More proof to evolution

[Sprafa]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=666435&page=1

[Raziaar]

Neat...

[Foxtrot]

Yah! Take it in the ear god! No one likes you! **** off and die god!

[Ikerous]

I don't think christians argue against adaptational evolution..
But Yay?

[PickledGecko]

Yah! Take it in the ear god! No one likes you! **** off and die god!
What does the scientific study of evolution and the origin of species have to do with the existence of God? I think you're confusing God with human created dogma.

[Raziaar]

I don't think christians argue against adaptational evolution..
But Yay?

Many christians don't even argue about evolution at all. My father's a christian but he believes in evolution.

I'm more and more leaning towards evolutionary opinion myself nowadays. But nothing of which infringes on my belief of god. Since its very easily and undoubtedly possible to believe that god is intelligent enough to create life that can adapt and evolve over the course of time.

One exception to this though, is humans. I don't believe we evolved from monkeys.

[Foxtrot]

What does the scientific study of evolution and the origin of species have to do with the existence of God? I think you're confusing God with human created dogma.
I was trying to sound dumb...

[Danimal]

If you are joking in a post, Foxtrot. Put a smilie (e.g. :p) or 'Just kidding' in brackets. It's hard to detect sarcasm through text.

[Ikerous]

If you are joking in a post, Foxtrot. Put a smilie (e.g. :p) or 'Just kidding' in brackets. It's hard to detect sarcasm through text.
Actually i think all the exclamation points made it pretty dang obvious...
That and who says "Take it in the ear" seriously :P

[Foxtrot]

If you are joking in a post, Foxtrot. Put a smilie (e.g. :p) or 'Just kidding' in brackets. It's hard to detect sarcasm through text.
Thats crampin' my stlye... :cool:

[Danimal]

Actually i think all the exclamation points made it pretty dang obvious...

I only see one exclamation mark

Firefox has a sarcasm detector.

It's version 1.9

You can download the incremental patch though if you already have version 1.5

I certainly hope your kidding

[Raziaar]

If you are joking in a post, Foxtrot. Put a smilie (e.g. :p) or 'Just kidding' in brackets. It's hard to detect sarcasm through text.

Firefox has a sarcasm detector.

It's version 1.9

You can download the incremental patch though if you already have version 1.5

[Ikerous]

I only see one exclamation mark



I certainly hope your kidding
There are 4.. XD Math not your first language?

I certainly hope your kidding
Lol.. Maybe its just you thats bad at sensing text based humor :p

OH yea, and um, evolution, w00t, cant wait till i get wings

[Raziaar]

Lol.. Maybe its just you thats bad at sensing text based humor

OH yea, and um, evolution, w00t, cant wait till i get wings

Thousands of years of sustained suicides by jumping off high elevations and flapping arms might develop this for us. Provided anything actually lived to pass on the genes. Heh.



I certainly hope your kidding

See. If you had the plugin, you might be able to figure out whether or not I was.

[Danimal]

There are 4.. XD Math not your first language?

...I thought you mean 4 exclamation marks at the end...

I had a screenshot and everything

[PickledGecko]

I thought he was being sarcastic, but to prove a religious point, that evolution is about disproving God and that was against his religion or somthing.

[Danimal]

Since that's settled, can we get back on topic?

[The Monkey]

Is there anyone in the world who still denies the evolution theory? I have never met one.

[jondy]

Yeah, a really small percentage of Christian groups in America are trying to push creationism in schools. It sucks, really, because it gives a bad name to the rest of their lot

[Absinthe]

Nearly every sane and rational person has accepted evolution to be fact. It's just the smaller details that need working out.

[Calanen]

The whole missing link thing christians like to carry on about is such a furphy too. Its like pointing to a hole in some rock created by water running over it and saying 'where is the missing link when the rock went from a rock to a hole' and you say 'well it happened gradually' and they say, 'Aha!' there is no missing link because 'Erosion' never happened. God made the hole in the rock. Not water.

[Razor]

Many christians don't even argue about evolution at all. My father's a christian but he believes in evolution.

