I think there is plenty of proof that evolution exists, but IMO there is no proof, in fact quite the opposite that one species evolves into another. A caterpillar turns into a butterfly, but was always a butterfly, and monkey does not turn into a human, otherwise why did some monkeys stay monkeys, or should I say ape's. Evolution of a species to adapt to a changing environment makes perfect sense, but the whole we came from some one celled sea creature makes no sense to me at all.
Again just my opinion
Again just my opinion
You need to do some reading- you have some grave misconceptions about what natural selection and the origin of species is all about. Reading the comic-book versions presented by fundamentalist organizations is like trying to learn electronics from The Absolute Sound.
SY said:
I’m really surprised at the possibility that my stated and obvious personal opinion could be offensive to you; I truly believe that you are a very intelligent and prudent man and this seems uncharacteristic, or maybe I took your reply wrong. Is it not ok to casually but respectfully share your opinion here?
I wasn’t talking about Charles Darwin if that’s what you meant. I was being far more general about a popular belief system based on all life as we know it coming from a primordial soup thing. Am I wrong in thinking there is a large populace of the recognized scientific community that believes the basis of all life was spawned by a few microbes in H2O that became the one cell organisms that all life on this planet evolved from?
Once (maybe still) there was a popular belief that Homo sapiens evolved from some species of ape, again if I’m wrong you can correct me and point me toward better information. I’m serious, I am not trying to BS, I will stay far away from argument on any specific scientific theory or theorem, I am truly not that smart or well read nor do I pretend to be. I really do appreciate any direction toward any relevant and insightful information; I really want to know the truth.
Anyway even if I was right at this point I would be wrong in the near future, science is ever revising and changing their popular beliefs. Feel free to correct me here as well.
I personally believe that “Man” in our vocally and mentally capable form was always this way, always capable of speech and intelligent thought and morals and such.
Anyway no offense taken on my part, I just don’t believe in anything man has written down if I cant make any sense of it, seems pretty normal to me.
Please don't misunderstand- I'm not at all offended. I wouldn't think of criticizing your opinions, nor have I, but the factual stuff you state is bizarrely incorrect. You don't seem to understand the concept of species, your statement about monkeys shows little understanding of primate development and taxonomy, and you incorrectly conflate development of species with origins of life.
It's OK to have an opinion that modern biology and paleontology are a load of hooey, but it's not an informed opinion unless you actually understand something about modern biology and paleontology.
BTW, if you want to gain a better understanding of evolution, taxonomy, and the like, look for any of the texts by Ernst Mayr. It's hard stuff, but very rewarding to know and understand.
It's OK to have an opinion that modern biology and paleontology are a load of hooey, but it's not an informed opinion unless you actually understand something about modern biology and paleontology.
BTW, if you want to gain a better understanding of evolution, taxonomy, and the like, look for any of the texts by Ernst Mayr. It's hard stuff, but very rewarding to know and understand.
SY said:
and what Darwin didn't know, and what Watson and Crick didn't know either, was that portions of the DNA change in response to environmental factors, challenges and opportunities -- it was thought that species evolved over eons -- the process could have been much, much quicker.
Bare with me here I’m stretching my memory of bad information, but wasn’t there some theorem (whatever it’s called) “the more you know about something in detail, the less you know about the nature” This might be another of my made up scientific ideas but that’s the general gist of it as I understood. Either way I believe this to be true.
SY said:
Ok could you briefly summarize your understanding of man’s accent? No need to be specific, just the bare essentials.
That's an aphorism, not a theorem. Something's "nature" is a philosophical concept. What I've found is that as I learn more about science, more previously-unconnected pieces fall into place and my understanding becomes much more solid.
planet10 said:
Good man!!.... 🙂 i just wish you would mod. moi as you would like to be modded...... 🙁
True... 
kingdaddy said:
VERY bare essentials!
The best evidence from the fossil record and (more recently) correlation from genetic evidence is that Homo sapiens sapiens descended from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and bonobos. There is still some controversy on the exact lineage from Australopithecines to various Homo species, and thence to Homo sapiens, but more and more, the "out of Africa" theories seem to square with the evidence. There seem to have been several migrations outward from Africa to the rest of the world.
Why for f-----sake always talk guys like you without zilch understanding of biology? Why not go ahead and read darwins "the origin of Soecies" before you even attempt to discuss a scientific theory based not only on paleontology, biology and finally today's genetic research before you try to talk absolut nonsense?
Why not for instance read steven jay gould - fairly easy read.
Evolution is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of studying and then - and only then when you have read the basic texts - which includes readings regarding taxonomie, genetics, anatomy, physiology , archeology and geology do you have a right to participate in a well informed discussion. Anything else is spouting hot steam.
Evolution has nothing to to with believ - it is a theory with enough prove to accept it as a working basis for howe live began and evolved on this planet.
I stay out of religion if you stop talking about something you do not have the faintest clue about.
Gould is a fun read, but often misleading. "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" is a good book to read, though.
SY said:
I agree, accept that the more I learn about human nature through experience, the more I solidify my spiritual understanding. Only this mix of logic and supernatural seamlessly explains the meaning of life IMO. Don’t fool your self in thinking that there is life with out meaning. Science can’t and never will explain purpose, and purpose is a truth that can’t be denied.
Thanks for the hint - will be my next read. Though - i like his theory regarding punctuated equilibrium - makes sense to me. Is almost like engineering - you develop something new, this new stuff sprouts into a myriad of variations that sort themselves out - and only the most successful remains.
But this will probably again taken as a strong evidence for "intelligent design".
His last one I read was the one regarding the burgess shale.
BTW - I remember the name of the russian now : Lysenko, the guy who wanted to: "alter the nature of plants in the direction we desire through training".
Keep searching. I am satisfied that life in itself is all the meaning needed. At least some intelligence on one planet that through its best can try to grasp how the universe came into being and how it evolved from its origins. This way - the universe learns about itself through us - isn't that enough?
The search for meaning is imo just a waste of brain capacity - leads nowwhere, but may makes some feel good.
But this will probably again taken as a strong evidence for "intelligent design".
His last one I read was the one regarding the burgess shale.
BTW - I remember the name of the russian now : Lysenko, the guy who wanted to: "alter the nature of plants in the direction we desire through training".
Keep searching. I am satisfied that life in itself is all the meaning needed. At least some intelligence on one planet that through its best can try to grasp how the universe came into being and how it evolved from its origins. This way - the universe learns about itself through us - isn't that enough?
The search for meaning is imo just a waste of brain capacity - leads nowwhere, but may makes some feel good.
It's interesting that Simon Conway Morris, who Gould lionized in "Wonderful Life" (the book on the Burgess Shale) has changed his views radically and doesn't believe it to be nearly as fundamental as Gould made it out to be.
Nonetheless, I'd love to see it in person one day.
Nonetheless, I'd love to see it in person one day.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.