evolution

[dill]

wot are ur views of evolution

 

Last time i think sounded a bit pig-headed or troll-like as i was put

[WITHTEETH]

First off a good scientists would probably say "evolution is the best we have so far".

It logically proves how we were created and also how we over came stuff like the black plauge, or why so many birds look similar in the Galapagos, but have speciafically changed to its surroundings.

Evolution does not say what got the ball rolling, why we started to evolve. evolution how i understand it happens very slowly. the sifting of genes over time. our body is completely new every 7 years and those genes get sifted each time we procreate so they are current. After a VERY long time you begin to see differences. You can see evolution today in a microscopic version with virus's and how they evolve.

So this is my version of how "species" were created. Its logical and can beproven with steps and numbers, thats all science is. If you can believe in math, steps and that the laws like gravity will be here tomarrow then you believe in science.

[dill]

I take you are talking about the birds darwin used to start off evolution in the first place.

 

This is were they had different shaped beaks etc. This sort of evolution is known as micro-evolution and scientists, wether they believe in evolution or not, usually say that micro-evolution is not really evolution at all. All different species of animals have a specific gene pool. They have all the genes organised for were they live. When these animals move to different climates, terrain etc. they're genes will organise in a way that can live in the new area. My opinion of this is that a "creater" created these animals to adapt to different evironments so that they can live more comfortably. I understand that you might find that very wrong but thats what i have found to be the best explanation for origin and basically life

[Child of Flame]

<Creationist Rant>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nope, that's evolution, on the only scale someone in the present day is likely to find evidence for it. That kind of evolution can take place in a few generations. Only people who call it 'micro-evolution' are 'Creation Scientists'. Thier 'research' is mostly taken out of context.

[SteveThaiBinh]

wot are ur views of evolution

 

Last time i think sounded a bit pig-headed or troll-like as i was put

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All languages evolve naturally over time, but soemtimes the rate of change is too great. This has been a problem in Japan, where the influx of modern words (often derived from English) has altered the language so much that some seniors are unable to understand the newspapers, let alone talk to their grandchildren. Has the language gap grown too great in English as well? Are we losing important knowledge of our culture from older generations?

[Oerwinde]

Didn't we already have an evolution thread?

 

Anyway, according to an article I posted in the other evolution thread, they had more evidence in China of evolution in birds. They called it a "ring species" where at the point of origin the birds were the same species, then they expanded around an obstacle(mountain), meeting on the other side after a thousand years or so, and once they met on the other side they were different species, because they had evolved to adapt to their different environments on both sides of the obstacle.

 

The same article stated that evolution has more evidence to back it up than gravity, but you don't see fundamentalists freaking out that they teach gravity in school.

[metadigital]

<Creationist Rant>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nope, that's evolution, on the only scale someone in the present day is likely to find evidence for it. That kind of evolution can take place in a few generations. Only people who call it 'micro-evolution' are 'Creation Scientists'. Thier 'research' is mostly taken out of context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution is more observable to us when we look at creatures with shorter lifespans: bacteria have a life cycle of approximately forty minutes, so they are ideal to study evolutionary behaviour. (MRSA is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and has come about from the decimated populations of bacteria that had a natural restitance to the drug -- Methicillin -- and have bred successfully in the environment that is toxic to less restitant strains.)

 

Also the drosophila melanogaster (or fruit fly) is used to study genetic mutation and the consequential evolution.

 

Genetically speaking, if there is a creator than that being is extremely lazy. The genome of a human shares about 90% of its (estimated mostly leftover rubbish) length with a potato. And about 97% with a lizard. The human embryo grows gills and a tail early on, before they disapear, and the legs are longer than the arms for most of the interuterine period, coincidentally () mirroring scientists estimations of evolution. (Don't take my word for it, go and read the Readers Digest Book of Facts: don't forget that the Readers Digest is a right wing religious mouthpiece.)

 

Human evolution can be traced via different techniques: the migration and evolution of languages being one recent analysis that agrees with the established evolutionary theory.

 

If you are interested in evolutionary theory, I read a book -- about fifteen years ago -- that is very educational for this subject called Timescale: An Atlas of the Fourth Dimension which I heartily recommend.

[WITHTEETH]

I take you are talking about the birds darwin used to start off evolution in the first place.

