Where does everyone stand in regards to...

[endparenthesis]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,2:22)]AAAAAAHHHHHH!!! why does everyone keep saying it requires faith? it does NOT require faith! Just like ... EP? said, today's species only make up about 99% of the species that have ever lived in this world.(has anyone answered his question first answer his question!) so it's illogical to think that all the species that ever lived have been here at one point in time.

Not even a tiny response so far. *sigh*

Anyway, I suspect those insisting that it requires faith would question where that "99%" figure came from, and would say we're having "faith" that the figure is reasonably accurate, thus weakening our arguments somehow and freeing them from the pressure of recognizing the implications of what we're saying. Not saying everyone would respond that way of course, but I bet there's a few.

I'd say the difference between faith faith and scientific faith is that science has a rigorous verification process built into it. New ideas are scrutinized by hundreds if not thousands of people before the public even hears about them. Over the years they get tested, re-tested, and just generally picked apart in every way possible. Scientists have every reason to respect and follow these guidelines because they lose a great deal of credibility (or even their jobs) when they don't. In fact scientists are typically rewarded for uncovering solid reasons to alter existing theories. How many nobel prizes have been given out for this very reason? How many awards has the church given out to people who've discovered critical flaws in the bible's claims?

The minute it's in your best interest to find one result over another when testing a theory, you have an agenda, whether it's conscious or unconscious, well-intentioned or deceitful. Agendas pollute the pursuit of truth.

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. -- Carl Sagan

In a nutshell, I respect that rough 99% figure because I have an idea of just how much work has gone into validating it. If this is still considered faith, well, there must be many degrees of faith, because it seems some faiths have had a bit more effort put into them.

For example, we all seem to have faith that we aren't all part of someone's dream, and that we didn't pop into existence this morning with implanted memories of long, full lives. No one has taken issue so far with this faith. But the scenario is equally as plausible as some of the beliefs some people are utterly convinced of. What's the difference? Indoctrination? Popularity? What?

(That was rhetorical by the way... I give up on questions.)

 

[Treaqum]

Humans are still evolving. For example we are getting taller. The original colonists (The Spanish, English, French) were on average 4 foot 9. The average height today is 5 foot 10. Amazing what 300-400 years can do isn't it. See the post about the two subspecies of humans, or look at www.discover.com

 

[endparenthesis]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 22 2005,5:52)]Humans are still evolving.  For example we are getting taller.  The original colonists (The Spanish, English, French) were on average 4 foot 9. The average height today is 5 foot 10.  Amazing what 300-400 years can do isn't it.  See the post about the two subspecies of humans, or look at www.discover.com

From what I've read that's probably due to nutrition more than anything else. I think it got brought up earlier in the thread.

 

[Treaqum]

Actually humans could be seen to be "de-evolving". Living so close together leads to dieses that could wipe out most of the humans. Respatory problems, Heart Problems all that did not exist even a few hundred years ago. Oh it was there alright but the people died at an early age before they could reproduce. We are more prone to diese now. How many people have you met that have had dieses that became resistant to antibiotics and so stronger doses were needed? The fact that the people could not fight off those dieses by themselves and the fact that stronger doses of medicine were needed are very good examples of evoution. The dieses may be parisitic evolution but it is still evolution.

 

[endparenthesis]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 22 2005,6:01)]We are more prone to diese now.  How many people have you met that have had dieses that became resistant to antibiotics and so stronger doses were needed?  The fact that the people could not fight off those dieses by themselves and the fact that stronger doses of medicine were needed are very good examples of evoution.  The dieses may be parisitic evolution but it is still evolution.

I blame the disinfectant companies for that one too.

It's very profitable to make people scared of germs, and it's being taken full advantage of. The way people are pressured into making everything clean and spotless and sterile, especially for liability reasons, is a development that's probably less than a century old. As a result, people grow up with crappy immune systems because they've barely gotten any practice. Don't you find it's the people who are most afraid of being sick that get sick most often?

But yeah, I agree, we're making super-germs as a result.

 

[Treaqum]

Yes Fat Americans have a lot better diet but Nutrition is not going to give you over a foot of growth. Even in the Early 1900s the peoples height was not nearly as tall as now. I can give you proof though. On my maternial side of the family my Grandmothers side is short (5 foot 3 inches or less) my grandfathers side is tall (5 foot ten or taller). We have height reconrds since my family immigrated to America. My mother and Aunt are right inbetween my grandmother and grandfather sides (5 foot 6 and 5 foot 5).
We do not actually know if humans "mate for life" or not since we no longer live in "the wild". If we were to observe primitive-living humans with no outside contact we might be able to tell. But we do not know what other species have language so we have to factor in the "value" of the communication. In all animals either the male (mostly) or female (sometimes) is bigger. This is because the bigger one choses the mate. The "matey" has no choice what so ever.

 

[endparenthesis]

Hate to say it, but in a couple centuries, evolution won't give you over a foot of growth either. Especially in us (adapting environment vs. adapting to it).

I wonder when hormones started getting used in our food animals, anyone know?

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 23 2005,12:16)]Yes Fat Americans have a lot better diet but Nutrition is not going to give you over a foot of growth.  Even in the Early 1900s the peoples height was not nearly as tall as now.  I can give you proof though.  On my maternial side of the family my Grandmothers side is short (5 foot 3 inches or less) my grandfathers side is tall (5 foot ten or taller).  We have height reconrds since my family immigrated to America.  My mother and Aunt are right inbetween my grandmother and grandfather sides (5 foot 6 and 5 foot 5).  
We do not actually know if humans "mate for life" or not since we no longer live in "the wild".  If we were to observe primitive-living humans with no outside contact we might be able to tell.  But we do not know what other species have language so we have to factor in the "value" of the communication.  In all animals either the male (mostly) or female (sometimes) is bigger.  This is because the bigger one choses the mate.  The "matey" has no choice what so ever.

first let me say this it is NOT possible to "de-evolve".  evolution is NOT a climbing improvement, granted the diseases are wining right now and we do not seem to have many mutations that are making humans more resistant, but that is not devolution, devoultion does not exist.  

actully better nutrition, both prenatal and during childhood is the greatest contritbuting factor to our height. areas of the world that do not have good diets have average heights around what they used to be in the colonial days.  Also most childhood diseases have been eliminated or are treatable so they tax the body less allowing greater rates of growth.  Most people in colonial times suffered from some form of nutritional deffiency.  actully we do know that humans do not make for life, look at the rate of divorce and remarriage in cultures that allow it, that right there is an example of humans not desiring to mate for like because even though there is a social stigma against it people still do it which means there has to be a greater driving force.  although this is not definative proof, it is likely that humans do not mate for life.

also in most non-human primates the female, (the smaller one in most non-human primates) does have a choice, they chose whether or not they mate with the male because if they dont wnat to the females usally outnumber the male and since they are usally all sister, mothers, aunts, cousins, they will defend each other and often times run off the male if he is too agressive in trying to mate

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (endparenthesis @ Jan. 23 2005,12:27)]Hate to say it, but in a couple centuries, evolution won't give you over a foot of growth either. Especially in us (adapting environment vs. adapting to it).

yes i agree, plus you have to remember that adapting genetically to something is a very costly way of dealing with problems, since it requires the death of a section of the population that does not have the desired trait. plus what would casue us to "evolve" getting taller it would likely have not selective advantage in our enviroment

 

[Treaqum]

