[Discussion] Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Multiply]

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 ._.

How have you 'assigned me my seat' if your only rebuttal has ever been I need to get back to WSHH? As if that's some form of insult to me. You keep telling me I can't comprehend this, when you have allegedly wasted 7 years simply not understanding anything about Freemasons. Which is why I call bullshit on your claim of 'studying' Freemasons. Watching the Zeitgeist: The Movie does not make you an expert on Freemasons.

I'll show you mine if you show me theirs.

 

[YowYan]

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.

True that.

How have you 'assigned me my seat' if your only rebuttal has ever been I need to get back to WSHH? As if that's some form of insult to me. You keep telling me I can't comprehend this, when you have allegedly wasted 7 years simply not understanding anything about Freemasons. Which is why I call bullshit on your claim of 'studying' Freemasons. Watching the Zeitgeist: The Movie does not make you an expert on Freemasons.

I'll show you mine if you show me theirs.

I never even watched the Zeitgeist. Pull up your pants, spit out the toothpick and get your act together.

 

[Made in Heaven]

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 couldn't be more wrong even if you tried :/ I don't believe in God because it helps me with my insecurities as you claim, I do so because I find it, namely Intelligent Design, to be a better argument than the Universe coming from nothing (lmao)

 

[NarutoKage2]

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.

@ bold: do you have any evidence for that claim?
Because , personally i dont see much difference in the fundamental properties of the bones here:

You must be registered for see links

Now, obviously not every ancestor homo that ever lived was going to leave fossils once it died, but the ones that did paint a very clear picture of the direction in which the evolution progressed, i.e quadroped to bipedalism, large jawline to small, gradual changes towards larger and larger brain masses(frontal and parietal bone). So forgive me for not being too mystified, we don't know the EXACT route, but the general direction is in no doubt.


And speaking of DNA, heres a quick summary of a very interesting experiment:

Every living thing has DNA, and a sample of DNA from 6 different living things (say, bannana, human, chimp, dog,horse and pig) are kept separate from each other and subsequently 'melted'. DNA is like a double helix, so those 'strands' or lines connecting it to itself are broken via the melting. The melted DNA's are shuffled(mixed), and left to cool down. And guess what? Every single individual strand of DNA from each living thing is able to bond with the strands from the others, not just that but the strength of the bond is stronger with the more closely related living things.

So, in other words, human DNA can bond and form a helix with bannana DNA, but form a much stronger bond with horse and pig DNA, and the strongest bond with chimp DNA(though not as strong as the bond with its own human DNA strand, obviously). Thus proving chimpanzees as our closest relatives.

 

[Multiply]

True that.



I never even watched the Zeitgeist. Pull up your pants, spit out the toothpick and get your act together.

Hilarious deflections are hilarious. Stop generalizing and tell me what you think you know. I vaguely remember you saying something about all of the US presidents being Freemasons. Go on.


Also, my offer still stands.

You couldn't be more wrong even if you tried :/

So then you're not being truthful or you're withholding the truth.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Where the heck did my post on the last page go?

So then you're not being truthful or withholding the truth.

nope

 

[Ryu Kishi]

I will just leave this here

You must be registered for see links

 

[NarutoKage2]

Where the heck did my post on the last page go?



nope

Didnt you ask for it to be deleted?

 

[Made in Heaven]

Didnt you ask for it to be deleted?

not at all .

 

[YowYan]

@ bold: do you have any evidence for that claim?
Because , personally i dont see much difference in the fundamental properties of the bones here:

You must be registered for see links

Now, obviously not every ancestor homo that ever lived was going to leave fossils once it died, but the ones that did paint a very clear picture of the direction in which the evolution progressed, i.e quadroped to bipedalism, large jawline to small, gradual changes towards larger and larger brain masses(frontal and parietal bone). So forgive me for not being too mystified, we don't know the EXACT route, but the general direction is in no doubt.


And speaking of DNA, heres a quick summary of a very interesting experiment:

Every living thing has DNA, and a sample of DNA from 6 different living things (say, bannana, human, chimp, dog,horse and pig) are kept separate from each other and subsequently 'melted'. DNA is like a double helix, so those 'strands' or lines connecting it to itself are broken via the melting. The melted DNA's are shuffled(mixed), and left to cool down. And guess what? Every single individual strand of DNA from each living thing is able to bond with the strands from the others, not just that but the strength of the bond is stronger with the more closely related living things.

So, in other words, human DNA can bond and form a helix with bannana DNA, but form a much stronger bond with horse and pig DNA, and the strongest bond with chimp DNA(though not as strong as the bond with its own human DNA strand, obviously). Thus proving chimpanzees as our closest relatives.

