Evolution is only a theory...or is it?

[Gibsons]

You don't know what you are talking about. What you are talking about is NOT even a minor evidence for darwinism. This may help.

Wow, who wrote that page? It's hard to sort out; is it a language problem, or an intelligence problem or a sanity problem? Or some combination of all three.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, if we're all "cousins" then humans should be able to mate with animals and make a new "animal".

Genetic barriers were deliberately put in place to show the separadness between man and beasts, and even other beasts.

Dogs can't mix with cats and Lions can't mix with Tigers... they can only mate with their own separate "kind". Humans can only mate with other humans.

Common decent should mean we should have no trouble mating with others "animals"... after all, aren't we all animals??

:hmm:

 

[Juddog]

Well, if we're all "cousins" then humans should be able to mate with animals and make a new "animal".

Genetic barriers were deliberately put in place to show the separadness between man and beasts, and even other beasts.

Dogs can't mix with cats and Lions can't mix with Tigers... they can only mate with their own separate "kind". Humans can only mate with other humans.

Common decent should mean we should have no trouble mating with others "animals"... after all, aren't we all animals??

:hmm:

You're trying to vastly oversimplify the structure of organisms. Please try and study the base material before making such statements, your statement shows that you don't even understand biology at the 10th grade level.

 

[sandorski]

Well, if we're all "cousins" then humans should be able to mate with animals and make a new "animal".

Genetic barriers were deliberately put in place to show the separadness between man and beasts, and even other beasts.

Dogs can't mix with cats and Lions can't mix with Tigers... they can only mate with their own separate "kind". Humans can only mate with other humans.

Common decent should mean we should have no trouble mating with others "animals"... after all, aren't we all animals??

:hmm:

Incorrect. There are even animals of the same species which can't mate with each other. Ring Species

 

[DrPizza]

103 posts later, has anyone mentioned yet that science uses the word "theory" for stuff that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Though, science always abstains from saying, "we're 100% sure." Though, in the case of evolution, it's about 99.999999% sure. There's so, so, so much evidence, across a vast range of fields of science that demonstrate evolution is true, that it's generally considered one of those theories that will never be overturned. Much like heliocentrism. We're 99.999999% sure the sun is what the planets revolve around; not the Earth.

 

[Jeff7]

You don't know what you are talking about. What you are talking about is NOT even a minor evidence for darwinism. This may help.

Wow, who wrote that page? It's hard to sort out; is it a language problem, or an intelligence problem or a sanity problem? Or some combination of all three.

From that page:
"'Geographic adaptability' and 'generation of drug-resistant bacteria' only means the occurrence of natural selection, there is no new species involved."
Ahh yes.
"I believe in trees, but forests are impossible."


"Sympathy to its own kind is a common nature of all animals, including human."

The writer must only own two very friendly dogs, which comprise that person's entire experience with animals.

Some animals kill each other during mating. Some kill some of their own offspring. Some regularly attack others of their own kind. Some will eat while letting others nearby starve. Some are just utterly and completely indifferent.
And humans also have a long long history of problems concerning good treatment of others. How much of recorded history's eras are defined largely by wars, conquests, and assassinations?


"Hitler accepted the Darwin’s theory wholeheartedly and thought Aryans the most advanced part of human evolution, and other nationalities, such as Jewish, Slavic, Gypsy, Oriental races inferior ones, and were the objects of conquest and eradication."
+1 Godwin's Law.

can a scientist practicing science create a conscious being from organic matter?

Presently, no.

A scientist also currently can't create a planet or a star. So?
Star: Ingredients: Hydrogen. A lot of it. Just put it all together, and the rest will take care of itself.
Rocky planet: Iron, silicon, carbon, oxygen. Mix other elements as desired. Heat, allow to settle.

Pretty simple to do.

103 posts later, has anyone mentioned yet that science uses the word "theory" for stuff that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Though, science always abstains from saying, "we're 100% sure." Though, in the case of evolution, it's about 99.999999% sure. There's so, so, so much evidence, across a vast range of fields of science that demonstrate evolution is true, that it's generally considered one of those theories that will never be overturned. Much like heliocentrism. We're 99.999999% sure the sun is what the planets revolve around; not the Earth.

"That's just a BS cop-out!"
"It's a conspiracy in the scientific community!"
"They're in league with Satan, so of course they'd conjure up that language of obfuscation."

...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
...

Neat. It increasingly looks like, given the right combination of basic ingredients and energy input, over a sufficient length of time, life is something that is essentially an inherent property of that system's behavior, similar to how you get nuclear fusion when you put a huge mass of hydrogen together. It's just something that happens, as an inherent property of the physics of this universe.

 

[SagaLore]

can a scientist practicing science create a conscious being from organic matter?

Yes. Why?

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Well, if we're all "cousins" then humans should be able to mate with animals and make a new "animal".

Genetic barriers were deliberately put in place to show the separadness between man and beasts, and even other beasts.

Dogs can't mix with cats and Lions can't mix with Tigers... they can only mate with their own separate "kind". Humans can only mate with other humans.

Common decent should mean we should have no trouble mating with others "animals"... after all, aren't we all animals??

:hmm:

You're kidding me. I don't even. . .

 

[Jeff7]

You're kidding me. I don't even. . .

"If hydrogen, oxygen, and xenon are all made of neutrons, protons, and electrons, then why can't I combine hydrogen and xenon the way I can with hydrogen and oxygen?"


:|

 

[Fritzo]

You're kidding me. I don't even. . .

Yeah...by his logic, we should be able to eat rocks. Hey! It's all atoms!