 

This is were they had different shaped beaks etc.  This sort of evolution is known as micro-evolution and scientists, wether they believe in evolution or not, usually say that micro-evolution is not really evolution at all.  All different species of animals have a specific gene pool.  They have all the genes organised for were they live.  When these animals move to different climates, terrain etc. they're genes will organise in a way that can live in the new area.  My opinion of this is that a "creater" created these animals to adapt to different evironments so that they can live more comfortably.  I understand that you might find that very wrong but thats what i have found to be the best explanation for origin and basically life

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your right, I do find that to be very wrong. :D

As long as you don't bring it into the classroom i will not mind that we have a difference of opinion. You take the leap of faith in believing in that there is a god, and in science they can not prove that there is one just like they can't prove that there is a unicorn yet. science class should teach science and church should teach religion. 2 realities clash but we can still be friends.

[Reveilled]

Genetically speaking, if there is a creator than that being is extremely lazy.

 

Oh, Come on. If you were all powerful, would you want to spend your time creating multiple evolutionary mechanisms for animals and plants such that they have a huge genetic difference? Maybe she has more important things to do than play with a universe with a mere eleven dimensions. Just cause she doesn't spend all her time with you doesn't mean she's lazy.

Now quit yer whining kid, or she might just ground you for an eon or two.

[kirottu]

wot are ur views of evolution

 

Last time i think sounded a bit pig-headed or troll-like as i was put

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All languages evolve naturally over time, but soemtimes the rate of change is too great. This has been a problem in Japan, where the influx of modern words (often derived from English) has altered the language so much that some seniors are unable to understand the newspapers, let alone talk to their grandchildren. Has the language gap grown too great in English as well? Are we losing important knowledge of our culture from older generations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eh? That

[Reveilled]

wot are ur views of evolution

 

Last time i think sounded a bit pig-headed or troll-like as i was put

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All languages evolve naturally over time, but soemtimes the rate of change is too great. This has been a problem in Japan, where the influx of modern words (often derived from English) has altered the language so much that some seniors are unable to understand the newspapers, let alone talk to their grandchildren. Has the language gap grown too great in English as well? Are we losing important knowledge of our culture from older generations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eh? That

[SteveThaiBinh]

Eh? That

[Darth Flatus]

Reveilled where did you get the phraseology of "rush hour"?

 

As for the evolution of spoken and written english, is it not the other way round?

As long as books and newspapers are printed in standard english then it wont change... much. To be honest i cant see spoken standard english changing much either (i have yet to hear a news broadcast or documentary performed entirely in vernacular)

 

What is worrying to me is when kids are completely unable to express themselves in formal written english but i suppose that so long as employers and examiners insist on a minimum level of english then it wont be a major problem... i hope.

[Reveilled]

Reveilled where did you get the phraseology of "rush hour"?

A book I read many years ago. It was about the history of the English language, but I cna't remember its name. I suppose it could have been an urban legend, but it would be no fun then.

 

As for the evolution of spoken and written english, is it not the other way round?

As long as books and newspapers are printed in standard english then it wont change... much. To be honest i cant see spoken standard english changing much either (i have yet to hear a news broadcast or documentary performed entirely in vernacular)

 

Well, formal written English changes according to the way people write and speak in the vernacular. Few people actually write or speak formal English, so the fact that the formal part of English may change very little, could mean equally little when it comes to how people speak in 50 years.

 

What is worrying to me is when kids are completely unable to express themselves in formal written english but i suppose that so long as employers and examiners insist on a minimum level of english then it wont be a major problem... i hope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't really bother me. If all the kids express themselves in something other than formal English, then when the kids grow up and run the world, they'll be speaking the same language to each other whether it's English, Swahili, txtspk or |33+$p33k.

 

Take heart! I'm sure the English nobles of the Middle Ages were equally worried when their children didn't express themselves in Formal French, and began speaking English instead. But life went on, and so did language and communication.

[metadigital]

What is worrying to me is when kids are completely unable to express themselves in formal written english but i suppose that so long as employers and examiners insist on a minimum level of english then it wont be a major problem... i hope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you can trace the abysmal grasp of English grammar back to the 70s, when the liberal establishment rebelled against the authoritarian institutionalised rote-learning of rules for pupils (things like times tables, spelling and syntax); preferring to allow pupils instead fredom to express themselves without being "stiffled" by rules.

