Today in Evolution

[TsunadeChic]

First, I'd like to say, I mean no one an ounce of offense by what I'm about to say. Please do not read as such, and if you are quick to be offended, please just walk away right now.

Today, at work, I went online to MSNBC.com to check the news- I like to be well informed.

Well, apparently, soon in Kansas, Evolution will no longer be taught in public schools. The new way is Intelligent design.

So, yeah..... instead of teaching what Darwin thought, and I believe was pretty dead on about- the idea that nature causes things to adapt..... kids in Kansas will learn that well, hell, we just don't know what's a-goin' on. Could be that the world was just God's booger.

I don't know, have people LOST THEIR MIND?!?!?!? In my humble opinion, isn't the constitution supposed to protect all of us from stuff just like that???

I believe in God, but I also choose to think. One quote: "God gave us a brain, why wouldn't he want us to use it?"

What are your reactions to this news? And is anyone seriously starting to think of relocating to someplace more sane, say, Canada, Europe, Japan..... somewhere that isn't a Theocracy?

/rant.

Again, this is just my viewpoint. I do not wish to impose it on anyone- and I would love to hear what the other side of this issue is thinking.

[earthshine]

its kansas, dont tell me u didint see somthing like this comin

it just scares people that atheists are starting to get more and more ammo from science, and are trying to avoid exposing childeren to that evil thing known as "truth"

dont matter anyways, they turn on the discovery channel at any time in their lives and they will know all about it in like 10 seconds. tv, the best teacher ever(not joking, i have learned more from tv than school, no competition)

[TsunadeChic]

I suppose I should've expected it from Kansas- you're right. In general, the midwest furvor for faith gets scary sometimes. Not the general church-going people, it's all good there, I'm talking about those who use religion- ANY religion- as an excuse to hate people.

[Scorpio3.14]

Ya, maybe you should check your facts? Kansas is going to teach Intelligent Design ALONG WITH Evolution. In fact the total time they are going to spend on Intelligent Design in the school year will probably amount to the time my Psychology professor talks about Football lol

[earthshine]

Ya, maybe you should check your facts? Kansas is going to teach Intelligent Design ALONG WITH Evolution. In fact the total time they are going to spend on Intelligent Design in the school year will probably amount to the time my Psychology professor talks about Football lol

damnit, u completly ruined the fun

jackass

[Deathinstinct]

Come now, I live in Kansas (for now at least). It's a bunch of retard hicks and inbred morons. Guess that doesn't speak too highly of myself, but it's the way I see this state.
Kansas (maybe only part, I'm not sure)also no longer teaches sex education to students unless the parents go out of their way to sign a consent form. And even then I think it might still only be an abstinence only approach.

[TsunadeChic]

I just think religion and politics don't mix. And it's dangerous when they do. I think kids are a lot brighter than we give them credit for, and they should make their own choices.

I'm glad that they won't be going all overboard in Kansas- I'm still worried, though.

[diglossiablues]

Man... Before I left work today Intel Des got at least 10 minutes of airtime on CNN. Some bimbo was telling Wolf Blitzer that "There's just some systems which are too complex to be explained by evolution." Wolf just nodded. Of course there was no mention of which systems in particular that they may be. Nor any modern evolutionary scientist [it's always Darwin. And come on people! That's outdated. The theory is much more robust these days] to counter with the fact that as an algorithmic process evolution can account for a system of any order of complexity.

[Shishou]

Some people think darwinism is bullshit.

I think some of it is, and some of it isn't. But my ancestors were no fucking shit flinging apes. Anyone who thinks that we were, is a fucking moron who really makes me thing maybe some people's ancestors were apes.

[earthshine]

Some people think darwinism is bullshit.

I think some of it is, and some of it isn't. But my ancestors were no fucking shit flinging apes. Anyone who thinks that we were, is a fucking moron who really makes me thing maybe some people's ancestors were apes.

of course, and that is why we share 99% of our dna with those shit flingers

u van pick and choose which parts of evolution u like, if u belive in it, then u must belive we evolved from somthing

[diglossiablues]

Some people think darwinism is bullshit.

I think some of it is, and some of it isn't. But my ancestors were no fucking shit flinging apes. Anyone who thinks that we were, is a fucking moron who really makes me thing maybe some people's ancestors were apes.

It's funny you should mention shit-flinging. You know that apes fling shit most often during territorial disputes -- and insults related to shit are the most common in any human language. Insults usually being flung over territorial territorial disputes.:laugh

[Robotkiller]

I was thinking about moving to canada (our brothers to the north) it's just getting hard to deal with all those morons who won't listen to science sure I belive in god but I also belive in evolution can't you belive in both and another thing while your at it kansas how about telling your kids that unicorns exists and leprechaun too theres just as much scientific proof to back that up.

