Printable View
this is true but only due to our modern medicene because you can see that we did evolve due to sicle cell anemia, which holds a direct relation to malaria but due to vaccines and iron lungs and stuff like that our only hope for survival is genetics, if there was any hope at all, considering that if you do beleive in evoloution, that would mean that about 98% of all species that ever lived are extinctQuote:
The only thing I am sure of is that humans do not evolve,
Going to have to ask you where in the world did you ever get THAT information from?
the sickle cell anemia is the form of a double allele that when someone has the dominant and recessive they are immune to malaria, but if one has two dominants then they have sickle cell anemia, and the statistic i got from my biology book a couple years back....., ill look for a link and then edit my post later, im kinda lazy right now
Effigy's right, sort of, but this applies only to localised areas, mostly in central Africa and Asia. It isn't about the advancement of the human race, but the survival of humans in a particular environment.
You must remember the following: This is not about "dominant" and "recessive" genes. They are codominant. This means that if both types of genes are present, they will both show to equal degree, interspersed amongst another. Think of it as a roan cow, compared to its red and white parents. Each hair is either red or white, but the overall effect is a sort of pink-brown colour. I don't know how far this analogy will get me with those who live outside of a rural community like myself...
Due to a mutation of a single gene involved in haemoglobin production, sickle cells are irregular, spiky red blood cells that clump together and aren't as efficent in carrying oxygen. If this occurs homozygously, then the human will be extremely ill and most likely die at some point as a result of blood anaemia. If it is heterozygous, however, there is a mixture of spiky cells and normal cells. Someone who is heterozygous, who has received both the normal and the sickle cell genes from parents, will not suffer any negative effects from the disease except in areas of low oxygen, such as in high mountains. On the other hand, they will reap some benefits from the condition.
There is a direct correlation between the presence of sickle cell disease and a certain type of mosquito that carries a nasty type of malaria. This malaria can be fatal within days of being bitten by the mosquito. Because the spiky cells have low potassium levels, the malaria cells die before being able to inflict the disease on the bitten humans.
So basically, in afflicted areas, if you have only normal cells, you will probably die. If you have only sickle cells, you will probably die. Due to chance, a combination of the two will save your life. Hence why this mutation is given as an example of evolution. Creatonists manipulated the fact that sickle cell disease was promoted as an example of evolution, saying something along the lines of "Evolutionists are insane! They claim that sickle cell disease is an example of evolution, when it really kills you!" which they follow with a list of the horrible effects of receiving the homozygous sickle cell allele. Hence my dislike for creationist "scientists," whose works I have read and thoroughly disproved without bothering to buy. I'm not going to fund the next assualt on knowledge.
EGGO, I'm kind of surprised. This is one of the most famous case studies for this sort of thing, the reason why creationists pounce on it, manipulate it and try and make it look as silly as what they believe in.
Dude who says religious text should be taught in schools instead of scientific reason: why? It is up to you, or your family, to decide about matters of spirituality. The classroom is supposed to be a secular place made for learning facts, not religious instruction. Religious freedom of choice is an important thing, and no particular theology should be forced upon you if you do not wish it. If you really want the religious fascism of the sort you seem to ask for, look to Iran for hints as to how you would set it up.
The problems some people have with pepper moth and bacterial evidence is that there is no mutation involved, simply the survival of the strongest in a pool passing on their traits. Sniperdude brought up a popular argument from this side of the divide: in these cited examples of survival of the fittest, there is only the passing on of traits that are already present in the species. Darwinism is from a time ignorant of chromosomes. In your example, EGGO, of long hair being more popular than short hair in a cold climate, Sniperthing does have a valid point and should not be ignored: this would only be convincing (and evolutionarily relevant) if the rabbits were instead bald skinks and suddenly mutated hair in order to cope with the environment they grew up in. Nowhere in examples such as these does the organism suddenly gain wings, or have such an altered chromosome count that it is impossible to produce viable offspring with others of ancestrally related blood. This is why they don't believe there is evidence of evolution, because a process of millions of years cannot be condensed into a four week experiment. That is, of course, entirely the point. This is why we have the fossil record. Creationists have said the following about dinosaur bones: they were either buried by Satan in order to trick humans into evolutionary atheism, or geckos who grew very large as they reached ages common in biblical times. Biblically sound, but with some actual thought involved, laughable. The same goes for all "common sense," such as the earth being the centre of the solar system.
To Xaenn, who only believes that knowledge should be sought if it has immediately apparent practical benefits: ew. Ew ew ew ew ew. Ewwwwww.
Kthx.
So I might've gotten a bit off track with that last post...and should go back to the statement before it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Onestroke
I don't have interest in science which is just theory without enough evidence to be proven or applied. Better?
