Qusetions about evolution for Advanced Science/physics/biology experts.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In those cases I think it's more that they don't want to accept science than they are following a religion. Or it could be they only deal in literal analysis of the bible but that belies the reason the scripture uses metaphors. So I'm back to because they don't want to accept it.LJS9502_basic

Yeah, your right. I wasn't referring to modern chimps lolHellsing2o2

[QUOTE="deadpool86x"]

"Why are athiest people so closed minded about God only being that which is found in the Bible, or other written works."

joesh89

I skimmed through the post and saw that, so I'm out of here.

Evolution and the big bang theory are not related.

[QUOTE="Hellsing2o2"] Yeah, your right. I wasn't referring to modern chimps lolBumFluff122

Yeah it was a science program about putting an end to that agument. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, we both evolved from a common ancester. They also found a fossil that was far older then that.

And as my last post in this thread until I go play a game, expanding on my previous post in this thread concerning the evolution of modern chimps and modern man from a common ancestor and one not evolving from the other, it is also very possible thst a creature that evolved from another creature as well as that original creature to exist at the same time. Picture if a group of animals. Something occurs seperating that group into multiple groups without having the ability to procreate with one another. Each of those groups will be independant from one another and any beneficial mutation that occurs in one group as a result of their newer environment and holds won't be spread to the other group. Examples of this actually occurring are creatures like Ensantina Salamanders, Greenish Warblers and Larus Gulls to name a few. Basically anything that can be designated as a 'Ring Species'. If the original environment remains relatively static you could have the original creature still in existence as well as many offshoots that have evolved from one another to their changing habitat.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Hellsing2o2"] Yeah, your right. I wasn't referring to modern chimps lolHellsing2o2

Yeah it was a science program about putting an end to that agument. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, we both evolved from a common ancester. They also found a fossil that was far older then that.

[QUOTE="Hellsing2o2"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If it was a science show that was based on factual evidence then that is what they were probably referring to. An old argument that has since been put in it's place is "If we came from chimps why are there still chimps today?" This may have been what he was trying to argue against. That we didn;t coem from modern chimps but instead both species came from the same ancestor.

BumFluff122

Yeah it was a science program about putting an end to that agument. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, we both evolved from a common ancester. They also found a fossil that was far older then that.

It was a show on the science channel I think. They found a fossil that proved that huamns and chimps came from the same ancester, and not from each other. And near the end of the program they said they found a fossil that was much much older then the one that showed that humans didn't in fact come from chimps.

I know, it's difficult to keep a straight face when someone mixes up biology with cosmology. the_one34

You just can't compare "I'm a human, of the Homo Sapiens species, of the Hominidae, the Great Ape Family" to "I'm a citizen of the Cosmos"!

[QUOTE="the_one34"]I know, it's difficult to keep a straight face when someone mixes up biology with cosmology. joao_22990

You just can't compare "I'm a human, of the Homo Sapiens species, of the Hominidae, the Great Ape Family" to "I'm a citizen of the Cosmos"!

Evolution is not random.

Evolution is not random.

Yoshi25

[QUOTE="Yoshi25"]

Evolution is not random.

joao_22990

[QUOTE="Yoshi25"]

Evolution is not random.

joao_22990

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Er...how can one be closed minded against atheism. It means lack of belief in a god in simple terms. I don't see where theists are close minded about that belief per se.

LJS9502_basic

Closed-minded about the possibility that God might not exist is what I meant.

And the exact same applies to atheists. :|

Oh, ok, Now i understand. Sorry, was a bit confused.

Oh, and i apologize for thinking i was talking to someone who didn't understand what they were talking about. Guess how wrong i was.

It was a show on the science channel I think. They found a fossil that proved that huamns and chimps came from the same ancester, and not from each other. And near the end of the program they said they found a fossil that was much much older then the one that showed that humans didn't in fact come from chimps.

Hellsing2o2

[QUOTE="the_one34"] Evolution isn't random. What you've just described are mutations...evolution (mostly) depends on natural selection which is the very opposite of random. joao_22990

I would disagree. While we all know natural selection is definitely not random what leads you to the consluion that mutations are random? Everythign has a cause does it not? Even if we aren't aware of what that cause was there definaitely must have been a cause to force that DNA sequence to mutate that caused that genetic mutation to occur whether it's a viral infecton or something else.

BumFluff122

With natural selection, however, we've gained enough knowledge to understand it's workings, and can, to some extent, make acceptable predictions.

That was why i aked if we we're talking about predicting the winners or the contestants. If we know the contestants, we might be able to predict a winner with an acceptable certainty, but without knowledge of the contestants, we can't exatly predict their qualities. Right?

