[Discussion] Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[paratise]

I accept it but this darn thing does not accept me. I put my head in water filled bath tub everynight and have not grown gills yet.

//Srsly though :/

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[Bored38]

No, unless someone can prove to me that simple organisms had the information to become more complex to point we are at today or until someone can show me a species today that has genetic information that could one day evolve it into something new. Until then, I see no reason to accept it.

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

I hope you all know that monkeys are our buddies.

 

[Punk Hazard]

No, unless someone can prove to me that simple organisms had the information to become more complex to point we are at today or until someone can show me a species today that has genetic information that could one day evolve it into something new. Until then, I see no reason to accept it.

ALL genetic information is capable of becoming something new. What do you think mutations are? Also, genetic information becomes something new every time an egg is fertilized.

 

[YowYan]

Sure, I do. But I doubt it explains our species. There are way too many gaps revolving around the history of our species and way too many cover-ups of artifacts by the Smithsonian Institute that would completely trash our collectively accepted interpretation of our past.

 

[Bored38]

We're showcasing that the effects of Evolution don't have to be so apparent in the form of one species to another, but can also occur on a micro and minute level for us to understand it the same way.

What your describing is more adaptation than evolution. I can completely agree with adaptation but in this case yall are talking about a virus being introduced into a species and an adapting response to the virus by the species. With evolution on the other hand you have to consider that theres no new genetic information coming in. Using me as an example, I can never evolve into something I don't already have the genetic information for and as long as humans mate with humans theres no way at anytime in the future any human will take to the sky with wings for his survival if we don't have the genetic information to do so.
For that to even be a possibility, from the begining the first form of life would have had to hold every code for the future of all living things.

 

[Bored38]

ALL genetic information is capable of becoming something new. What do you think mutations are? Also, genetic information becomes something new every time an egg is fertilized.

There is no proof of mutations linked to the successful transition from one species to another. Thats fairy tales. However mutations show us time and again that they have a negative effect on a species and the species does not continue to repeat the mutation unless an outside force controls the enviroment. In other words in a lab and not in the real world.

 

[Multiply]

Sure, I do. But I doubt it explains our species. There are way too many gaps revolving around the history of our species and way too many cover-ups of artifacts by the Smithsonian Institute that would completely trash our collectively accepted interpretation of our past.

Freemasons amirite?

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

There is no proof of mutations linked to the successful transition from one species to another. Thats fairy tales. However mutations show us time and again that they have a negative effect on a species and the species does not continue to repeat the mutation unless an outside force controls the enviroment. In other words in a lab and not in the real world.

Mutations can have a negative effect, but they can also have a positive or neutral effect. If there is a Negative effect, the obviously the creature is unlikely to survive. But if there is a positive effect, then it is likely to survive better.

 

[Howard]

No, unless someone can prove to me that simple organisms had the information to become more complex to point we are at today or until someone can show me a species today that has genetic information that could one day evolve it into something new. Until then, I see no reason to accept it.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Bold:

By analyzing the recently-sequenced choanoflagellate genome, the researchers discovered another similarity between choanoflagellates and most metazoans--their genetic code caries the markers of three types of molecules that cells use to achieve phospho-tyrosine signaling proteins.

Animals depend on tyrosine phosphorylation to conduct a number of important communications between their cells, including immune system responses, hormone system stimulation and other crucial functions. These phospho-tyrosine signaling pathways utilize a three-part system of molecular components to make these communications possible.

Tyrosine kinases (TyrK) 'write' messages between cells by adding phospho-tyrosine modifications, protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTP) are molecules that modify or 'erase' these modifications, and Src Homolgy 2 (SH2) molecules 'read' these modifications so the recipient cell gets the message.

Without these three molecules to help our cells 'write,' 'read' and 'erase' chemical messages between them, our bodies would never be able to conduct the complex tasks needed to survive such as reproduction, digesting food or even breathing.

Other genome analysis showed that some microorganisms contain some of these molecules in small levels, but never all three. This makes sense considering these organisms don't need the tools to communicate between cells since they are made up of only one cell. What makes choanoflagellates unique, however, is that they have all three of these molecules. What's more, they have relatively large quantities of them in amounts commonly seen in larger metazoan organisms.

The researchers conclude that the presence of the full three-component signaling system may have played a role in the development of metazoan organisms whose cells could communicate with each other in complex ways.

"It shows how evolution might work," says Wendell Lim, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who was one of the authors of the paper. "Probably there was an ancestor to these organisms that first developed these chemicals."

Underlined:

You must be registered for see links

But these are just answers to your questions. You believe whatever the **** you want to believe.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Actually, the concept of species evolving and adapting has been there long before Charles Darwin, it can be traced back for thousands of years, and Charles himself gives credit to many of his contemporaries and predecessors in the Origin of Species, prior to which he already co-authored papers on the topic. I'm emphasizing his crossname because there were other Darwins in the family who researched the issue- which raises the question, how much one's preconceptions and background influences his science, and how much credit should we give to one person. Especially that things have gotten a bit more complicated since the 19th century. I've read that in the 1960s...or '70s (can't remember), much of the objection came from mathematicians who argued that there was not enough time for evolution. Recently I've seen a paper though that formulates calculations that allow enough time for evolution -with some corrections and crutches added to the theory. (And we're talking about macroevolution here, I've never ever seen someone denying microevolution as in viruses mutating, necessitating new vaccines to be developed).

