
add to the list of scary fundamentalists
: fundamentalist evolutionist :
: fundamentalist creationist :
It matters not whether (any) God created the firmament
nor whether it came about as an accident
nor whether it was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkelsizure, (ibid Douglas Adams)
It behoves us to act as though whatever creator, is watching, and we do not want to piss them off.
light hearted humor

'Be excellent to each other, and Party On Dude'

0

Thats a scary quote,
add to the list of scary fundamentalists
: fundamentalist evolutionist :
: fundamentalist creationist :
It matters not whether (any) God created the firmament
nor whether it came about as an accident
nor whether it was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkelsizure, (ibid Douglas Adams)
It behoves us to act as though whatever creator, is watching, and we do not want to piss them off.
light hearted humor

'Be excellent to each other, and Party On Dude'

Do you think that, at the end ot the day, we are answerble to some higher, Force, Power God, Creator, or whatever?

0

Nope, but unless it turns out to be Kali, I haint done nothin to noone that would send me to any purgatory

-1

Nope, but unless it turns out to be Kali, I haint done nothin to noone that would send me to any purgatory

That is a fairly sensible approach to life. I will add a few more points to the discussion then, I will get down off this 'soap box' for its getting a bit shaky. If you were to judge an iceberg by what you can see of it, there would be two thirds or more, of it, which you couldn't see. In a sense, this is what hppens when science applies its traditional yardstick (empirical knowledge) to the study of the Universe. This limits all findings to what can be sensed by one of more of our five senses ie. seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. This a mistake, because each of the five senses is limited to a certain scale of sensitivity. The human ear can only hear sound vibrations within a certain range, which varies a little between individuals; at the upper end, animals can hear higher pitched (more vibrations per second) sound than humans. At the low end, these vibrations descend to point where they no longer manifest as sound, but as movement. Were any of you at a Night Club or disco, where the monster sized amplification and bass speakers, were pumping out sound, which at the low end, was already shaking the floor of the establishment. So, with all the physical senses, they are not capable of sensing the full scale of the penomena which they are testing. Within the human body their are certain glands, which when fully developed and functioning, give us the ability to reach beyond the physical range of phenomena. In other words, the greater part of the Universe or, (a better word I think) lies outside the realm of our five physical sensesns. The Next Frontier is the Metaphysical - beyond the physical. There is hope though, there are a lot of scientists and physicists on the case. The Eartn is a living planet, which sustains a certain form of life, but the probality of other planets sustaining different forms of life is very real.
Anyhow, enjoy the party, but don't destroy our beautiful planet.

Votes + Comments
Long, rambly, no notion of paragraphs.
-1

Five senses - I think if all species have around five senses then that would support evolution because why wouldn't a creator create some species with 20 or 30 senses? Wouldn't that be logical if creatism was true. Also if creatism was true, why are so many animals so simular. And who created the creator? We know if evolution was true that 2 gas balls created the universe but we don't know the equivelent story for creatism (such as how time began).
Just a bunch of questions to add to help support evolution and to talk about.

Votes + Comments
Another idiotic Geek's Lounge posti
-1

Five senses - I think if all species have around five senses then that would support evolution because why wouldn't a creator create some species with 20 or 30 senses?

fish, and birds, 'see' magnetism
may or may not be that our senses can't detect the senses that other creatures may or may not be using.
Ghosts,
If ghosts existed there would be standing room only for ghosts only, billenia of ghosts would be stacked on top of each other, hominid ghosts, erectus ghosts, cromagnon ghosts, ghosts of every religion, ghosts in every location.
ghosts persist in the folk tales of every society even those uncontaminated by contact with any other, and behave(if existing) in similar fashion in all tales.
there are occurrences that arent adequately explained by physical laws as we know them. shamen, healers,
there are fake TV evangelists, who if god(s) existed would be burned to a crispy critter by lightning in the middle of the broadcast, by the tenets of the religion they preach.
What happens to elder gods, do they retire after a few years, out of boredom.
baal aten mars odin jupiter, had a pretty good thing going, but now?
and why three religions all worshipping the same god, spend so much time killing 'for my god' the others.

what do(es) god(s) get out of worship
If omnipotent omniscient what benefit do you get

Votes + Comments
Learn how to hit the shift key.
0

a thread titled Do you Believe in evolution has to be a 'god thread' somewhere in its passage
I don't think that evolution and intelligent creation are exclusive of each other
Big Bang, could be an appropriate appelation for a godhead
and
There is nothing to suggest that a deity of some stripe didnt just decide to start the ball rolling and leave it go. resulting in the current crop of mutations, thats the other part of omnipotence, big bang, is a party trick

or that existence wasnt just sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkelseizure

0

Actually I started this thread as a spoof on the theory of evolution, not intended to be a serious discussion of anything. If you watched the utube video I posted you would have seen that.