[TsunadeChic]

I think we "come from" lots of places- but why is it so hard for people to accept that we evolved from apes? I never understood why that was so touchy for some people?

We're not like them anymore, to be true.

Again, why does religion play a part in this at all?

[earthshine]

I think we "come from" lots of places- but why is it so hard for people to accept that we evolved from apes? I never understood why that was so touchy for some people?

We're not like them anymore, to be true.

Again, why does religion play a part in this at all?

bible says we all come from adam and eve, the facts seem to point elswhere

[Robotkiller]

why do people have to mix church and state there are laws against that in america, but no one seems to care and whats worse the president backs all of this up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

what a retard:sad

[TsunadeChic]

Yeah, and from what I gather, the President's *finally* starting to get flack for it.

Glad the Democrats are growing a nice strong backbone!!

[Lance]

hi...:smile-big

[Near]

why do people have to mix church and state there are laws against that in america, but no one seems to care and whats worse the president backs all of this up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

what a retard:sad


Thats because he was probably beaten by a monkey in chess. Thus in his defense has to believe that he didn't evolved from this species, rather that God made this specific monkey extra smart, to go f*** with him.

[Lance]

I hate polltics....feh democrats suck and republicans suck in my own 2 eyes *nods*

[TsunadeChic]

Someone said it's like 'Choosing between the 2 AM showing of Beastmaster on Conemax and the 2 am showing of Beastmaster 2 on HBO' I agree.

I just wish we could get politicians who would make a great change for our nation.

[Lance]

I can bev leader!! XD

[Robotkiller]

Well it's not so much that democrats are growing a backbone as much as it is that the republicans are self imploding upon themselfs. If I may quote from the book 1984 by george orwell "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

[diglossiablues]

Someone said it's like 'Choosing between the 2 AM showing of Beastmaster on Conemax and the 2 am showing of Beastmaster 2 on HBO' I agree.

I just wish we could get politicians who would make a great change for our nation.

HAHAH!!

Gotta find a way to keep their hands out of the private interest cookie jar first. As long as that's playing such a major role, we'll continue to be fed dumbed down and irrelevant issues while the important stuff is being usurped from public control.

[Lance]

:guns i will be supreme!!! *maniacal laughter*

[Scorpio3.14]

Yeah, and from what I gather, the President's *finally* starting to get flack for it.

Glad the Democrats are growing a nice strong backbone!!

Well considering most American's want Intelligent Design taught in schools and that the President's job is to represent the American people (in particular the people that voted for him), why should be get flack? Oh, of course, a 15 min voluntary presentation to HS class is a violation of people's rights lol Sure.

Damn, President Bush must be very stupid for doing his job. Bush is stupid!!! <----*is trying to be cool*

[Robotkiller]

:guns i will be supreme!!! *maniacal laughter*


If arnold can be governor why the hell not.:laugh

[Lance]

:guns:guns:guns:guns:guns:guns

My Army will defeat ALL!!

[Lance]

XD go arnold!!!

[diglossiablues]

Well considering most American's want Intelligent Design taught in schools and that the President's job is to represent the American people (in particular the people that voted for him), why should be get flack? Oh, of course, a 15 min voluntary presentation to HS class is a violation of people's rights lol Sure.

Damn, President Bush must be very stupid for doing his job. Bush is stupid!!! <----*is trying to be cool*

You know I mean no disrespect, however this is one issue I'd have to disagree with you on. ID isn't founded in any tenable scientific position, and therefore has no business in a science classroom, unless it's brought up in order to show the flaws in it. For me it's not a matter of a violation of rights, but a matter of academic integrity.

Want ID in schools? Sure -- offer a workshop on it or something. Students who want to hear it, by all means, can go hear it.

[TsunadeChic]

I'm fine with the President doing his job, I just don't think he should use his religion to guide his decisions while doing it. By teaching intelligent design, you're imposing on someone's rights to practice any religion.

Like the Ten Commandments- they might be nice ideas, but what about the people who don't practice Christianity, of whom there are many here.

[Robotkiller]

Well considering most American's want Intelligent Design taught in schools and that the President's job is to represent the American people (in particular the people that voted for him), why should be get flack? Oh, of course, a 15 min voluntary presentation to HS class is a violation of people's rights lol Sure.

