really, were you there?

evolution is fact, the theory of evolution is a belief.

Living things evolve through DNA mutations, true, but how does this prove that ALL living things evolved from a single common ancestor? (by the way, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THEY DID, but I BELIEVE this, it is not something you could ever prove to me)

that very fact that you can not see the difference between the theory of evolution and the observed phenomenon is why I call foul with the science curriculum to begin with!

Is best not to argue with suchfriends, he will drag it on and on.

what I love is you bastards have the gall to call me willfully ignorant, when I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ACCEPT ALL OF THE THEORY of EVOLUTION, just as you do! I agree with you all in all of these regards accept ONE, that I do not believe the theory of evolution is somehow absolutely provable.

Where as I am trying to build a consensus, many of you have failed too even notice..

You ask me if I "was" there. I am there. There are examples of evolution happening aroud us. For example, more elephants having no tusks becuse being hunted for the ivory - the elephants with tusks get shot and don't reproduce, the elephants without tusks don't get shot and reproduce.

I don't think it is so strongly believed by scientists that everything evolved from one common ancestor though it sounds reasonable.


You just keep repeating the sam fucking things. Why don't you listen?

I know but it's so hard to stop myself. Though I'm not sure it really is an argument. Usually in an argument one person responds to what the other is saying. SushFriends seems to be responding to something that no one (at least none of us or any proper scientist) has every said.

maybe you have not listened to me and that is why I have to keep on repeating myself...

evolution is an observed phenomenon, true, but this does not automatically prove that all the living things evolved from a common ancestor (which by the way, is the CENTRAL THESIS of the current theory, so who is willfully igorant here?)

I hear you man, I believe in evolution, how could I hear you anymore than to believe what you are saying? The trouble is that while I can accept what you say, you refuse to hear anything where I am coming from..

No I have listened to you, and every other person I've met who goes on about how evolution isn't absolutely proven and that people have faith in it like religion.

I shall repeat. No, it doesn't prove that everything evolved from one ancestor. But it's the best theory. but what if everything eveolved from two or three ancestors, would it really matter so much? Does that fundamentally change the theory?

Where you are coming from has nothing to do with it.

the dumb cop fuckwad is not burning books because "they do not ask questions."

he is burning them because they teach darwinism.

you have to realize also that science could be divided in two parts:
1) the experimental method
2) the knowledge that derives from it

the experimental method teaches you to question things, the accumulated knowledge of science is indeed presented as "scientific fact", but usually in a historical context that demonstrates is fluidity-- e.g. the whole debate about planetary systems, the changing theories of the universe, the "wave vs. particle" theories of light. even a couple of years ago there was this fucking outcry among dumb people because astronomers decided that pluto was not a planet, after all.

scientific knowlege is also presented along with its limits-- the vast unknown things in the universe, the frontiers of science, quests for new theories, etc.

yes, scientific knowledge can get a little calcified at times, and dumb people (and bad teachers) think it's some kind of secular gospel, but even with those handicaps it is not, by far, by a million miles, not as dogmatic as the dumbfuck literal-interpretation school of bible reading that is trying to supress the teaching of evolution. not by a million miles. the dumbfucks, you see, do not set up an experiment to test the truth or falsehood of evolutionary theory-- instead, they claim the authority of an invisible man in the sky as quoted in an archaic book. dumbfuck and authoritarian and un-questioning indeed. fuck them, and their donkey progeny.

genetics PROVES that all life on earth is related and descended from a common ancestor.

the theory of evolution through natural selection describes the MECHANISM by which this happens.

I don't get why the nonreligious side of the argument gives a fuck what other people think. Personally, I miss believing in the afterlife. I wish I still did. I know a lot of atheists who insist on "converting" the religious. What is the point of that? I could care less if anyone ignores the obvious, as long as they aren't actually starting a war over it or stopping the press, which usually is not the case in personal debates like this. Let the harmless be happy. Must we turn nonreligiosity into a goddamn religion? Fucking Dawkins.

when you see science under attack from the god camp, can you expect anything other than a counteroffensive? the church burned books AND people since the middle ages, now the born-again dunces threaten to drive america back to amish times-- i would leave them alone if they weren't constantly twisting my arm to give up on knowledge in the name of the superstitions and to post their ten commandments in front of courthouses.

furthermore, i have had countless of religious proselityzers knock on my door to offer pamplets and salvation, but never, ever, have i had an atheist knock my door to offer salvation from religious blindness.

so the numbers are against you, i'm afraid.

no, genetics SUGGESTS this, but it is by no means proof, and in the future other evidence could come to light which suggests otherwise..
and on top of it all, while I also believe in the DNA evidence, the bias is the means of collecting, there is a SHITLOAD of room for human error in the research process involving billions of DNA code.. people make mistakes very very often when dealing with vastly complex number sequences, it is human nature to make mistakes, and I-man do not ASCRIBE any HUMAN teaching as infallible or even moderately correct, because of these natural human flaws.