Our ankles and feet are less stable than those of our predecessors, for one. The skulls of our predecessors are thicker, more robust, etc.
If we evolved from them, which I'm not arguing really..just the process thereof, then it's an interesting observation that our anatomy had a jump in the opposite direction of adapting to nature. We are physically not build to survive in nature without using our god-like innovation.

You're right, it only takes A 4% leap in DNA to get from our predecessor to us modern homo sapiens.

As for the experiment; I've went through similar experiments a couple of times in the past and it sure is mindblowing, isn't it xd
Anywho, to conclude my point: My personal view is that at some point there was outside intervention. This might not be the case but then why is so much energy spent on keeping us ignorant about the history of our species.

Hilarious deflections are hilarious. Stop generalizing and tell me what you think you know. I vaguely remember you saying something about all of the US presidents being Freemasons. Go on.


Also, my offer still stands.

I said many. Not all. And you never actually bothered sparking debate on the topic of freemasonry. You simply ridiculed the idea so how am I supposed to take you seriously. And you've failed miserably calling out irony when the irony was on your part. How cringe worthy. Anywho, here is a list of a few of the American Presidents that were freemasons.

George Washington
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
James Polk
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
James Garfield
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
Howard Taft
Warren Harding
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Gerald Ford

 

[NarutoKage2]

not at all .

A mod deleted it.


OT: Kindly stay on topic, people. This thread is about science, not religion, not aliens and not freemasons.

 

[Deadlift]

Someone once stated that the proofs that prove the theory of evolution can stand in a table, while those that disprove it can fill 10 rooms.
Anyway I tend to believe it, also due to the fact that all modern science and medicine are built on it, but there are so many things that have to be proven that suggest us maybe life and human/animal presence in the Earth is not just about a mechanic and casual system called "evolution"

 

[NarutoKage2]

Our ankles and feet are less stable than those of our predecessors, for one. The skulls of our predecessors are thicker, more robust, etc.
If we evolved from them, which I'm not arguing really..just the process thereof, then it's an interesting observation that our anatomy had a jump in the opposite direction of adapting to nature. We are physically not build to survive in nature without using our god-like innovation.

Well, obviously. Our usage of tools reduced the need for our bodies to adapt to some of the elements in the environment, as others have pointed out.

Another thing you have to understand is,everything in evolution is a trade off, there's an advantage to , say having longer legs for a gazelle but also a cost. The direction the trade off goes depends on what helps the organism to survive, but it most definitely is NOT all 'improvement' in the sense of every single organ getting better and better. Slim legs would help the gazelle run faster, say, but it may also damage its knees more. So the genes for the slimest legs may not be preserved as well as we might expect, but a sort of 'balance' is drawn out instead and seemingly useful traits are removed from the gene pool.
I find it all very compelling.

You're right, it only takes A 4% leap in DNA to get from our predecessor to us modern homo sapiens.

As for the experiment; I've went through similar experiments a couple of times in the past and it sure is mindblowing, isn't it xd
Anywho, to conclude my point: My personal view is that at some point there was outside intervention. This might not be the case but then why is so much energy spent on keeping us ignorant about the history of our species.

It is. Well i don't think there was any intervention during the course of life(unless by 'intervention' you mean a meteorite that helped accelerate the end of the dinosaurs or sth along those lines), but its possible there was to get complex life started in the cambrian era.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Someone once stated that the proofs that prove the theory of evolution can stand in a table, while those that disprove it can fill 10 rooms.
Anyway I tend to believe it, also due to the fact that all modern science and medicine are built on it, but there are so many things that have to be proven that suggest us maybe life and human/animal presence in the Earth is not just about a mechanic and casual system called "evolution"

Big Table, very small rooms.

 

[Ryu Kishi]

Evolution is not wrong but it cannot account for a huge leap that had occurred we went from living in caves to building pyramid's

 

[Bored38]

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Bold:

Underlined:

You must be registered for see links

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

I'll reiterate, small changes "adaptation", I accept, but only to a point. Look at it this way. In micro evolution if the code you have for an arm could slighty be rewritten over time to become a wing, than for many generations until the change became complete, you would be at a disadvantage. As uniquely designed species have many different body mechanics that would have to also evolve simultaneously and perfectly for the evolution to be successful. The time it would take if it were even possible like I said, would put a species at a disadvantage and it would go extinct.
The link below is just one of many that showcases decades of scientific research that has failed to prove anything beyond adaptation.

My views don't come from a religous prospective either. Science has just been unable to prove to me that evolution is fact.
The fact is, that science has just as big a hard on for evolution as any religion has for its version of God.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Bored38]

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Bold:

Underlined:

You must be registered for see links

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

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.

The key word ^^ here is "may have".
Look I could really care less if we evolved or not. I hold no beliefs that would cause me any issue with how we came to be what we are. Theories are great and necessary to gain further understanding but leave it at that and quit tryin to pass evolution off as anything more because its not.