Please give me an example ktulu. Well the new-est new about Human evolution (I mentioned it early-er or someone did) is in Nature magizine about how virus's from thousands of years ago, their DNA has infused with ours and have caused major changes (From Homo erectis to homo sapien). Based on this it is entirely plausible that some virus DNA when it was coded made humans taller. I am not saying this is the only factor, Nutrituion has helped a lot. But if that was the case why was my Grandfathers father 6 foot 3 and my grandmother's mother 4 foot 10? Both lived in the same town (Manasquan, NJ) for most of their life. Their parents had immigrated to the USA from Ireland and Germany (Respectivly). But both had about the same assets and ate similar things. Explain that please.
Anyway I noticed that the Creationists have used the word "Faith" a lot and the Darwinists "Proof". I do not need faith in anything. Darwin clearly expalins everything he says in The Orgin of Species. Anyone can do the same experiments and make the same observations. Well the Carrier Pigions are exstinct now because of Humans but most of the species are still around.

 

[Treaqum]

Things do not evolve because they have too. They evolve because what ever parents had a reproductive advantage. A rabbit that can only have one offspring per litter will have a less reproductive advantage over one that can have 20. A great example is that moth in England. There are two types on is dark grey and the other some light color. In the Industrial revolution (Every thing was dirty) the darker one had a reproductive advantage because birds could see it less easily. Where as now or before I cannot remember the other had/has a reproductive advantage becaseu the treebark it sleeps on is/was a lighter color so birds could see it less easily. If human females all want someone taller then them tall men will have a reproductive advantage. Original hominids (according to the Discovery Channel) were about 2 foot five. Do not try to tell me that now we do not eat bugs and have a balenced diet so we are taller. Fine get some animal and give it a balenced diet. See if that makes it taller. Giraffes are getting taller because the the longer thicker necks have a reproductive advantage. They fight for females with their necks.

 

[herenorthere]

Of course belief in evolution relies on faith.  It's faith in the scientific method.

Evolution is like geology in that the time frames are long and we can't go back to observe how things happened or try to replicate them now.  No one's going to replicate the creation of the Himalayas.  And no one can go back in time to watch the deposition of marine sediments that became the rock of the Mt Jolmo Lungma Formation.  With no witnesses, but with plenty of indirect and circumstantial evidence, science tells us how that limestone formed and why it's so far above the sea, up on top of Mt. Everest.

Fossils in that limestone are the remains of organisms that no longer live, but they fit into the sequence established by thousands of people studying thousands of locations all over the world.  And that refined and tested sequence says the rock on top of Mt. Everest formed from sediments deposited in the Ordovician.  Radiogenic analyses, again by thousands of people looking at thousands of locations, show the Ordovician began about 520 million years ago and ended about 440 million years ago.

A mind boggling number of organisms appear and disappear in the fossil record.  But they didn't all appear at once and those that are extinct now didn't all disappear at the same time.  If you're looking to explain the data, a single creation event and a single extinction event don't work.  If you doubt evolution, you're free to do so, but the biblical creation and flood stories don't match the data.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 22 2005,3:44)]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 22 2005,9:42)]For a species in it's entirety to progress, some genes need to be totally out of the genepool. The fact that some people that would normally be considered "unfit" can still be married and produce offspring, halts evolution.

define unfit for humans

Ellaborate.

 

[Treaqum]

Forgive me for my rude-ness but I need to make a point. No the larger gender does have the choice. The other females may defend the one when they are together but not when they are alone. How else do you explain rape and other sexual acts of violence. Sooner or later that particular animal will be alone. If the female is being fought over it will accept the wining male because if it does not it will be forced to procreate with another male.

 

[Treaqum]

Some Archeologists have found out that the black sea was created about the same time as the Flood in the bible. If we look at the time period (Sorry I am not sure the period nor do I remember where I read this) and the expansion of human kind the flood fits. It would take months for the Sea to form from the part that broke between the two parts of Turkey. Much of the known world would have been destroyed. So that story in the bible could be true.
A_E you cannot totally get rid of any gene.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 22 2005,6:01)]Actually humans could be seen to be "de-evolving". Living so close together leads to dieses that could wipe out most of the humans. Respatory problems, Heart Problems all that did not exist even a few hundred years ago. Oh it was there alright but the people died at an early age before they could reproduce. We are more prone to diese now. How many people have you met that have had dieses that became resistant to antibiotics and so stronger doses were needed? The fact that the people could not fight off those dieses by themselves and the fact that stronger doses of medicine were needed are very good examples of evoution. The dieses may be parisitic evolution but it is still evolution.