 

[PowerEngineer]

103 posts later, has anyone mentioned yet that science uses the word "theory" for stuff that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Though, science always abstains from saying, "we're 100% sure." Though, in the case of evolution, it's about 99.999999% sure. There's so, so, so much evidence, across a vast range of fields of science that demonstrate evolution is true, that it's generally considered one of those theories that will never be overturned. Much like heliocentrism. We're 99.999999% sure the sun is what the planets revolve around; not the Earth.

It's certainly true that some theories like that of gravity explain the known facts to such a precise degree that there's very little "wiggle room" for an improved theory that would have to explain these known facts better. Other theories, like those concerning "dark matter" and "dark energy", have so much "wiggle room" (around so few known facts) that better theories are virtually certain to arise. I'm not sure exactly where along this spectrum of certainty a theory becomes "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". I think this is something of a personal judgment, but that doesn't mean that each person can make such a judgment without consequences.

As a crude example, the theory of gravity works the same way on anyone jumping out of a airplane regardless of whether or not they believe it is true (or proven").

As a less (or maybe more) crude example, a geologist who understands the implications of fossil evidence and the evolutionary process of life will have more success finding oil and gas deposits than one who chooses to ignore those implications.

And this is where the "rubber meets the road". When the implications of a theory can shed light on an action you need to take, then your choice to either consider (a silly) or ignore (a "proven") theory will affect the successfulness of your decisions. As a practical matter, we have to make decisions using the best information and best "theories" that we have at the time. Best will always be something less than 100% certainty. Choose wisely.

It also follows from this that each of us is free to decide whatever we want about theories with no practical impact on your decision making (e.g. was life "sparked" by a supernatural being or discarded garbage from a passing alien spacecraft). These are more religion/philosophy.

P.S. -- My take on heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is that either can be used as a frame of reference, however explaining the motion of the objects in the solar system is much simpler if you make the right choice.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's certainly true that some theories like that of gravity explain the known facts to such a precise degree that there's very little "wiggle room" for an improved theory that would have to explain these known facts better. Other theories, like those concerning "dark matter" and "dark energy", have so much "wiggle room" (around so few known facts) that better theories are virtually certain to arise. I'm not sure exactly where along this spectrum of certainty a theory becomes "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". I think this is something of a personal judgment, but that doesn't mean that each person can make such a judgment without consequences.

As a crude example, the theory of gravity works the same way on anyone jumping out of a airplane regardless of whether or not they believe it is true (or proven").

As a less (or maybe more) crude example, a geologist who understands the implications of fossil evidence and the evolutionary process of life will have more success finding oil and gas deposits than one who chooses to ignore those implications.

And this is where the "rubber meets the road". When the implications of a theory can shed light on an action you need to take, then your choice to either consider (a silly) or ignore (a "proven") theory will affect the successfulness of your decisions. As a practical matter, we have to make decisions using the best information and best "theories" that we have at the time. Best will always be something less than 100% certainty. Choose wisely.

It also follows from this that each of us is free to decide whatever we want about theories with no practical impact on your decision making (e.g. was life "sparked" by a supernatural being or discarded garbage from a passing alien spacecraft). These are more religion/philosophy.

P.S. -- My take on heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is that either can be used as a frame of reference, however explaining the motion of the objects in the solar system is much simpler if you make the right choice.

Finally..someone at least making some sense that doesn't sound completely brainwashed.

 

[chalmers]

I haven't read any of this thread, but what makes religion/evolution threads so fascinating to you people? Always been curious about that.

I'd much rather talk about the best flavor of soda.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I haven't read any of this thread, but what makes religion/evolution threads so fascinating to you people? Always been curious about that.

I'd much rather talk about the best flavor of soda.

For me, it's an unknown. I find it interesting how emotional people get over their beliefs. My grandmother is a die hard bible thumper, and one day she was talking about how those "arabs' didn't follow the right god. I asked her how she knew her religion was the right religion and not theirs. She about lost it, but the only thing she could do was quote bible verses. She was nearly in tears....needless to say, we don't bring up religion anymore

This is just one of many examples of my fascination. Mostly just to torture people. I do find evolution fascinating in itself, as well as scientific theories in general, but I do not surround myself by every single passing thought and I certainly don't understand a majority of it. If you'd read some of the responses in this thread, some scientific minded people can be just as rabid as religious people. Same thought process, just a different beliefs.

 

[Jeff7]

I haven't read any of this thread, but what makes religion/evolution threads so fascinating to you people? Always been curious about that.

I'd much rather talk about the best flavor of soda.

I think they've now got a subforum specifically for that topic. Be sure to use the proper one for each particular flavor though.

 

[disappoint]

I haven't read any of this thread, but what makes religion/evolution threads so fascinating to you people? Always been curious about that.

I'd much rather talk about the best flavor of soda.

There is a time and place for discussions about soda. If you wanted to discuss soda, you probably should have started a thread on soda, joined an ongoing thread on soda or found a soda forum discussing soda. See you had so many options yet you chose one that left you unfulfilled. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[disappoint]

103 posts later, has anyone mentioned yet that science uses the word "theory" for stuff that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Though, science always abstains from saying, "we're 100% sure." Though, in the case of evolution, it's about 99.999999% sure. There's so, so, so much evidence, across a vast range of fields of science that demonstrate evolution is true, that it's generally considered one of those theories that will never be overturned. Much like heliocentrism. We're 99.999999% sure the sun is what the planets revolve around; not the Earth.

Yes. in post #9: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34807020&postcount=9

 

[Murloc]

Lions can't mix with Tigers...

incorrect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
they're fertile too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liliger), unlike mules (which are ass and horse crossbreeds, another good example).