I'm more and more leaning towards evolutionary opinion myself nowadays. But nothing of which infringes on my belief of god. Since its very easily and undoubtedly possible to believe that god is intelligent enough to create life that can adapt and evolve over the course of time.

One exception to this though, is humans. I don't believe we evolved from monkeys.


So why are we the exception, why couldn't monkies adapt and evolve to become better, faster, smarter, more intelligent i.e. human?

I believe in God and i believe in Evolution, i believe god created the Universe and created the ingrediants for life to begin and then just sat back and enjoyed the show and to see what happened.

[Eg.]

we need to ditract the chirstian groups away from evolution, say lets bring up abortion. that way scientists will have plenty of piece and quite as the groups wear themselves out on the feminists.

[Calanen]

One exception to this though, is humans. I don't believe we evolved from monkeys.

I've heard theories suggesting that the reason we are as smart as we are, is because of competition between each other for mates given we are pack animals. That is, you need very little intelligence to eat, reproduce - until u factor in competition from other members of the species.

[The Monkey]

One exception to this though, is humans. I don't believe we evolved from monkeys.

You're the first person I've ever "met" that doesn't believe that we came from the apes. Seriously.

Except for fundamentalists on TV/websites, of course. It was proved a long time ago. It's no theory, it's a fact.

[Sprafa]

I know someone who denied Human evolution (in the conventional terms) too.

And there this one guy around that denied it. I think it Shadowlands or something.

[kmack]

An interesting theory I've heard is that humans evolved from a water dwelling creature, more akin to a seal than a monkey. It would account for our stride and posture, and most notably the shape of our noses. Most primates (and land mammals) have open nostrils facing forward, our noses are better adapted to swimming as water cannot enter. While I do not believe this theory is true, just a nifty idea, if you want more info google it :thumbs:

[Kangy]

An interesting theory I've heard is that humans evolved from a water dwelling creature, more akin to a seal than a monkey. It would account for our stride and posture, and most notably the shape of our noses. Most primates (and land mammals) have open nostrils facing forward, our noses are better adapted to swimming as water cannot enter. While I do not believe this theory is true, just a nifty idea, if you want more info google it :thumbs:

Perhaps we evolved from Sea Monkeys ;)

Nah, it could just be that we needed to fish a lot (before we could efficently build nets and hooks) at some point in the past, and our nose has slowly grown into this shape.

[GiaOmerta]

Many christians don't even argue about evolution at all. My father's a christian but he believes in evolution.

I'm more and more leaning towards evolutionary opinion myself nowadays. But nothing of which infringes on my belief of god. Since its very easily and undoubtedly possible to believe that god is intelligent enough to create life that can adapt and evolve over the course of time.

One exception to this though, is humans. I don't believe we evolved from monkeys.
My beliefs are along these lines.

[gh0st]

I thought we already proved evolution.

[kmack]

I thought we already proved evolution.

so did i ;)

unfortunatly, many people point to Darwins THEORY of evolution, and use that as a basis to inject different "theories" involving God and trying to impose them into the public.

I think much of the proof of evolution (now and to come) will just be ignored :(

[gcomeau]

One exception to this though, is humans. I don't believe we evolved from monkeys.

Neither do evolutionary biologists. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common primate ancestor.

I wrote this up for posting on another board, but it appears it can be of use here as well:
===========================================================

Retroviruses

Retroviruses contain viral RNA, as opposed to the DNA in humans and other animals and plants… and they also contain a reverse transcriptase. What this means is that they have the ability to insert the complimentary DNA sequence of their own RNA genetic code into the genetic code of the host organism they infect. It’s how they reproduce. Example of a retrovirus: HIV.

Here’s how it works in a little more detail.

The virus infects a cell. It then releases the reverse transcriptase. The reverse transcriptase makes a copy of viral DNA from the viral RNA. The viral DNA then gets spliced into the DNA of the infected host cell, at a random location… so from now on every time that cell’s DNA is replicated the viral DNA gets replicated right along with it. In the meantime the viral DNA in the cell serves as the template for producing new copies of viral RNA. Now, while the initial insertion point of the viral DNA is random, in any subsequent copies made when the cell reproduces the exact same location of the viral DNA will be copied as well.

