Poll: How did human life come about?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: DVK916
+1 for logic, anyone who voted for the first 2 options clearly suffer from some profound mental disorder.

anyone that can prove #3 over #2 gets my vote for president of earth!

Sorry god isn't real, this is a fact.

Really? I am extremely interested in hearing your arguments proving the non-existence of God. A Nobel Prize awaits you.
 

Journer

Banned
Jun 30, 2005
4,355
0
0
where the hell is:

"no one truly knows. there isnt enough scientific evidence to prove either way, at least right now"
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: Citrix
Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms

where did those life forms come from? water running over rock billions of years ago?

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Scientists believe the first selfreplicating nuleic acids were small bits of autocatalytic RNA. Then DNA/proteins came from that and eventually the self replicating RNA fell out.

ahhh, the building blocks of all life. so where did nuleic acids come from? water running over rocks billions of years ago?

well, one of theories is the basic molecules like CO2 and NH3 already existed because of atmospheric reactions. Then when lightning struck the oceans, it provided the energy for these molecules to come together and form the first amino acids.
Over time microbubbles formed in the oceans that created conditions condusive to and stable enough for the amino acids to come together and form the first set of complex polymers. The same can be said of the nucleotides.

yip thats the theory of the building blocks of life, but it still isnt life.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.

:laugh: It's always hilarious when e-scientists think they know more than real scientists.

STFU, troll.
 

DVK916

Banned
Dec 12, 2005
2,765
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.

:laugh: It's always hilarious when e-scientists think they know more than real scientists.

STFU, troll.

abiogensis is widely accepted among scientist, when I took a college course in human evolution biology, the prof made it clear that evolution isn't some theory, but is a fact, and he is confident abiogensis to be true, and will soon be accepted as fact by mainstream scientist.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.

its funny that you say that... because the more i read richard dawkins "god delusion" the more i really start to think God Exists
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.

:laugh: It's always hilarious when e-scientists think they know more than real scientists.

STFU, troll.

abiogensis is widely accepted among scientist, when I took a college course in human evolution biology, the prof made it clear that evolution isn't a theory that is a fact, and that he beliefs abiogensis to be true, and will soon be accepted as fact by mainstream scientist.

abiogenesis != evolution

Evolution is factual, but it also begins with the premise that life already existed and then evolved. Abiogenesis is a commonly accepted hypothesis, but it is not part of the theory of evolution nor is it even remotely accepted as factual by mainstream science. Contrast your last 2 statements against your earlier post. Then STFU. The ease with which you backpedal from your earlier inflammatory statements proves that you're a troll.
 

DVK916

Banned
Dec 12, 2005
2,765
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.

:laugh: It's always hilarious when e-scientists think they know more than real scientists.

STFU, troll.

abiogensis is widely accepted among scientist, when I took a college course in human evolution biology, the prof made it clear that evolution isn't a theory that is a fact, and that he beliefs abiogensis to be true, and will soon be accepted as fact by mainstream scientist.



abiogenesis != evolution

Evolution is factual, but it also begins with the premise that life already existed and then evolved. Abiogenesis is a commonly accepted hypothesis, but it is not part of the theory of evolution nor is it even remotely accepted as factual by mainstream science. Contrast your last 2 statements against your earlier post. Then STFU.

I know abiogensis isn't evolution, I am saying it should be accepted as a factual thing. I would have far more respect for god believers if they accepted abiogensis, but abiogensis goes against the teaching of the bible, koran, torah. That alone invalidates them.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.

WTF??? noooooo abiogensis is just a hypotheses not fact.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
I am deeply saddened that 17.58 (%) of the votes say that God created man 10,000 years ago, and believe it to be true. *boggle*

This is on a tech board no less! I can only imagine what the percentage would be like if you sampled more non computer users.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.

:laugh: It's always hilarious when e-scientists think they know more than real scientists.

STFU, troll.

abiogensis is widely accepted among scientist, when I took a college course in human evolution biology, the prof made it clear that evolution isn't a theory that is a fact, and that he beliefs abiogensis to be true, and will soon be accepted as fact by mainstream scientist.



abiogenesis != evolution

Evolution is factual, but it also begins with the premise that life already existed and then evolved. Abiogenesis is a commonly accepted hypothesis, but it is not part of the theory of evolution nor is it even remotely accepted as factual by mainstream science. Contrast your last 2 statements against your earlier post. Then STFU.

I know abiogensis isn't evolution, I am saying it should be accepted as a factual thing. I would have far more respect for god believers if they accepted abiogensis, but abiogensis goes against the teaching of the bible, koran, torah. That alone invalidates them.