I have to disagree with what Isaac Asimov said because I have a very strong feeling Ziegfried had a hand in creating god, or maybe more than his hand:P
Anyway, not talking about Skinner's reproductive capabilities and coming back to the topic...why does God have to be proven to exist? Are we as humans so lost as souls that we need an equation to explain how we are related to our Gods? I am not talking about a Jesus or an Allah here, I'm talking about the things that people like them represent nand symbolize.Humanity, kindness, generosity...blah, blah, blah...these people hardly said anything that we today perceive and practice as our religion. That's why I said at the beginning too, that God and religion are two different things. I know many here would think I'm barking mad, but that's my pov.
What Muslims follow today in the name of god is a farce to what the kuran said, the same goes for the Church or even Hinduism. I know people would want me dead for saying that, but it's true. Today, the right wing in my country wants a Hindu state and then they claim to be better than Pakistan. My point is, the evolution of religion has far digressed off the actual teachings of God. And thus for us to follow a religion, we don't have to goddamn believe in a God, or even prove he exists, because by trying to conquer lands and ramming planes into buildings in his name we've pretty much proven that he's as believable as a Peter Pan, so why do people who believe in religion want to prove the existence of God?
And for aethists, why do you want to prove that God doesn't exist...just because you believe that Allah was right to say that "love all with peace", does it mean you're a Muslim?
I know I'm offending alot of people who find faith in their religion and thus their respective gods, however, I'm trying to make a very radical point here, that the idea or religion and God are separate and it is the blurring of the lines that separate them, that leads to killing/war/rape/murders/atrocities in the name of God (or what s/he said, because no one you worship says- "It's ok to kill" and if you do worship someone like that, then you're a murderer, not a follower of God.)
There is a reason why terrorists like Bin Laden are referred to as "One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter", it's because, he gives the people an opiate to fight, he arms them with a falsified claim of pleasing Allah with blood.
Well thats exactly the kind of science which needs an interest and further research, to either fully discredit it or gain some real understanding from it. Ignoring theory is a waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
What would be the point in only ever learning what is proven fact? Would knowledge ever evolve if we only learned old facts. No. We wouldnt ever even have come to our current level of understanding and tecnology if we just believed god did whatever we can't explain and never bothered to research it.
edit: sorry I kind of assumed you believe in evolution of knowledge.
Blah, I can't type. There should be a which will NEVER have enough evidence to be proven or applied. Well, if you're talking about evolution in particular I say that because it can NEVER be proven. But elsewhere, yeah, it makes a lot of sense to study what we don't know...because that's really what you do with Science. Go where you haven't gone before. But short of living millions of years or inventing a time machine, evolution doesn't have a chance of been proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norgus
Dingy: God doesn't have to be proven to exist. It's faith afterall. And in the way we act, it shouldn't matter whether or not God exists, because it should be the right way to act regardless. I myself put a lot more value on the teachings...because to me that is what is really important. Not following a God to (perceived) salvation...
I act the way I think I should in situations, I used to be very violent and fight all the time, but I have mellowed a lot. If there is a heaven, unless not believing in god sends you to hell, then I think I would go there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
I enjoy the pursuit of knowledge, and if presented with a pretty red apple of intellect + 10. Well, I'd eat it. I'd rather not be a glum and despondent farmer, toiling the land for the rest of eternity. Then again, I'd be so stupid I wouldn't know any better.
A utopian world ( heaven ) in which all of our needs are tended too? Might be a pretty boring place. A religion trying to teach that material needs are not important and that your fellow man is worthy of your time, yet welcomes the idea of a glorious heaven.. where everyone has a mansion and what not. Its selfish. Ever notice regional belief systems closely resemble their local drug of choice. Eastern religions are more self enlightening, with drugs that mellow you out. Western religions are more forward and brash ( offensively bold ) just like alcohol, or some stimulant drugs.
Omen
Quote:
Originally Posted by EffigyOfDoom
I think the fact that we have useless organs and limbs might have been things that didn't evolve right, I don't remember the name (Pancreas maybe? Don't remember), but an organ is useless, and your pinky is never used either.
no we have useless organs, because either god was high, or could see really really far into the future(because we migt need them later....), or they never hurt us in any way and so natural selection has no real reason to remove them, and so they stay
It's possible that there is some wierd use we don't know of for some of the organs...Not saying there is, but it's possible.
Who said heaven is anything like this world? You need to realize it's very doubtful that we would still have material bodies, and if we did, even less doubtful that they would be the bodies that we have now. So that is you yourself thinking that it would be a material place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omen
I learned this a really long time ago, but I believe scientists think that the useless organ was used for living underwater, and they didn't know about that organ being useless when they made the theory of evolution (I think, like I said, learned about it a long time ago), and they say we evolved from fish... Coincidence, I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by EffigyOfDoom
Sorry if I made any mistakes with the stuff there, I learned this a while ago, and I don't care enough about it to research.
well actually one of the most prominent theories of how we got here is that amino acids were created by the carbon rich atmosphere of early earth and lightning, which was reproduced in many labs throughout the world, and then viri evolved, and from there bacteria came forth, and they changed the atmosphere into the nitrogen rich one we have today, and finally we evolved from these bacteria after going through various forms, that where the we came from fish comes from, and that is your stupid human theory for the day....