(Side note: The random nature of the retroviral insertion is one well known hurdle faced by researchers of genetic therapies, since if they attempt to engineer a retrovirus to deliver their developed therapy to their patient a random insertion could place it in the middle of DNA that was already coding for something else that was fairly important)

When a retrovirus infects a host’s reproductive system - and thus the copies of the host’s DNA which will be passed on to it’s offspring - it becomes heritable by the host organism’s offspring, passed onto them just like any gene would be. And again, the location of the viral DNA within the genetic code will be the same as in the parent organism the DNA was inherited from.

The Evidence

The human genetic code is huge. It’s over 3 billion base pairs long. The genetic codes of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc…) are similarly massive. The odds of a single retrovirus infecting two of these individual species independently and just happening through pure coincidence to randomly splice themselves into the exact same location in their DNA are, obviously, not good.

So if we were to find, for example, that an analysis of human and chimp DNA revealed a single identical retroviral genetic sequence at an identical location that would be extremely solid evidence that they had both inherited that genetic sequence from a common ancestor who was originally infected by the retrovirus… thus also inheriting it’s common location in their genome. Not only is this a similar type of evidence that is possible from analysis of other genetic information… but this information in particular is completely immune to being hand-waved away as being somehow due to “common design” of similar appearing animals or functions as IDers and creationists attempt (and I stress “attempt”) to do with other findings. There is no rational way to argue that a viral infection was an element of the design of an organism.

So, in all of our studying of the genetic codes of humans, chimps, and other primates have we found a case of a retroviral insertion in an identical location in both humans and another primate? No…

We’ve found multiple cases.

The odds of finding a single example occurring by coincidence are mind bogglingly bad. The odds of finding multiple examples occurring by coincidence are exponentially worse. They defy description. And for the final nail in the coffin (as if we needed it), there’s the pattern we find these common insertions in:

So far (with the sequencing of the human and primate genomes still far from complete) the primate species we share the most common insertions with are chimps, which all other genetic evidence says are the most closely related primates to humans. We share the second most common insertions with gorillas… the second most closely related primates. Third and fourth most common insertions = orangutans and gibbons respectively… also the third and fourth most closely related according to the other genetic evidence. Fifth most = old world monkeys… sixth most = new world monkeys… fifth and sixth most closely related groups, respectively, according to the other genetic evidence.

A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

The arrows show where the evidence indicates the original retroviral infection occurred. The hierarchy thus constructed just so happens to EXACTLY match the hierarchy of evolutionary relationships and pattern of descent produced by all the other genetic sequence evidence.
======================================================

That's just one among hundreds of examples of the overwhelming genetic sequence evidence that humans and other primates share common ancestry. It's simply not something which is subject to rational dispute anymore. At least not any more so than the generally spherical shape of the earth is.

[short recoil]

It dosn't matter what evidence you give to someone who is unwilling to change their view.

Someone who believes god created all could just say "god created it to seem like that" or "god made it seem as if things evolve"

We can believe what we like, i try to simply believe what is presented to my senses, as logically and realistically as possible.

[The Mullinator]

It dosn't matter what evidence you give to someone who is unwilling to change their view.

Someone who believes god created all could just say "god created it to seem like that" or "god made it seem as if things evolve"

We can believe what we like, i try to simply believe what is presented to my senses, as logically and realistically as possible.
heh heh, whenever someone says that I always think to myself. Well what if god decided to make us think the 10 commandments and what is contained in the bible are the rules we are supposed to live by when in reality he is testing us to see which of us are able to truly realize the nature of the universe and realize the lie he created.

[gcomeau]

It dosn't matter what evidence you give to someone who is unwilling to change their view.

Someone who believes god created all could just say "god created it to seem like that" or "god made it seem as if things evolve"

In other words: God is deliberately deceiving us by using his supernatural powers to plant misleading evidence?

Somehow I don't see that argument flying once any significant thought is given to it's implications... even by creationists.