How did you get to be this bigoted? You're basing your arguments on non-scientific evidence and a logical fallacy. The false dilemma that if it is contrary to religion then it must be scientific fact. That is simply ridiculous. Here's a tip for you in REAL thinking (although I'm sure your bigotry will not allow you to accept it): the Bible, Quran, Toran, etc. could all be completely wrong... and God could exist anyway. Get over it.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
One of the study's major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. ?For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,? said Lahn. ?Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes?and even that is a conservative estimate.?

It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked ?extra-hard? during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans.

that from the HHMI.
 

Leros

Lifer
Jul 11, 2004
21,867
7
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: DVK916
+1 for logic, anyone who voted for the first 2 options clearly suffer from some profound mental disorder.

anyone that can prove #3 over #2 gets my vote for president of earth!

Sorry god isn't real, this is a fact.

Really? I am extremely interested in hearing your arguments proving the non-existence of God. A Nobel Prize awaits you.

I'd love to see you explain gravity. We can't but would you deny gravity?
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Sorry, your 84% figure is wayyyyyyyyy off. The US is the laughing stock as far as education goes, particularly in science and mathematics. We have by far the largest percentage of people who deny evolution, and that's still under 50%. Get your facts straight.

The image is disputed, so I'll give you a +-10% on the numbers. Regardless, it shouldn't matter if it was <50%.


p.s. Even the Catholics, one of the slowest to come to grips with reality, agree with the big bang theory and evolution. (Since Pope Pious the some #)

So you're telling me all Catholics disregard the first book of the Bible?

Sorry, but I have no problem insulting ignorance. Especially when they choose to be ignorant and disregard all evidence to the contrary of their belief. What would you say to a 30 year old man who still believes in the Tooth Fairy and that Santa visits every house in the world on Christmas?

It's quite obvious that you have no problem insulting, because apparently you have the answers to all of life's questions. How does their choice to to be "ignorant" make you feel the need to belittle them? And how can you even compare the tooth fairy to religion? Religion has been around since the dawn of man (whenever you choose that may be) and is accepted by billions of people.

But you are still missing my point. I'm not here to argue what I believe or what anyone else believes. I don't have to justify my beliefs to you or anyone else. The simple fact is that you shouldn't call somebody an idiot or stupid for something that they believe in and that you can't prove. You can't explain it all, so don't make it look like you have all the answers. It makes you look like you live for putting others "in their place". Some people actually like to believe in something bigger than themselves, but your ego and intolerance is by far the biggest thing that you believe in.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: Leros
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: DVK916
+1 for logic, anyone who voted for the first 2 options clearly suffer from some profound mental disorder.

anyone that can prove #3 over #2 gets my vote for president of earth!

Sorry god isn't real, this is a fact.

Really? I am extremely interested in hearing your arguments proving the non-existence of God. A Nobel Prize awaits you.

I'd love to see you explain gravity. We can't but would you deny gravity?

So if I claim it's impossible to scientifically prove the non-existence of God, that means that I would deny gravity?? :confused:

You got your logic backwards. :roll:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: DrPizza
p.s. Even the Catholics, one of the slowest to come to grips with reality, agree with the big bang theory and evolution. (Since Pope Pious the some #)
So you're telling me all Catholics disregard the first book of the Bible?
Big Bang and Evolutionary theories are not in conflict with the Book of Genesis. Quite the opposite, they are too much in accord IMO.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: DrPizza
p.s. Even the Catholics, one of the slowest to come to grips with reality, agree with the big bang theory and evolution. (Since Pope Pious the some #)
So you're telling me all Catholics disregard the first book of the Bible?
Big Bang and Evolutionary theories are not in conflict with the Book of Genesis. Quite the opposite, they are too much in accord IMO.

I'm not saying that they are. But DrPizza seems to believe that since the Pope supposedly agrees with both the big bang and evolution that religion is stupid and everyone who believes in something is ignorant.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,996
126
Originally posted by: Juddog
I am deeply saddened that 17.58 (%) of the votes say that God created man 10,000 years ago, and believe it to be true. *boggle*

This is on a tech board no less! I can only imagine what the percentage would be like if you sampled more non computer users.


About the same. Don't give any special consideration to the fact that this is a "tech board". The average ATOTer is probably a 14-15 year old computer geek, nothing more. The fact that they can plug in a USB cable and memorize the specs on a GeForce 7900GT does not mean that they're educated in any meaningful way. They have never been exposed to comparative theology, they have not traced the origins of religion to find the immense flaws in the way they're constructed. They simply believe what mommy and daddy tell them to believe.