 

[NarutoKage2]

I'll reiterate, small changes "adaptation", I accept, but only to a point. Look at it this way. In micro evolution if the code you have for an arm could slighty be rewritten over time to become a wing, than for many generations until the change became complete, you would be at a disadvantage. As uniquely designed species have many different body mechanics that would have to also evolve simultaneously and perfectly for the evolution to be successful. The time it would take if it were even possible like I said, would put a species at a disadvantage and it would go extinct.
The link below is just one of many that showcases decades of scientific research that has failed to prove anything beyond adaptation.

My views don't come from a religous prospective either. Science has just been unable to prove to me that evolution is fact.
The fact is, that science has just as big a hard on for evolution as any religion has for its version of God.

You must be registered for see links

Have you read Dawkins(forget his atheism for a second) book 'climbing mount improbable'? In it he answers exactly those type of questions, such as what use is half a wing, or half an eye .

Let me elaborate. The eyes of many fish that live in the depths of the oceans are all but useless, as light barely reaches those depths. The survival value is minimal, so some species of fish have gone completely blind(such as the anglers). Now, suppose that our hypothetical fish were to migrate to more shallow waters before going completely blind. Some among the population can still discern things through limited vision, but it doesn't have to be much, just enough to discern the direction of the light(the surface) and the direction of darkness(the ocean floor). Now whenever there is a 'silouhette ' from the light side, the fish would escape to the floor as it may signal the presence of a predator. While a completely blind fish with no eyes would be at a disadvantage, and less likely to survive. Similarly in the case of semi formed wings, if in the environment of the specific animal it confers an advantage(say mammals in treacherous underground caves like bats) then it survives. Perhaps the semi formed wings served merely to aid the animal when it ran to evade predators, or simply keep its body streamlined aerodynamically even prior to that. So at every stage of development there was an advantage in having a slight more wing than none, and a bit of an eye than none.

So the genes for eyes and wings survive, and get replicated in the gene pool. As adaptation is a fact that you yourself concede, it isn't a stretch for it to lead(eventually) to fully functional eyes or wings.
Not that that really matters anyway, since scientists don't distinguish between what you call 'adaptation or micro evolution' and the much longer time scale macro evolution.The law of uniformity (w/o which science is impossible anyways) clearly states that observed phenomenon have always behaved the way we can currently observe, so there is no logical reason to accept adaptation and micro evolution but reject macro evolution, for a scientist.

 

[Bored38]

Have you read Dawkins(forget his atheism for a second) book 'climbing mount improbable'? In it he answers exactly those type of questions, such as what use is half a wing, or half an eye .

Let me elaborate. The eyes of many fish that live in the depths of the oceans are all but useless, as light barely reaches those depths. The survival value is minimal, so some species of fish have gone completely blind(such as the anglers). Now, suppose that our hypothetical fish were to migrate to more shallow waters before going completely blind. Some among the population can still discern things through limited vision, but it doesn't have to be much, just enough to discern the direction of the light(the surface) and the direction of darkness(the ocean floor). Now whenever there is a 'silouhette ' from the light side, the fish would escape to the floor as it may signal the presence of a predator. While a completely blind fish with no eyes would be at a disadvantage, and less likely to survive. Similarly in the case of semi formed wings, if in the environment of the specific animal it confers an advantage(say mammals in treacherous underground caves like bats) then it survives. Perhaps the semi formed wings served merely to aid the animal when it ran to evade predators, or simply keep its body streamlined aerodynamically even prior to that. So at every stage of development there was an advantage in having a slight more wing than none, and a bit of an eye than none.

So the genes for eyes and wings survive, and get replicated in the gene pool. As adaptation is a fact that you yourself concede, it isn't a stretch for it to lead(eventually) to fully functional eyes or wings.
Not that that really matters anyway, since scientists don't distinguish between what you call 'adaptation or micro evolution' and the much longer time scale macro evolution.The law of uniformity (w/o which science is impossible anyways) clearly states that observed phenomenon have always behaved the way we can currently observe, so there is no logical reason to accept adaptation and micro evolution but reject macro evolution, for a scientist.

Detailing the mechanics of how it could happen is not the same as proving it did. There are many long term scientific experiments that appear to counter the argument.

Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Detailing the mechanics of how it could happen is not the same as proving it did. There are many long term scientific experiments that appear to counter the argument.

Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

How do those research results disprove that evolution happened? In the first case, there was no major 'sweep' as you say, for about 250 thousand years. You do realize that time frame is insignificant on a geological time scale?
And the second experiment basically demonstrated variation(not catching on, being advantageous is irrelevant anyway) , what more evidence do you want? And I already explained that its always a trade off, not absolute improvement but a cost/benefit bargain. What's wrong with you lol.