[short recoil]

heh heh, whenever someone says that I always think to myself. Well what if god decided to make us think the 10 commandments and what is contained in the bible are the rules we are supposed to live by when in reality he is testing us to see which of us are able to truly realize the nature of the universe and realize the lie he created.
It could be, thats the thing.....
There is no point in having a stern belief that something is 100% unquestionably true, the mear fact that it is there means it is not 100% certain.

I have heard that with religion you must have faith beyond what is believeable or something, as in you have to believe with no proof, that is what faith is.

While evolution could be false, it is becoming more and more "scientifically proven" every day.
I mean even a christian agrees that a light bulb provides light because of a current flowing through it.
I mean i could question if the lightbulb is real or not e.t.c but then we get into all "matrix" style pointless thoughts.

I have had no "harm" come to me via my methods, i will continue to do so.

Overall, arguing is pointless.......you can never know the top level.

[kirovman]

God put the fake dinosaur fossils in the ground...

[jondy]

:upstare:

In other words: God is deliberately deceiving us by using his supernatural powers to plant misleading evidence?

Somehow I don't see that argument flying once any significant thought is given to it's implications... even by creationists.

Heh, yeah; 'they were put there to test us'

[willyd]

God put the fake dinosaur fossils in the ground...

Whatever, god gave Adam the colt pistol so he could kill all the dinosaurs.

[bvasgm]

heh heh, whenever someone says that I always think to myself. Well what if god decided to make us think the 10 commandments and what is contained in the bible are the rules we are supposed to live by when in reality he is testing us to see which of us are able to truly realize the nature of the universe and realize the lie he created.
There's just something about that post that I find extremely funny. I'll have to remember to mention that next time I go visit my extremely conservative Christian relatives in Tennessee.

[Laivasse]

That's just one among hundreds of examples of the overwhelming genetic sequence evidence that humans and other primates share common ancestry. It's simply not something which is subject to rational dispute anymore. At least not any more so than the generally spherical shape of the earth is.

eeeeih, I don't mean to sound like a yokel, but could you break that last passage down into english for us wearers-of-dungarees? :p

In other words: God is deliberately deceiving us by using his supernatural powers to plant misleading evidence?

Somehow I don't see that argument flying once any significant thought is given to it's implications... even by creationists.

I think that's missing the point. The idea is that no matter how far humanity can come to explain its origins scientifically, an omnipotent God could theoretically have created a universe which runs along the lines of what has been explained.

It may beg the question, why would an omnipotent creator create a universe that does not overtly hint at his own existence? Well, in that case there would be no call for faith. God would just be an indisputable fact. People would go about their business with a cheery wave up at the sky. If I was an omnipotent being, I'm not sure if I'd like that.

I'm not necessarily saying this is what I believe, just that these are potential arguments, and that Evolution does not preclude God and vice versa. Don't look to me for religious debate though, my faith in all things is waning.

[diluted]

I've met a lot of Christians who accept evolution but also believe in God. I went to a Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. It's just the fanatical far-right that seem to refuse to even consider it, and unfortunately this group wields more power down in the States these days. Apparently some IMAX theatres in the south won't even show movies containing references to evolution, because people there said they were 'blasphemous'... :|

[gcomeau]

eeeeih, I don't mean to sound like a yokel, but could you break that last passage down into english for us wearers-of-dungarees?

I did my best! You should see it in technospeak...

I think that's missing the point. The idea is that no matter how far humanity can come to explain its origins scientifically, an omnipotent God could theoretically have created a universe which runs along the lines of what has been explained.

But by the time we reach the point where we're speculating that maybe God created the universe with the amount of evidence that exists for evolution AND YET without evolution actually occuring we've reached levels of absurdity that, while not outside the realm of the hypothetical, are sure as hell outside the realm of the rational.

We might as well be speculating that God just makes it LOOK as if there's a moon orbiting the Earth, complete with very convincing visual AND tactile hallucinations supplied to those few astronauts who think they've walked around on the thing. Oh, and the tides. Is it hypothetically possible that an omnipotent supernatural being could do that? Yes. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to look at anyone who suggests it like they're more than a bit loony.

It may beg the question, why would an omnipotent creator create a universe that does not overtly hint at his own existence? Well, in that case there would be no call for faith.