That's the scary part of religion, it's inherited as surely as your eye color or blood type. The Jesus freaks who are screaming about creationism and voting that the world is less than 10,000 years old would be screaming "death to the infidels, Allah Akbar!!" if they had been born into a different family and the ones going to Temple and observing Yom Kippur would instead be observing Ramadan if their great great great grandparents had passed that along instead. You're not dealing with intelligent, rational, educated people here who have studied various religions, come up with a person view on theology and made an informed decision about which great cosmic muffin to follow. You're dealing with ignorant savages who probably never strayed more than 50 feet from the dirt floored hut in which they were born. They were the ones who passed on the current religions to the long lines of their distant relatives. Skippy the wonder nerd ATOT lifer isn't Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu because it's his choice, he's Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu because somebody way back in hs family tree was Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu and nobody since then has bothered to think for themself.
 

Bill Brasky

Diamond Member
May 18, 2006
4,324
1
0
Option 2 isn't clear enough. I think we developed through evolution, but I still think God deserves credit for making those circumstances possible.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
No credible scientist would ever consider abiogenesis a "fact" without some truly remarkable physical evidence that has not yet been discovered and probably doesn't exist. At best in the future it would become a "theory", which is an inappropriate term for it currently. To leap from its current state of hypothesis to fact is a major sin of scientific methodology.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: DVK916

I know abiogensis isn't evolution, I am saying it should be accepted as a factual thing. I would have far more respect for god believers if they accepted abiogensis...
Supposing the factuality of abiogenesis does not somehow exclude the existence of a god, so you can't say "given abiogenesis, therefore no-god." That's just plain ignorance.

...but abiogensis goes against the teaching of the bible, koran, torah. That alone invalidates them.
No it doesn't.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: DrPizza
p.s. Even the Catholics, one of the slowest to come to grips with reality, agree with the big bang theory and evolution. (Since Pope Pious the some #)
So you're telling me all Catholics disregard the first book of the Bible?
Big Bang and Evolutionary theories are not in conflict with the Book of Genesis. Quite the opposite, they are too much in accord IMO.
I'm not saying that they are. But DrPizza seems to believe that since the Pope supposedly agrees with both the big bang and evolution that religion is stupid and everyone who believes in something is ignorant.
Well, he seems to have a hard time recognizing that religion and science are not in conflict with each other. This is typical of the internet scientist crowd, which wrongly thinks that scientific reality is somehow influenced by the percentage of people who believe in it. Meh, IIRC he's a teacher though, so I suppose in his case it's excusable. But to the rest, science is about facts, not beliefs. Religion is about beliefs, not facts. That's what makes this thread flawed to begin with -- it begins with the assumption that science concerns itself with what people believe. And hence when have internet scientists running in to proselytize their faith.
 

Leros

Lifer
Jul 11, 2004
21,867
7
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Leros
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: DVK916
+1 for logic, anyone who voted for the first 2 options clearly suffer from some profound mental disorder.

anyone that can prove #3 over #2 gets my vote for president of earth!

Sorry god isn't real, this is a fact.

Really? I am extremely interested in hearing your arguments proving the non-existence of God. A Nobel Prize awaits you.

I'd love to see you explain gravity. We can't but would you deny gravity?

So if I claim it's impossible to scientifically prove the non-existence of God, that means that I would deny gravity?? :confused:

You got your logic backwards. :roll:

All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.

Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.

 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: Leros
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Leros
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: TheChort
Originally posted by: DVK916
+1 for logic, anyone who voted for the first 2 options clearly suffer from some profound mental disorder.

anyone that can prove #3 over #2 gets my vote for president of earth!

Sorry god isn't real, this is a fact.

Really? I am extremely interested in hearing your arguments proving the non-existence of God. A Nobel Prize awaits you.

I'd love to see you explain gravity. We can't but would you deny gravity?

So if I claim it's impossible to scientifically prove the non-existence of God, that means that I would deny gravity?? :confused:

You got your logic backwards. :roll:

All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.

Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.

Science puts a theory out there for itself to quash. For a theory to by recanted (earth is flat) is for there to be one testable piece of evidence to the contrary and that theory is immediately discredited. The fact that we haven't found that evidence to disprove gravity, makes the theory law.

There is no rational basis for a supreme being. Irrational beliefs aren't subject to logical "we should entertain the notion since it's like A" arguments. Irrational beliefs are for crazy people.