Evolution is a fact, but the theory that everything evolved from a common ancestor is an idea, and a remarkably accurate and clever one, but still, is by no means a provable phenomenon.. as there will ALWAYS be a lack of true evidence.

My whole point through out this thread is this:

Both religious folks and science folks would find more harmony if they were ease up on their dogmatism, I am not dogmatic in any of my approaches, be they scientific or religious.

thank you! that is the most truthful statement in this ENTIRE THREAD, and was the kind of discussion I was hoping for..

but all that negativity only fuels the fire.. a little peace goes a long way. I am trying to bridge the gap, not burn the bridge. :)

this i agree with. i'm actually not sure i've read about the "common ancestor". there are at least 4 completely divergent life form groups that i recall-- animals, plants, protozoa (protista or something), fungus and some sulfur bacteria or something... need to brush up on that. do they ALL have a common ancestor now?
...


right, but it's the dogmatic religulous that have traditionally led the offensive. like i pointed out, it's the dumb cop at the school board fucking with the biology teacher's pick; it's nt the biology teachers fucking with teaching curriculum at sunday school.

maybe in a perfect world, but i think the progressive and enlightened public is tired of taking it up the ass from the religious right. it's time to take up the hatchet and split their fucking skulls. yea.

...

yes, the DNA evidence suggests that all life on earth, all of the four major branches you speak of, stem from the common ancestor who is today believed by DNA sequencing to be sulfur bacteria.. they are the bottom of the chain (err, the start rather)

technically speaking, there is only ONE kind of life on earth, DNA.







Celine Brochier explains, "The first emerging phyla in the tree of life based on the small subunit of ribosomal DNA (16s rRNA) are hyperthermorphic.. the most parsimonious explanation for this result is that the ability to live in a hot environment is an ancestral trait inherited from the Last Universal Common Ancestor.."

What is the LUCA?

yes, but my momma taught me to treat others as you'd like to be treated.. if some assholes have been fucking it up for thousands of years, why use their tactics? You will only recreate an equally fucked up situation as you started with..

thanks for the info. i'll look it up.

re: the "biological kingdoms", there are a number of theories (5, 6 or 3 in latest, according to wikipedia). not a solid decision as classification is always ultimately a matter of... language.

are you sure we have a common ancestor with that motherfucking bacterias that live at superhot temperatures? well i'll look it up.

my momma taught me not to let myself be punked by assholes. fuck oral roberts, the falwell descendents, the 700 club, the fucking apocalypse peddlers, the dumbass cop that wants to deprive children of a scientific education, the asswads who would have this country return to the 17th century-- fuck them, fuck them, fuck all of them, they are my enemy, and i make no apologies for it, and i will work for the destruction of their toxic ideology of ignorance and superstition with which they control throngs of fools and enrich themselves, the fucking pigs.

as of yet, the DNA evidence places thermotogales as the first species, they have some of smallest DNA sequences, and further share the MOST DNA with all other species, suggesting they are the base of the tree..





I like the revolutionary zeal, but remember that the people must be moved before you start a movement..

You can crush the ignorant ideologies without crushing those who follow them..

Teach science and philosophy.

Any consideration of creationism belongs in the latter.

YES. they are all DNA based life forms, using the exact same proteins and amino acids to create their forms, all from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR

couldn't those aminoacids have organized independently in different places? sort of like life in other planets?

im still thinking of the miller experiment. from that "primordial soup", one and only one? that would be dawkins's "selfish gene"... self replication encoded & taking over the muck.

so one and only one gene ever did that? that's pretty amazing. can someone post me a link to an article about that? please? i'd love to read the findings...

--
i found this:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DEED9143DF937A2575 2C0A96E948260

"Dr. James A. Lake of University of California in Los Angeles who conducted the genetic study, said the results were not quite what he had expected, but were determined by computer analysis of a great deal of data. But the conclusions are a matter of some dispute. Some evolution specialists consider the work important and original. Others disagree strongly."

that was back in... 1988!

i'll keep looking-- thanks.

of course, but I suppose the debate here is how to properly define "teaching science"

further, I don't necessarily disagree with exposing kids to religious beliefs in the classroom..

when I was a kid in school we learned about all the world cultures and religions.. in 7th grade history we spent months learning about Islam and Hinduism, learning their myths and religion and history, and no body was complaining that they were trying to convert us to Islam.. quite the contrary they were just exposing us to different belief systems and cultures of the world, which made me a rounder more open minded person in regards to my own religion.
just a thought..

That's a very good point.

That is why these things are tested and retested and debated. It's only after this long process that these things become accepted.