 

I think it is plain to see that this initiative was a total failure, yet I think it is now almost (but not quite) irreversable. The biggest lament I have is the total lack of mathematics (specifically) and science (generally) literacy.

 

Most young people I meet are innumerate. Ask them to work out the division of a divisor into a dividend without a calculator and they have no idea where to start. Heaven help them find a cube root, or interpret statistics -- something we are expected to do regularly when digesting news and current affairs.

 

Most people wouldn't know the difference between a million and a (US) billion, for example. Here's a test: ask some friends how long a million seconds takes, and how long a billion seconds is. Using seconds is an easy way to give scope to an all-to-intangible number, because everyone is familiar with a second, and just over 11 days (million seconds) and over thirty-one and a half years (a billion seconds).

 

This extends into further education; most students do arts degrees at tertiary level, and most of those students wouldn't be able to name a single mathematician, let alone three. Yet of those who specialize in mathematics or science at the same level, there is an expectation (mostly met) that everyone knows (or should be familiar with) the arts -- from literature to performance and fine arts.

 

Why is this important?

 

How many politicians are totally innumerate? Controlling billions of dollars of public funds whilst not even able to understand the big picture, let alone examine the details.

 

 

Then try and have an argument with a blinkered creationist about science, when they have no grasp of the weight of evidence -- from every known discipline of science, especially from those where it was not expected nor looked for -- or even what "significant" means.

 

Reminds me of the cigarette company's marketing efforts before smoking became unpopular, when they maintained that "there is no proof that smoking causes cancer" because scientists could not provide a definitive causal link (mainly due to the inability to eradicate the many, many "contaminating" factors present in studies of humans which work against clean cause-and-effect pronouncements). Scientists are a cautious bunch, precisely because they do not believe they know everything. Fundamentalists are a dangerous bunch because, conversely, they beileve they know everything and it is the word of God (and therefore above argument).

[Reveilled]

What is worrying to me is when kids are completely unable to express themselves in formal written english but i suppose that so long as employers and examiners insist on a minimum level of english then it wont be a major problem... i hope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you can trace the abysmal grasp of English grammar back to the 70s, when the liberal establishment rebelled against the authoritarian institutionalised rote-learning of rules for pupils (things like times tables, spelling and syntax); preferring to allow pupils instead fredom to express themselves without being "stiffled" by rules.

 

I think it is plain to see that this initiative was a total failure, yet I think it is now almost (but not quite) irreversable. The biggest lament I have is the total lack of mathematics (specifically) and science (generally) literacy.

 

Most young people I meet are innumerate. Ask them to work out the division of a divisor into a dividend without a calculator and they have no idea where to start. Heaven help them find a cube root, or interpret statistics -- something we are expected to do regularly when digesting news and current affairs.

 

Most people wouldn't know the difference between a million and a (US) billion, for example. Here's a test: ask some friends how long a million seconds takes, and how long a billion seconds is. Using seconds is an easy way to give scope to an all-to-intangible number, because everyone is familiar with a second, and just over 11 days (million seconds) and over thirty-one and a half years (a billion seconds).

 

This extends into further education; most students do arts degrees at tertiary level, and most of those students wouldn't be able to name a single mathematician, let alone three. Yet of those who specialize in mathematics or science at the same level, there is an expectation (mostly met) that everyone knows (or should be familiar with) the arts -- from literature to performance and fine arts.

 

Why is this important?

 

How many politicians are totally innumerate? Controlling billions of dollars of public funds whilst not even able to understand the big picture, let alone examine the details.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interpreting statistics I can understand, but other than that, I don't see the problem. You said people today can't do these things without a calculator, but who doesn't have a calculator? For that matter, considering the widespread use of mobile phones (which all have built in calculator functions) who doesn't have a calculator with them at all times? And I don't know about you, but the idea of a politician doing the budget in his head is far scarier than that of a politician using a calculator to do it.

 

So what if we do calculations with calculators that people before us did in their heads? We go to the supermarket to buy fish where the people before us caught it for dinner.

[metadigital]

Interpreting statistics I can understand, but other than that, I don't see the problem.  You said people today can't do these things without a calculator, but who doesn't have a calculator?  For that matter, considering the widespread use of mobile phones (which all have built in calculator functions) who doesn't have a calculator with them at all times?  And I don't know about you, but the idea of a politician doing the budget in his head is far scarier than that of a politician using a calculator to do it.