A question I've always wanted answered: What the heck is the point of requiring faith in his EXISTENCE? What kind of a stupid thing is that to require faith in? And what exactly is it supposed to tell anyone about a person if they have it or not?

God would just be an indisputable fact. People would go about their business with a cheery wave up at the sky. If I was an omnipotent being, I'm not sure if I'd like that.

Because?

I'm not necessarily saying this is what I believe, just that these are potential arguments, and that Evolution does not preclude God and vice versa. Don't look to me for religious debate though, my faith in all things is waning.

Noted, consider those rhetorical questions up there...

[Laivasse]

But by the time we reach the point where we're speculating that maybe God created the universe with the amount of evidence that exists for evolution AND YET without evolution actually occuring we've reached levels of absurdity that, while not outside the realm of the hypothetical, are sure as hell outside the realm of the rational.

I still think you're missing the point of the argument slightly. In a scenario where evolution definitely HAS occurred, it wouldn't be beyond the power of an omnipotent being to have created that universe - a universe which runs upon scientific laws.

There would be no need for an omniscient creator to just magic everything into being, and then magic up evidence to cover his tracks. However the universe came into being, and however it works, an omnipotent creator could have made it that way.

A question I've always wanted answered: What the heck is the point of requiring faith in his EXISTENCE? What kind of a stupid thing is that to require faith in? And what exactly is it supposed to tell anyone about a person if they have it or not?

Deeper questions than you or I know! I don't suppose we have to like the situation, if it even applies.

God would just be an indisputable fact. People would go about their business with a cheery wave up at the sky. If I was an omnipotent being, I'm not sure if I'd like that.

Because?

Who among us can second-guess the decisions of an omniscient being? :p

Besides there's obviously merit in humanity being forced to study the rules of the universe in order to survive, instead of relying on the benificence of an indisputably proven creator. Why would It not allow us to subsist on Its good will? *shrug* I dunno, builds character?

Disclaimer: the views expressed herein blah blah....

[gcomeau]

I still think you're missing the point of the argument slightly. In a scenario where evolution definitely HAS occurred, it wouldn't be beyond the power of an omnipotent being to have created that universe - a universe which runs upon scientific laws.

Yes, but then in that case evolution STILL occured. Which is what the evidence indicates. Which is all we're saying.

I was addressing the claims where people believe evolution never happened, and just hand wave away all the evidence that it did with that never-to-be-sufficiently-detested "God working in mysterious ways" crap.

If God works in "mysterious ways" beyond your understanding then nobody has ANY basis WHATSOEVER for speculating about whether or not he did something a certain way EXCEPT to look at the bloody evidence of how it happened!

I just can't possible overstate how incredibly moronic I find that phrase when used as an explanation of why people refuse to accept painfully obvious evidence of something's occurance.

"Ummm... God works in mysterious ways that I can't possibly explain or understand... therefore I can say that I have a pretty good idea that he did this particular thing in a different manner than how it appears it happened, even though I can't say what manner that is.... umm, yeah. Prove me wrong!"

Every time I hear THAT particular reasoning I can't help but think of what an improvement it would be to the gene pool if the person employing it never reproduced.

[Maxi]

I think God, if he exists, doesn't want to prove to us that he does because he's sick and tired of watching us pray to him all the freeking time. I mean, sure it'd be cool for the first 2000 years but I mean common! It get's a bit old having someone calling you god after THAT long a time.

[Absinthe]

I think God, if he exists, doesn't want to prove to us that he does because he's sick and tired of watching us pray to him all the freeking time. I mean, sure it'd be cool for the first 2000 years but I mean common! It get's a bit old having someone calling you god after THAT long a time.

Heheh...

Q: Why does God like atheists?

A: They don't whine, they don't beg, and when shit happens they blame themselves.

[Cole]

God is ****ing mean.
I mean he plays with is like dolls.

God: I think I will send some people lost for 40 years!
God: Ooo ima mass slaughter shitloads of people! *WW2*
God: I gotta take a crap... Tsunami!
God: I think that towers really a telescope trying to find me *9/11*
God: I think my sons a dumbass! Die you ****er!