Eh?

I really don't see how it can fit in the latter. How could you argue in its defense? I think you don't realise how rigorous philosophy is. Though I agree a bit of philosophy should be taught in schools.

This is inspiring. I would rep you but I have to spread it.

I think you don't realize the difference between studying philosophy and practicing philosophy.

yes, of course! its the theory of evolution and common ancestors and DNA sequencing that gets you twisted into fairytale territory.

Living things evolve (ie, DNA mutates over time), but this does not automatically serve as evidence for certain theories of evolution.

I think I understand what you mean but I still don't see how you can argue in favour of creationism.

First cause principle.

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

there is only one THEORY OF EVOLUTION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION

evolution is what happens. natural selection is the mechanism by which it happens.

any bit of DNA from any living thing (plant, paramecium, human, lichen, sasquatch) can be cut and spliced into the DNA of any other living thing, and the cells will not know the difference.

we are all ONE in spacetime. all living things on this teeny tiny planet Earth are RELATED, and if it so happens that our planet, among the trillions and quadrillions of possible planets i the multi-verse, is the ONLY ONE where the natural processes of stellar formation, planet formation, and ecosystem formation allowed for the crucial spriging forth of self-replicating "life", then we have a nearly GODLIKE responsibility to maintain it, spread it through the solar system and galaxy, and NURTURE it.

I think it is beautiful.

and it is as fragile as a frozen fart bubble in the asscrack of an underwater eskimo.

and there is a big difreence between teaching the histories and specifics of belief systems around the world and teaching the "truth" of one specific belief system, which is what I.D. and most american creationists want done.

save that shit for home and/or church.

at times like these, when the sky is falling, I am thankful to be a man of faith, as I have entirely lost my confidence in the abilities of people to be good stewards for the planet.. luckily for us we are not necessarily in charge here :)

I don't think ANYTHING should be taught to children as "truth" be it evolution or religion. But I think the school is an important institution to expose children to all the possibilities of the world, and this is the philosophy which I take into consideration as an educator myself.

I don't care what I.D. or most creationists want. They, however, do prey upon the philosophically ignorant who are the result of tyrannical materialist science.

That link just opens a black window. Anyway I stand corrected (I think). But you can't still argue that it happened exactly as in the Bible as that would possible. How could we know God did it seven days? I think that was what I actually meant, not that you can't argue in favour of God creating the universe in general.

It has already been done, in sci-fi novels, and it was great.
As for real, I guess it would take several thousands years for the fastest ship to reach the closest solar system.

I think the whole problem is that humans are hard-wired to look for causes, and for first causes, but there are bnever any "first" causes.

when cloud vapor gets heavy enough it falls as rain. cloud vapor does not form though unless there is some speck of dust or pollen to condense the water vapor. and that does not happen unless a windtorm kicks up dust from the sahara , let's say, and that does not happen unless living things dieand dessicate and become dust, and that does not happen unless something is born, and that does not happen unless single-celled organisms develop on earth, and that does not happen unless the earth is formed with a moon to stabilize it, and that does nto happen unless the solar system develops in the outer reaches of the milky way away from radiation and the tumult of the inner galaxy and that.....

(edited for spelling)

thousands of years are nothing compared to the 3-5 MILLION that life existed on earth solely as single celled organisms.

we could seed planets with microorganisms that match the planets characteristics. it is an idea I have for a sci fi comic.

send microorganisms that live deep under ground off off sulfur and chemicals to mercury, and semd methane eating microrganisms to venus, and send microorganisms that thrive in sub zero temps to titan around jupiter.

let them "mix it up" for 3-5 million years.

I don;t wanna say more cuz someone will steal my idea.

aquinas! oy...

that belongs in the attic of antiquities, before the invention of electricity, before there was empirical science, even... doesn't the practice of philosophy require us to be current, i.e., to address the situation at hand, with our current knowledge?

kant argued that the number of stars had to be infinite so that their gravitational pull would keep them in static orbits, because he only had newtonian physics and lacked the data regarding the expansion of the universe.

another time this science friend got me together with her philosopher friend so i could explain to her dawkins's selfish gene theory. the exposition was cut short when i used the expression "reproductive machines"-- she quickly chimed in to say that, per aristotle, genes could not be machines because machines had to be manmade. no manner of rhethorical licenses were allowed, and she managed to discourage me at any attempts at explaining a more-or-less current scientific theory--- because of what aristotle wrote 2500 years ago!

with this in mind, can you please explain how is aquinas relevant today in the discussion of creationism?

it would take a spacecraft some 7675 years to travel the 24,920,647,758,761 (coincidently that number is in the range to the total US debt right now which the CIA world fact book places around $12,000,000,000,000) odd miles that separates Earth from the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri..