Why do they presume for example, in a certain area the dead persons have swords in their body. OK, it is proven that they have. So, they said it is because of their tradition?
why do they presume its beczo of their tradition? it may be commanded by them by an emperor at that certain time....

 

I have moved this thread in the General Science section. In the Offtopic section, it is too likely that it will draw religious comments, which is prohibited. So, in order to "save" this thread I move it here.

You are free to enlighten Lightfire with your opinions, as long as they are based on documented facts, observations and logical induction.

 

It goes back to what we will never know. I had heard there is an effort to reconstruct fossil DNA from Neanderthals, if it succeeds it will be hard evidence.

Electricity is described as a theory, but it works pretty well. So does the Theory of Evolution, there is a lot of evidence (that people with other agendas tend to dismiss or ignore) in favor of it.

The fossil evidence shows the slow change of one animal into another. This is real, but because it takes an effort to study it tends to be ignored.

We can see the evolutionary mechanisms at work in other ways. In Russia there is an effort to domesticate foxes (which are valuable for their coats, IE skins) that is succeeding quite well. Foxes are not dogs, but they are closely related, if given a chance are loving and affectionate. Problem is, when you start breading foxes in captivity changes start showing up in their children. You don't see this in the wild. Mother Nature kills anything less than perfection.

Fact is, the evidence is all over the place, it archeological, paleontological, and based on current biology (both DNA and the resemblances between closely related species). There are documented cases of specification (where there was one, there are now two species) taking place, usually among birds as far as I know.

We can now read DNA as easy as reading code. We can also write it as easily.Reading DNA is beyond me, but this is a fact, though I understand the processes of reading and writing the DNA (I read up on both processes). An experiment rewrote the DNA of a well understood bacteria from scratch, and in fact was able to recreate the bacteria. These cells were made by man, using existing code from nature. The implications of that are pretty scary, and awesome.

I have seen it with electronics, and I see it here, if someone can not understand a subject then no one can. A moments thought shows where that is wrong, but it persists. By extension, if you follow the logic chain, it is all too easy to disregard evidence because you do not understand it.

 

It goes back to what we will never know. I had heard there is an effort to reconstruct fossil DNA from Neanderthals, if it succeeds it will be hard evidence.

Electricity is described as a theory, but it works pretty well. So does the Theory of Evolution, there is a lot of evidence (that people with other agendas tend to dismiss or ignore) in favor of it.

The fossil evidence shows the slow change of one animal into another. This is real, but because it takes an effort to study it tends to be ignored.

We can see the evolutionary mechanisms at work in other ways. In Russia there is an effort to domesticate foxes (which are valuable for their coats, IE skins) that is succeeding quite well. Foxes are not dogs, but they are closely related, if given a chance are loving and affectionate. Problem is, when you start breading foxes in captivity changes start showing up in their children. You don't see this in the wild. Mother Nature kills anything less than perfection.

Fact is, the evidence is all over the place, it archeological, paleontological, and based on current biology (both DNA and the resemblances between closely related species). There are documented cases of specification (where there was one, there are now two species) taking place, usually among birds as far as I know.

We can now read DNA as easy as reading code. We can also write it as easily.Reading DNA is beyond me, but this is a fact, though I understand the processes of reading and writing the DNA (I read up on both processes). An experiment rewrote the DNA of a well understood bacteria from scratch, and in fact was able to recreate the bacteria. These cells were made by man, using existing code from nature. The implications of that are pretty scary, and awesome.

I have seen it with electronics, and I see it here, if someone can not understand a subject then no one can. A moments thought shows where that is wrong, but it persists. By extension, if you follow the logic chain, it is all too easy to disregard evidence because you do not understand it.

I guess another interesting point would be, where do you draw the line between evolution and simple adaptation? Evolution is supposedly long-term, adaptation is supposedly short-term, but where does it change from basic adaptation to evolution?

 

Eskimos have 'adapted' to the cold climate by eating large quantities of blubber etc in their diet.

But they are still human.

Evolution occurs when system B forms from and replaces system A. Note this is different from system B coming complete from outside and displacing system A.

 

Eskimos have 'adapted' to the cold climate by eating large quantities of blubber etc in their diet.

But they are still human.

Evolution occurs when system B forms from and replaces system A. Note this is different from system B coming complete from outside and displacing system A.

It's also possible for a group of A to wander off, evolve to group B, and for group A to still be around, relatively unchanged. If group A changes significantly then that would be an evolutionary branch and there would be two groups B and C, with A relegated to history.

 

evolution happens when an irreversible change in DNA occurs on a population level. This is why there are strict definitions of what a species is. Note that some people will claim that being able to create a viable offspring is the key, but that is not true as there are many species that can interbreed. Homo sapiens and Neaderthal were one, or so does the evidence say. In DNA research mRNA is used often as it traces maternal lineage.

What I dislike about attempts to trace back human evolution, is that every new fossil uncovered seems to be the missing link to something. I say it is a working theory, it is true that we are evolving - with softer diets, our jaws are becoming smaller, and some people are already born without certain muscles that are accessory to chewing. So what awaits us is a future where people's faces are less expressive. Not sure how adaptive this is on the outside world, but in the world of tweeting, who needs to smile? Darwin based his theory on observing finches on the Gallapagos, since his time many studies were done on isolated islands, most support his observations in full. So all you have to do is extend your time base.

Why haven't my favorite creature changed in millions of years? Why sharks are perfect of course.

 

I guess another interesting point would be, where do you draw the line between evolution and simple adaptation? Evolution is supposedly long-term, adaptation is supposedly short-term, but where does it change from basic adaptation to evolution?

I think that is an arbitrary designation. Evolution occurs in small steps, not big ones. If an adaptation continues far enough specification will result.

 

My personal opinion? They were created as humans by a God, and they "evolved" over the years to adapt to the changing environment. I don't see why that's not possible. I don't believe humans are descended directly from apes and/or chimpanzees. I think they were just another species "evolving" along with humans. I don't believe this took millions/billions of years. I believe it only took about 6-10 thousand. Those are my beliefs, because they make sense to me, and I am comfortable with them.

So the universe is 6,000 years old, and the light (which has traveled 15 Billion miles) was created on the way?

This is not science. I respect your beliefs if what I said describes them, but it is religion, not science. Being in the buckle of the bible belt, I know many people who believe this. You go to other parts of the world you will find other beliefs that are held just as sincerely by other religions.

There are the dinosaurs and other fantastically numerous species, which is plentiful in the fossil record, and jives nicely with the geological evidence (of 3 billion years, give or take).

Thing about evolution, the evidence is extremely deep, numerous, and comes at you from many different directions. Particulars may be wrong, but the shear volume of evidence really is overwhelming. You can choose to ignore the evidence, but using creation myths instead of science is not acceptable for this thread.

There is a reason GeoRacer mentioned no going to religion for explanations and moving this to the science forum. As with a flat earth, it doesn't jive.

For the record, this will not devolve into a creationism vs. evolution debate. If you do not believe in science that is your prerogative, but don't bring it here. If you would like to review the evidence for evolution, ask. That is what this thread is for.

I am not an expert, just well read.

<snip>

Why haven't my favorite creature changed in millions of years? Why sharks are perfect of course.

That also describes cockroaches you know.

 

So the universe is 6,000 years old, and the light (which has traveled 15 Billion miles) was created on the way?

This is not science. I respect your beliefs if what I said describes them, but it is religion, not science. Being in the buckle of the bible belt, I know many people who believe this. You go to other parts of the world you will find other beliefs that are held just as sincerely by other religions.

There are the dinosaurs and other fantastically numerous species, which is plentiful in the fossil record, and jives nicely with the geological evidence (of 3 billion years, give or take).

Thing about evolution, the evidence is extremely deep, numerous, and comes at you from many different directions. Particulars may be wrong, but the shear volume of evidence really is overwhelming. You can choose to ignore the evidence, but using creation myths instead of science is not acceptable for this thread.

There is a reason GeoRacer mentioned no going to religion for explanations and moving this to the science forum. As with a flat earth, it doesn't jive.

For the record, this will not devolve into a creationism vs. evolution debate. If you do not believe in science that is your prerogative, but don't bring it here. If you would like to review the evidence for evolution, ask. That is what this thread is for.

I am not an expert, just well read.

Yes, I understand. I am not trying to push my beliefs on anyone else. I agree that some of it doesn't make any sense logically. I don't claim to know how everything happened, and I'm sure I never will. I don't criticize anyone who has different beliefs. I have no right to judge, and I don't mean to turn this to creationism vs. evolution. My point was that they could, in fact, coexist, couldn't they? They could be different parts of the same story?

Just another theory is all. I don't mean to offend anyone. Please take anything I say with a grain of salt.

 

I want to be fair to DerStorm and point out that his comments were before the thread was moved. On the other hand, it irritates me when members steer a scientific discussion towards religion. That said,

It doesn't make much sense to state that man evolved from man. Aside from being logically flawed, evolution is not only concerned with how species change, but also with creating new species. As stated before, man appears very late in geological history. In the age of dinosaurs, for example, man is nowhere to be found. The prototype for man is little mammals running around on four feet, underfoot of the great dinosaurs. We find evidence of early hominids thousands of years after dinosaurs disappear. The geological record shows primitive creatures who gradually walk upright showing up in sub-Sahara Africa about 3 to 6 million years ago ( depending, once again, what the definition of early man is ) So, according to the most current scientific thought, modern man evolved from his primitive form in the last few million years. It is also believed that man evolved from a species similar to the mere cat ( and not the ape, as the popular myth goes )

Also, the idea of a "missing link" is by and large mythical. There are dozens of transitive species that has been discovered and documented. There is no such missing link, though the 'granularity' will always be questioned by those who, for a variety of reasons, need to try to maintain doubt about the whole process. As to the classification of new discoveries, this is nothing more than basic science. It's extremely important and basic to classify new discoveries and link them to prior ones. This is how the historical record is constructed. Don't dislike this important scientific function; embrace it, for it is crucial for telling the story of mankind.

 

Yes, I understand. I am not trying to push my beliefs on anyone else. I agree that some of it doesn't make any sense logically. I don't claim to know how everything happened, and I'm sure I never will. I don't criticize anyone who has different beliefs. I have no right to judge, and I don't mean to turn this to creationism vs. evolution. My point was that they could, in fact, coexist, couldn't they? They could be different parts of the same story?

Just another theory is all. I don't mean to offend anyone. Please take anything I say with a grain of salt.

No problem guy, if it had been offensive it would have just disappeared. I frequently use a sledge hammer on the first poor sucker to step up to try to prevent others from repeating. Your forehead knot will go down eventually.

To me it makes perfect and complete sense. It requires lots and lots of time, which the universe has graciously granted us. I wonder how many planets could have developed advanced multicellular life forms but simply ran out of time, like Mars?

That first step was huge, and could have taken a billion years all by itself. That is, making plants and animals that were multicellular. After that things moved along nicely.

As we explore our solar system there are other planets and moons that may yet surprise us with life.

 

It has been suggested several times here that evolution is a gradual process of small steps.

This can't have always been the case.

The original organisms on earth breathed carbon dioxide, not oxygen.

It was a pretty dramatic change for the first organism that stopped breathing carbon dioxide and start breathing oxygen.

There is no halfway-house in this.

 

That of course assumes that all life evolved from the first organism. Probably not a good assumption. Evolution, most likely, is repleat with starts and stops, parallel processes, multi branching, etc.

It's been a few years since I studied it, but I do believe plants were around for millions of years before the first animals, and turned the CO2 rich atmosphere into an O2 rich one, which paved the way for animals to appear. But plant and animal evolution happened seperately, not one from the other.

 

Actually current theory does have a hypothesis. The first real plants (as single cell organisms, IE algae) changed the atmosphere almost instantly in geological time, say 1000-10000 years, in the oceans. It was when chlorophyll was created, which is a much more efficient way of using solar energy to create sugars. This sudden increase in efficiency would have crowded out the older plants that were not nearly so efficient.