You see, god is satan. You see back before time began, satan pwned god and then he was now called "God".
Satan hates those who call him "God"
So when people call him "God" enough times he gets pissed off and kills people.
Those last 4 lines can't be proven wrong!

I'm athiest though, but I mean really... gimme facts, and I will believe. Science has facts, and ideas. Ideas that are constantly changing, and improving on what they say to eventually become a fact.

Religion is not constanty changing in what they believe.

Thus by my logical brain, I choose Science because it's what I trust. Even if science one day proves that god exists and he created everything..well ok then I still believe in science... Science is constantly changing and searching for the truth, it dosn't settle on something started thousands of years ago. It settles on the truth.

[kirovman]

God is ****ing mean.
I mean he plays with is like dolls.

God: I think I will send some people lost for 40 years!
God: Ooo ima mass slaughter shitloads of people! *WW2*
God: I gotta take a crap... Tsunami!
God: I think that towers really a telescope trying to find me *9/11*
God: I think my sons a dumbass! Die you ****er!

You see, god is satan. You see back before time began, satan pwned god and then he was now called "God".
Satan hates those who call him "God"
So when people call him "God" enough times he gets pissed off and kills people.
Those last 4 lines can't be proven wrong!

I'm athiest though, but I mean really... gimme facts, and I will believe. Science has facts, and ideas. Ideas that are constantly changing, and improving on what they say to eventually become a fact.

Religion is not constanty changing in what they believe.

Thus by my logical brain, I choose Science because it's what I trust. Even if science one day proves that god exists and he created everything..well ok then I still believe in science... Science is constantly changing and searching for the truth, it dosn't settle on something started thousands of years ago. It settles on the truth.

I wouldn't be so quick to believe any science, you need to believe things that have a good set of analysed evidence, but as we see from history even Newton's Laws have been proved wrong.
Things need to be looked at critically, with no previous biased judgement.

Although I believe in evolution: which incidently is just a bunch of random chemical events - the right chemical changes in DNA produce winner species which continue life and the wrong chemical changes in the DNA kill off species. That's why we only see species that are good at living in this world today (apart from species like pandas that are on the verge of dying off anyway). If you don't adapt/evolve to suit your conditions, you die, simple as that.

[gcomeau]

I wouldn't be so quick to believe any science, you need to believe things that have a good set of analysed evidence, but as we see from history even Newton's Laws have been proved wrong.

Newton's laws have not been proved wrong. They were demonstrated to be incomplete because they broke down at the atomic level.

You can still use them to quite correctly model the motion of any body that isn't the size of an atom or smaller...

[kirovman]

Newton's laws have not been proved wrong. They were demonstrated to be incomplete because they broke down at the atomic level.

You can still use them to quite correctly model the motion of any body that isn't the size of an atom or smaller...

Not only the atomic level. Relativistically too. Actually quantumly speaking it's only Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle that destroys Newton's laws.

But on the relativistic or quantum scale you could say they were wrong.

I agree you can use them for many things, everyday things, NASA scientists still use them today for launching rockets, or orbitting bodies.

I was just saying you can't take current science as truth or fact, as many things in a mathematical science, such as physics, since they will be proved incomplete.

I cited Newton's law as a good and commonly known example of this.

Incomplete, wrong, closely affiliated words, and I'm a physicist, not a linguist.

[The Mullinator]

Not only the atomic level. Relativistically too. Actually quantumly speaking it's only Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle that destroys Newton's laws.

But on the relativistic or quantum scale you could say they were wrong.

I agree you can use them for many things, everyday things, NASA scientists still use them today for launching rockets, or orbitting bodies.

I was just saying you can't take current science as truth or fact, as many things in a mathematical science, such as physics, since they will be proved incomplete.

I cited Newton's law as a good and commonly known example of this.

Incomplete, wrong, closely affiliated words, and I'm a physicist, not a linguist.
A big difference though is that in Science people expect new laws to be written. People expect to find new things that result in the old laws being thrown out. In religion however nothing like that is allowed or wanted.

The reason I believe in a scientific universe is that I know that the purpose of science is to seek the truth, whatever it may be. If it just so happens that god is the truth then eventually science will discover that.