 

So what if we do calculations with calculators that people before us did in their heads?  We go to the supermarket to buy fish where the people before us caught it for dinner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You miss my point. I use a calculator most (but not all) of the time, too. The point is that most people are innumerate to a lesser or greater degree. They have no appreciation for numbers, no idea what they represent. They have more idea about who is in bed with someone who can't sing, than the fact that if Jesus had been alive all this time, and played the Lottery every week, he would be about due for his first win. (Moses, on the other hand, would be due for his second.)

 

People just think all big numbers and small probabilities are identical, because they are numerically illiterate. Hence flying is seen as dangerous by a majority of people, yet more people die from donkeys every year than are killed in aeroplane crashes.

 

You can't have a rational conversation with someone about facts if the statistics are meaningless.

[Reveilled]

Interpreting statistics I can understand, but other than that, I don't see the problem.  You said people today can't do these things without a calculator, but who doesn't have a calculator?  For that matter, considering the widespread use of mobile phones (which all have built in calculator functions) who doesn't have a calculator with them at all times?  And I don't know about you, but the idea of a politician doing the budget in his head is far scarier than that of a politician using a calculator to do it.

 

So what if we do calculations with calculators that people before us did in their heads?  We go to the supermarket to buy fish where the people before us caught it for dinner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You miss my point. I use a calculator most (but not all) of the time, too. The point is that most people are innumerate to a lesser or greater degree. They have no appreciation for numbers, no idea what they represent. They have more idea about who is in bed with someone who can't sing, than the fact that if Jesus had been alive all this time, and played the Lottery every week, he would be about due for his first win. (Moses, on the other hand, would be due for his second.)

 

People just think all big numbers and small probabilities are identical, because they are numerically illiterate. Hence flying is seen as dangerous by a majority of people, yet more people die from donkeys every year than are killed in aeroplane crashes.

 

You can't have a rational conversation with someone about facts if the statistics are meaningless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And you miss mine. As I said, inability to interpret statistics I can understand is a problem, but all the other things you complained about don't really matter. Who cares if I can't find a cube root in my head? When in my entire lifetime am I likely to need to find a cube root? And if such a time comes, what are the chances the fact that I'd need a calculator to do it would be a problem?

 

Statistics, yes, I can agree should be more closely taught. I always thought that merging Arithmetic and Mathematics into one subject was a bad idea for education. What would have been a better idea would be to put Statistics into Arithmetic and make that a compulsory subject in schools (like English), and split the rest of Maths back off into a seperate subject as an optional choice, like things like Physics, Biology and Music are. That way, anyone who is planning on going to University to do a Science can take Maths, while everyone else spends all that ultimately useless time learning calculus and such focusing on statistics and arithmetic.

 

PS:

Pythagoras

Fermat

Lobachevsky

[SteveThaiBinh]

Young people today...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bu...rts/4575291.stm

[metadigital]

And you miss mine.  As I said, inability to interpret statistics I can understand is a problem, but all the other things you complained about don't really matter.  Who cares if I can't find a cube root in my head?  When in my entire lifetime am I likely to need to find a cube root?  And if such a time comes, what are the chances the fact that I'd need a calculator to do it would be a problem?

 

Statistics, yes, I can agree should be more closely taught.  I always thought that merging Arithmetic and Mathematics into one subject was a bad idea for education.  What would have been a better idea would be to put Statistics into Arithmetic and make that a compulsory subject in schools (like English), and split the rest of Maths back off into a seperate subject as an optional choice, like things like Physics, Biology and Music are.  That way, anyone who is planning on going to University to do a Science can take Maths, while everyone else spends all that ultimately useless time learning calculus and such focusing on statistics and arithmetic.

 

PS:

Pythagoras

Fermat

Lobachevsky

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are forgetting probability. But we could go on ... mathematics is not irrelevant! It is integral to our lives; some people use it more than others, because it is available for them to use. Ask someone how many peanuts in a jar, or some other conservation-of-volume question. Chances are they won't have a clue how to begin to work it out.