The sudden rise in O2 would have enabled mobile forms to thrive, since it is a high energy oxidizer. This would have been the beginning of animals too, and the abundant plants would have provided a rich food source.

During the age of the dinosaurs the O2 content was much, much higher, allowing for giant insects and what not. At some point it is theorized that there was a massive burn, where all the plant matter lit off more or less simultaneously. Our atmosphere is in a constant state of flux.

The dramatic reduction in O2 may have had as profound and effect as an asteroid collision on the animal life. Even the giant dinosaur's may have required the supercharged atmosphere to thrive.

I got this off the Discovery channel, if you need references I would have to look it up.

I remember reading a suggestion that viruses are the earliest lifeforms, bare DNA in the primordial soup. They branched off very early indeed, and have parasitized off more advance lifeforms ever since the early oceans are no longer hospitable. It came as a surprise when I found schools no longer teach that they are lifeforms, they have DNA, they reproduce, they evolve.

 

There are dozens of transitive species that has been discovered and documented.

Are there? Could you provide examples? Because years ago I sought to find examples of all the gradually-more-upright-walkers of the classical "evolution of man" poster and found not one.

There is no such missing link, though the 'granularity' will always be questioned by those who, for a variety of reasons, need to try to maintain doubt about the whole process.

Again with the "if you don't agree with me then you're pushing an agenda" mantra. I've heard this too many times. Is it totally implausible to you that some may genuinely disagree, in the absence of a conflict of interests with some supposed religion?

 

Are there? Could you provide examples? Because years ago I sought to find examples of all the gradually-more-upright-walkers of the classical "evolution of man" poster and found not one.

I don't have any in my closet, if that's what you mean. They are part of the fossile record. Australopithecus as an example.

Again with the "if you don't agree with me then you're pushing an agenda" mantra. I've heard this too many times. Is it totally implausible to you that some may genuinely disagree, in the absence of a conflict of interests with some supposed religion?

That's total crap. I said nothing like that. You may not like my opinions, but this isn't the place to misrepresent what I say and who I am. If you want to flame, then I can go there, but I suggest you cool your jets.

 

That also describes cockroaches you know.

I am aware.

There are many scientists who are trying to reconcile the bible with the actual state of our world. For those who try, the key seems to be that God's 6 days are not our 6 days. And really, who are we to say how long a day is to a God? Plus, before he/she created the Universe, was there even a day to measure from?

Evolution has been clearly proven on molecular scale. Within our cells, mitochondria has its own DNA and has been traced back to a bacteria. And virus is one of the drivers for evolution as it can inject its own DNA into other cells. Of course it is difficult to see a human "poster" but for that I point you to what we as humans have done to the dogs in only fraction of a millisecond on evolutionary scale - all that from a wolf. Keep in mind that most breeds are not viable in nature and visually cannot even be traced to a wolf. Also, I will refer to some writings regarding punctuated equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould - he worked on trying to reconcile the very fact that there is no evidence of gradual change in the fossil records.

http://www.nileseldredge.com/pdf_files/Punctuated_Equilibria_Gould_Eldredge_1977.pdf

His essays in Panda's Thumb have been criticized but at the same time brought many topics towards the general public. The debate on the actual evolution of panda's thumb still continues as they study its structure and how suitable it is for its purpose. I for once wish we kept our tail, but I guess it would make it difficult to wear pants http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136

 

Make no mistake, Intelligent Design is just another way of saying Creationism. It does not accept Evolution in the slightest, which puts it firmly into the religion side of the argument. As such, it does not belong in this thread.

It is a thinly veiled attempt to allow Creationism to be taught in our schools as science classes. Any time a "miracle" is introduced, it is not science.

Please stop trying to introduce religious beliefs as if they were science, it does not belong on this thread.

This is the 2nd strike.

 

Intelligent Design is just another way of saying Creationism. It does not accept Evolution in the slightest, which puts it firmly into the religion side of the argument.

I have Christian friends who find the idea of Creationism/Intelligent design as big an insult to Christianity, as scientists find it an insult to science.

Not sure what my point is, but I found this interesting