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]I would disagree. While we all know natural selection is definitely not random what leads you to the consluion that mutations are random? Everythign has a cause does it not? Even if we aren't aware of what that cause was there definaitely must have been a cause to force that DNA sequence to mutate that caused that genetic mutation to occur whether it's a viral infecton or something else.

joao_22990

With natural selection, however, we've gained enough knowledge to understand it's workings, and can, to some extent, make acceptable predictions.

That was why i aked if we we're talking about predicting the winners or the contestants. If we know the contestants, we might be able to predict a winner with an acceptable certainty, but without knowledge of the contestants, we can't exatly predict their qualities. Right?

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]I would disagree. While we all know natural selection is definitely not random what leads you to the consluion that mutations are random? Everythign has a cause does it not? Even if we aren't aware of what that cause was there definaitely must have been a cause to force that DNA sequence to mutate that caused that genetic mutation to occur whether it's a viral infecton or something else.

joao_22990

With natural selection, however, we've gained enough knowledge to understand it's workings, and can, to some extent, make acceptable predictions.

That was why i aked if we we're talking about predicting the winners or the contestants. If we know the contestants, we might be able to predict a winner with an acceptable certainty, but without knowledge of the contestants, we can't exatly predict their qualities. Right?

[QUOTE="joao_22990"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]I would disagree. While we all know natural selection is definitely not random what leads you to the consluion that mutations are random? Everythign has a cause does it not? Even if we aren't aware of what that cause was there definaitely must have been a cause to force that DNA sequence to mutate that caused that genetic mutation to occur whether it's a viral infecton or something else.

ProudLarry

With natural selection, however, we've gained enough knowledge to understand it's workings, and can, to some extent, make acceptable predictions.

That was why i aked if we we're talking about predicting the winners or the contestants. If we know the contestants, we might be able to predict a winner with an acceptable certainty, but without knowledge of the contestants, we can't exatly predict their qualities. Right?

I wouldn't call it chance. I would call it 'causes unknown' or something similar but it most certainly is not due to chance.

BumFluff122

Let me rephrase what i said, maybe it'll help. Maybe i'm not explaining myself well? I'm sure you've heard that if someday we find some planet able to sustain life, those life forms would be nothing like what we can even imagine? Like, how we are unable to predict what life there is on that planet?

I guess this is my main point. That mutations, not having a raison d'etre, are mostly void of a sense to a unified purpose. Mutations happen by various reasons, be it a retrovirus or cosmic radiation, but they do not exist to forward some purpose. They simply happen. Some of them end up being useful, and then natural selection takes it's place. But they're nothing but events. Random events, having no definite aim or purpose.

I'm sorry, but this is the best i can explain myself.

And no, i am in no way a creationist. But if you're arguing that the cosmos functions because it was, from the beginning, made to work, then i must say i do not subscribe to that though.

Now wait a minute. I'm not arguing against any of this. I don't think anything can be devoid of cause. But that does not help us in any way.

Let me rephrase what i said, maybe it'll help. Maybe i'm not explaining myself well? I'm sure you've heard that if someday we find some planet able to sustain life, those life forms would be nothing like what we can even imagine? Like, how we are unable to predict what life there is on that planet?

I guess this is my main point. That mutations, not having a raison d'etre, are mostly void of a sense to a unified purpose. Mutations happen by various reasons, be it a retrovirus or cosmic radiation, but they do not exist to forward some purpose. They simply happen. Some of them end up being useful, and then natural selection takes it's place. But they're nothing but events. Random events, having no definite aim or purpose.

I'm sorry, but this is the best i can explain myself.

And no, i am in no way a creationist. But if you're arguing that the cosmos functions because it was, from the beginning, made to work, then i must say i do not subscribe to that though.

joao_22990

Completely, and i by no means intend to disprove evolution, if that was what i appeared to be doing. I mean, it's not like i have a choice, either it exists, or it doesn't. There is enough evidence proposing it's truthfulness, so i stay by it's side. What i originally intended to understand was why the_one34 (?) said evolution is not random, when it's most basic agent, mutations, are void or aim or purpose, therefore, random. Then i understood he was talking about Natural Selection, and everything was ok. I really don't understand very well what took place after that, as you probably understood from my unawareness of this discussions point.joao_22990

borderline solipsist OP for the lose.

TC:

you could say that things make sense because of a logically sound reasoning being applicable to ratios. Problem is that whatever ratios you are measuring, their means for potentially creating an answer, that very answer, how it applies to the empirical, is completely nullified by the very nature of the logically sound reasoning applied.

The end result will only be oxymoronic science. You end up as well off as you started, with questions.

try not to undermine everything youre substantiating your own argumentation on within your own OP, next time :3 It´s a daft waste of time reading over.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Closed-minded about the possibility that God might not exist is what I meant.

chessmaster1989

And the exact same applies to atheists. :|

It seems you're correct. well, thank god (oh the ironing) we came to a conclusion. Always good to have a nice discussion. Also, i must praise you for being good at discussions, it isn't rare to see you in one.joao_22990