I'm rather indifferent, as I pointed out, the concept has been there for ages, and it's been 150+ years since Darwin published his famous book. I've read some other books both pro and con, and I doubt this will be concluded in my life, and in any case, it doesn't really affect my every day schedule. I don't lose sleep over it.

 

[Conspirator.]

Yes, since it's all but a fact. Things such as changing the content of vaccines for the same virus yearly are all derived from concepts relating to the theory of evolution.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Sure, I do. But I doubt it explains our species. There are way too many gaps revolving around the history of our species and way too many cover-ups of artifacts by the Smithsonian Institute that would completely trash our collectively accepted interpretation of our past.

Wh- what?
Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor 6million years ago, we then diverged, became able to walk upright(homo erectus) and left Africa. Proto or archaic homo sapiens(us) have existed for about 400-450 thousand years. While modern man has been around for around 100 thousand years. After the discovery of farming and animal domestication, civilization and settled living has been around for about 10-15000 years. Don't think there's any mystery there.

 

[BLAZE]

No, but I'd expect at least some sort of noticeable difference between the groups.

what kind off difference to be exact,

 

[YowYan]

Freemasons amirite?

You need to stop talking about things You have no knowledge of.

Wh- what?
Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor 6million years ago, we then diverged, became able to walk upright(homo erectus) and left Africa. Proto or archaic homo sapiens(us) have existed for about 400-450 thousand years. While modern man has been around for around 100 thousand years. After the discovery of farming and animal domestication, civilization and settled living has been around for about 10-15000 years. Don't think there's any mystery there.

Only thing is, our bones are very different from the previous homo's that walked the earth. There was a jump in DNA somewhere down the line of Time. And then, there are the Ancient sites that are ao complex and scientifically advanced. Those sites and artifacts that have been found all over the earth leave many questions unanswered. If You dive into documents from the 19th and 20th century concerning sightings of certain artifacts and bones, You get to read how the People described these findings and how quickly they were covered up and hidden from the public. I say we barely know anything about our past.

 

[Multiply]

I'm pretty sure I could list some more, but you get the idea. If there isn't some intelligent being to actually guide the evolution, the sheer amount of luck and chance needed for it create the world we know see is just ... I can't accept it.

Alas, the crux of your disbelief. You can't face the idea that you are nothing in the universe. A mere speck on a speck on a speck on a speck. You can't face the idea that you and everything/everyone else weren't specifically chosen by some supreme being. Am I wrong?

You need to stop talking about things You have no knowledge of.

The irony is palpable. My rings would probably scare you. Take that how you will.

 

[Ryu Kishi]

You need to stop talking about things You have no knowledge of.



Only thing is, our bones are very different from the previous homo's that walked the earth. There was a jump in DNA somewhere down the line of Time. And then, there are the Ancient sites that are ao complex and scientifically advanced. Those sites and artifacts that have been found all over the earth leave many questions unanswered. If You dive into documents from the 19th and 20th century concerning sightings of certain artifacts and bones, You get to read how the People described these findings and how quickly they were covered up and hidden from the public. I say we barely know anything about our past.

So you believe in the theory of a lost civilization?

 

[YowYan]

Alas, the crux of your disbelief. You can't face the idea that you are nothing in the universe. A mere speck on a speck on a speck on a speck. You can't face the idea that you and everything/everyone else weren't specifically chosen by some supreme being. Am I wrong?


The irony is palpable. My rings would probably scare you. Take that how you will.

How is it ironic when I already assigned You to your seat on this matter. I have freemasons in my family and I've been studying this topic for the past 7 years. For the third Time; get back to worldstarhiphop and stop mentioning things You cannot comprehend ._.

So you believe in the theory of a lost civilization?

Theory? The proof is there. Ancient sites have been found all over the globe containing extra-ordinary understanding of astrology, agriculture, cymatics, masonry, etc. (masonry as in buildings). Other artifacts have been carbon dated back to close to or over 100.000 years.

 

[Karna]

As a fragment of a big puzzle, I still believe that everything we perceive is a shadow of something(very particular) else, and that bodies are houses souls lives in.
Actually I have a very good understanding of it too, but got no mutually acceptable proof so I talk like that, I know why things are the way they are in my head.

 

[Ryu Kishi]

How is it ironic when I already assigned You to your seat on this matter. I have freemasons in my family and I've been studying this topic for the past 7 years. For the third Time; get back to worldstarhiphop and stop mentioning things You cannot comprehend ._.


Theory? The proof is there. Ancient sites have been found all over the globe containing extra-ordinary understanding of astrology, agriculture, cymatics, masonry, etc. (masonry as in buildings). Other artifacts have been carbon dated back to close to or over 100.000 years.

But its rejected by most because people still follow the classical thought, and if such things were made public it will throw the world in to a frenzy. But people like to live in denial and cast such beliefs as fantasy rather then fact so it will always remain a theory.