 

Mathematics doesn't just teach us algebra (I had a young adult ask me what the point of learning algebra was: "How often will I use it in my life?", to which I replied "I use it many times a day,") or calculus. It teaches us far more important concepts, like the beginnings of logic, whilst instilling a healthy dose of determination in pupils, to give up at the first attempt, if something doesn't work, then keep trying until it does. Also, just as practising running helps strengthen and improve the musculature, so too does the mental gymnastics of working out calculations in your head. It's healthy; not too mention mandatory tool in a skeptic's toolbox.

 

I would recommend "The Music of the Primes" as essential reading. It deals with the brilliance of Riemann's quest to create an equation to predict prime numbers. It also mentions Gauss (who was correcting his father's arithmatic when he was three); he had the rare gift of transcending the dry figures of mathematics and visualizing them in geometric patterns, like the Islamic scholars were apt to (and their frescos of tiles in mathematical shapes seen in Mosques).

 

Euler, Gauss, Riemann, Ramanujan: these were true giants of mathematics, without whom we wouldn't be conversing on the internet. Yet these were number theorists; they were not part of Napoleon's interpretation of the Industrial Revolution and the pragmatic mathematic imperative it demanded to teach military engineering, thus he created the

[dill]

I take you are talking about the birds darwin used to start off evolution in the first place.

 

This is were they had different shaped beaks etc.  This sort of evolution is known as micro-evolution and scientists, wether they believe in evolution or not, usually say that micro-evolution is not really evolution at all.  All different species of animals have a specific gene pool.  They have all the genes organised for were they live.  When these animals move to different climates, terrain etc. they're genes will organise in a way that can live in the new area.  My opinion of this is that a "creater" created these animals to adapt to different evironments so that they can live more comfortably.  I understand that you might find that very wrong but thats what i have found to be the best explanation for origin and basically life

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your right, I do find that to be very wrong. :D

As long as you don't bring it into the classroom i will not mind that we have a difference of opinion. You take the leap of faith in believing in that there is a god, and in science they can not prove that there is one just like they can't prove that there is a unicorn yet. science class should teach science and church should teach religion. 2 realities clash but we can still be friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually evolution is a religion aswell as there is no evidence that has been observed. Only speculated. The only problem with the evolutionary RELIGION is that it has no morals. Were do u think we got morals from if we are just accidents created from rock and rain

[Archmonarch]

Actually evolution is a religion aswell as there is no evidence that has been observed.  Only speculated.  The only problem with the evolutionary RELIGION is that it has no morals.  Were do u think we got morals from if we are just accidents created from rock and rain

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only possible response I see is: the blind are surely leading the (willfully) blind.

[dill]

ok donnie darko

i agree that so many people are blinded by evolution into thinking it makes sense

 

U r probibly one of them. Have you actually ever looked at any other view i.e. creationism. I wouldnt be surprised if You have just heard of evolution and believed. so it is actually you who is blind or single sighted with the view of evolution.

[Archmonarch]

ok donnie darko

i agree that so many people are blinded by evolution into thinking it makes sense 

 

U r probibly one of them.  Have you actually ever looked at any other view i.e. creationism.  I wouldnt be surprised if You have just heard of evolution and believed.  so it is actually you who is blind or single sighted with the view of evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, while the song "Mad World" was used in Donnie Darko, it derived from a late '80's, early '90's band called "Tears for Fears."

 

Also, I have studied the creationist view. Being Jewish by birth (although agnostic by belief), I was sort of forced into it by religious school. And I find the concept laughable that everything suddenly formed over the course of six days. According to you and others of your ilk, the fossils were placed by god to delude the non-believers. I cannot find any reason this is easier to believe than the fact that millions of years have produced various lifeforms whose remains were preserved in the ground. But let me guess, you don't believe in dinosaurs either, right?

[Reveilled]

ok donnie darko

i agree that so many people are blinded by evolution into thinking it makes sense 

 

U r probibly one of them.  Have you actually ever looked at any other view i.e. creationism.  I wouldnt be surprised if You have just heard of evolution and believed.  so it is actually you who is blind or single sighted with the view of evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have to agree with Dill here. The evidence in favour of Creationism is far stronger than that for Evolution. It's astounding that people still deny that Eris gave birth to the universe, and created humans fully formed on a boat in the Agean Sea. The fact that people are blind to this fact when the scripture in the Principia, which is Eris' divine word confirms it is mind-boggling. I mean, it's so obvious that She created it all, wouldn't you agree, Dill?