You're right, but the word for that isn't de-evolution. "de" Represents a reversing of the literal process, which isn't what's happening. Even if we are going back to a more primal state it still wouldn't be called de-evolving because we are still progressing. If that progression is good or bad always depends. I suggest people stop using the word de-evolution, because it isn't a correct term. You could say "we are changing in a way that isn't making us fit to our environment" or "we are so far from natural selection that if we were sent back to nature we would all die".

 

[Treaqum]

Sorry about using de-evolution, was just trying to make a point

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 23 2005,12:46)]Please give me an example ktulu.  Well the new-est new about Human evolution (I mentioned it early-er or someone did) is in Nature magizine about how virus's from thousands of years ago, their DNA has infused with ours and have caused major changes (From Homo erectis to homo sapien).  Based on this it is entirely plausible that some virus DNA when it was coded made humans taller.  I am not saying this is the only factor, Nutrituion has helped a lot.  But if that was the case why was my Grandfathers father 6 foot 3 and my grandmother's mother 4 foot 10?  Both lived in the same town (Manasquan, NJ) for most of their life.  Their parents had immigrated to the USA from Ireland and Germany (Respectivly).  But both had about the same assets and ate similar things.  Explain that please.

examples of what?

i have not seen this virus DNA theory but how do they propose that it changed human DNA from homo erectus, we dont have any home erectus DNA to compare it too. the only prob with the virus DNA theory making humans taller is how would it have impacted the entire human population(as you seem to imply it did) all at the same time and suddenly come poping up once nutrition got better.

as for your grandparents, what about trama, their mothers diet, childhood diseases, natural varition, the height of their parents, all of these factors and more affect the final height someone will grow too. also nutrition is not ate simliar things its did they both have a balanced diet, there are so many factors that affect height its hard to say with out all of this information.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 22 2005,7:06)]Some Archeologists have found out that the black sea was created about the same time as the Flood in the bible. If we look at the time period (Sorry I am not sure the period nor do I remember where I read this) and the expansion of human kind the flood fits. It would take months for the Sea to form from the part that broke between the two parts of Turkey. Much of the known world would have been destroyed. So that story in the bible could be true.
A_E you cannot totally get rid of any gene.

Sorry, that wasn't what i meant. I meant when a part of the species doesn't have a certain gene, that would be less fit than a new gene in the genepool other members of the species contain, it should soon die if it doesn't aquire the let's say necessary gene.

When it comes to human, it doesn't matter if one person has one gene thats advantegous over another person, because we aren't in nature and nature isn't filtering out the humans that don't have the necessary gene.

We don't have natural selection at all. Period. It's gone.

The only thing that we do have is sexual selection which is now so flexible that anyone who wants to procreate can.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 23 2005,1:01)]Forgive me for my rude-ness but I need to make a point.  No the larger gender does have the choice.  The other females may defend the one when they are together but not when they are alone.  How else do you explain rape and other sexual acts of violence.  Sooner or later that particular animal will be alone.  If the female is being fought over it will accept the wining male because if it does not it will be forced to procreate with another male.

what animal are we talking about? i have seen evidence that in baboons that if a male is overly agressive with females it can end with him sustaining some serious injury. although your right sexual violence does happen in non-human primates however it does not have as much likelyhood of producing offspring. the winning male is viewed as more fit so of couse she would chose the one that won in the fight, also he will be more able to protect her young which is another factor that helps to influnce mate choice in non-human primates.