0

a thread titled Do you Believe in evolution has to be a 'god thread' somewhere in its passage

It does not have to be a argument over God, which turns into a flame war, like this infamous thread. Although with Josh no longer here maybe a thread like that would not be 145 pages of insults.

0

Well how exactly does evolution conflict with religion? It only goes as far as a common ancestry and we know that god is long gone so doesn't it kinda fit in with religion. Because maybe from a religious point of view, god made the first set of species then the god passed away a few million years later and the species then continued to develope using the evolution thory. So unless you believe god is still alive today then I don't see how evolution conflicts with religion.

0

Actually I started this thread as a spoof on the theory of evolution, not intended to be a serious discussion of anything. If you watched the utube video I posted you would have seen that.

Looks like they took the original link down. However, post # 2 in this thread has the full episode.

It does not have to be a argument over God, which turns into a flame war, like this infamous thread. Although with Josh no longer here maybe a thread like that would not be 145 pages of insults.

What happened to that guy anyway? He kept getting banned and unbanned, then it seemed like he lasted for exactly one day in his last unbanning before getting banned again.

0

>> The big bang wasn't a gas ball. - Rashakil Fol

According to this I think it was

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

0

>> The big bang wasn't a gas ball. - Rashakil Fol

According to this I think it was

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

Well, we do not actually have a definition of the infinite density and temperature during the Planck epoch (the time from zero to approximately 10^−43 seconds) but it eventually formed a quark/gluon plasma and a mysterious process, baryogenesis, violated the conservation of baryon # leading to a predominance of matter (vs. anti-matter). This happened at about the 10^-6th seconds and here is where the huge ball of gas is formed

0

Yes to evolution as a general principle to which there are a myriad quantity of relevant traits and details.

I do have an issue with those who feel that evolution goes counter to christian beliefs or disproves the existence of God; such individuals logic is non-existent/faulty. An omnipotent being can manipulate the universe and adjust the laws and principles (of physics, of mathematics or even of existence itself) of that universe ... or to paraphrase "through God all things are possible"

Anywhoooooo genetic and evolutionary algorithms in compsci are still far from mature as a field of study so we need more evolution of evolutionary algorithms [greater understanding :)]

C++ya,
xkey

0

I ran across this essay over on a paleoAnthro blog and this looks like a good time to insert it into the conversation:

We tend to think of genetic drift as a random process. Random processes operating repeatedly over time are called “stochastic,” and changes in gene frequency under genetic drift are certainly that.

Since entropy is a measure of uncertainty, it might seem natural to think that stochastic changes in gene frequency would increase the entropy in a population. After all, the gene frequency in a population under genetic drift will be more and more uncertain over time. So, considering the frequency of a single allele as the system, genetic drift appears to increase entropy over time.

But even this simple system isn’t quite so simple as it might appear. Sure if you start out knowing the allele frequency, then genetic drift will increase your uncertainty over time. You will become less and less able to say that it lies in any given interval. But what if you don’t start out knowing? What if all you know is that the locus has been subjected to t generations of genetic drift?

As t increases, the probability of fixation of the locus also increases. The net effect is to reduce the entropy in the system – going from uncertainty about the allele frequency to more and more certainty that it will be either one or zero. The only thing that will stop this process is some other evolutionary force – mutation, migration from other populations, balancing selection. Each of these will have its own distinctive effects on the entropy of the single-locus system.

1

such individuals logic is non-existent/faulty. An omnipotent being can manipulate the universe and adjust the laws and principles (of physics, of mathematics or even of existence itself) of that universe ... or to paraphrase "through God all things are possible"

Ah, well at least there isn't anything wrong with this logic. :icon_rolleyes:

Votes + Comments
I don't see anything wrong with his logic. A being that can control every facet of existence is very logical ;)
0

I take a more hands down approach to such a question. The acquisition of knowledge is man-kinds greatest asset and biggest liability. We strive to know as much as we can and it just hurts us. With limited time on this earth, I don't understand why we spend so much of it trying to find the answer to the one question no one has been able to answer in our entire existence. I don't get why we worry ourselves with such concepts; they have only caused us trouble.

0

Perhaps the next generation of supercomputers can find the answer to why life exists and how it exists. That would be interesting. Surley supercomputers by year 2030 will be able to find all the answers. After all, we expect to see robots walking the streets by 2050. Maybe in the future years to come, robots would have such greater cpu that they would replace scientists and will answer all these questions.

0

Some people tend to think that mankind is the ultimate purpose in the evolutionary process, and yet we are in a sort of death-spiral that may lead to our extinction.
The universe will not miss us and evolution will continue without us; selection for intelligence might be an evolutionary dead end.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.