Damn, President Bush must be very stupid for doing his job. Bush is stupid!!! <----*is trying to be cool*


Well he does represent the people who voted for him but thats also the problem the people who voted for him are the neocons the most extreme of the extreme he doesn't give two shits about the rest of us btw only about 15% percent of americans voted in the last election I belive and WTH he declare the day katrina hit lousiana "a day of prayer" don't you think thats a bit much.

[TsunadeChic]

As they say, "First time's always the sweetest". As this is the first time he was actually elected......

He knows who put him in the oval office, and they're all he's got right now. that's sad, cause it doesn't represent us all.

[Lance]

I just happen to be a christian doh...

[Lance]

besides i think that ythey should allow people to say in god we trust nad under god because the first europians to come here were protastin which is a form of "Chritianity" no offense so plese don't take it that way

[diglossiablues]

I just happen to be a christian doh...

That's cool. Next time, though, you might practice engaging in the discussion rather than talking about Arnold and Guns. Especially if you're on the side of creationism... practice would help you become better able to defend your viewpoints.

[Lance]

That's cool. Next time, though, you might practice engaging in the discussion rather than talking about Arnold and Guns. Especially if you're on the side of creationism... practice would help you become better able to defend your viewpoints.

_|_ -.- _|_

[Robotkiller]

As they say, "First time's always the sweetest". As this is the first time he was actually elected......

He knows who put him in the oval office, and they're all he's got right now. that's sad, cause it doesn't represent us all.

Give the "hicks" what they want ehh while mr.president is at it he might want to kick all those illegal immagrants out of america it's what his demagraphic wants after all.*dey tuk r jerbs.*

[Scorpio3.14]

Well he does represent the people who voted for him but thats also the problem the people who voted for him are the neocons the most extreme of the extreme he doesn't give two shits about the rest of us btw only about 15% percent of americans voted in the last election I belive and WTH he declare the day katrina hit lousiana "a day of prayer" don't you think thats a bit much.

1. The voter turn out was around 50-60% I believe in the 2004 election. FAR from 15%, sorry, but no.

2. A day of prayer? You mean like George Washington and the 1st Congress under the constitution made 2 months after passing the 1st Amendment? Ya, you know that George Washington was a idiot lol

[Robotkiller]

That's cool. Next time, though, you might practice engaging in the discussion rather than talking about Arnold and Guns. Especially if you're on the side of creationism... practice would help you become better able to defend your viewpoints.

I'm cristian too but I still think this ID is nonsense though.

P.S. your really polite:)

[diglossiablues]

I'm cristian too but I still think this ID is nonsense though.

P.S. your really polite:)

Eh... I'm not always polite. In fact I often talk like a sailor... but in a debate or serious discussion being rude and namecalling only serves to discredit you... and so I try to avoid it.

[Lance]

prety weird to think that you could be polite at one point

[Robotkiller]

1. The voter turn out was around 50-60% I believe in the 2004 election. FAR from 15%, sorry, but no.

2. A day or prayer? You mean like George Washington and the 1st Congress under the constitution made 2 months after passing the 1st Amendment? Ya, you know that George Washington was a idiot lol

http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

opps your right I heard from my teacher that it was much lower guess those vote or die ads worked.

george washington also was in a comepletely different, time slavery was allowed then and people were allowed to carry guns without permits and america was not as diverse as it is now back then most were christian.

[Shishou]

Oh ya, Monkeys have 98% DNA the same as us. That obviously means we used to be them.

Because you know, 2% evolutions make so much sense. And apes still being here and never evolving makes sense, not to mention them being retarded. Oh yes, and that missing link they never found makes sense.



Idiots. Maybe animals evolved, but humans from apes? The fuck we did.

[Nabe-san]

Religion will always be a part of politics because it is such a major part of many people's lives. The only problem I have with it is the degree to which it is involved. Christianity calls for its followers to keep God first in their minds, yet when that is done in polotics porblems arise because they are seen as fundamentalist. I'm not really for either side, that was just something I noticed. Both extremes annoy me really. Major conservatives are too uptight and major liberals and too freakin...liberal.

Also, don't call people idiots just because they believe in evolution. That just gives them the right to call you an idiot for believing an all powerful being put you in his little ant farm so you can crawl around the tunnels wondering if that kid poking on the glass is God.

[Lance]

fuck you! we weren't monkeys! We aren't stupid enough to stick are fingers up our happy places and sniff. we don't have fur and god created us...

[Robotkiller]

Eh... I'm not always polite. In fact I often talk like a sailor... but in a debate or serious discussion being rude and namecalling only serves to discredit you... and so I try to avoid it.

*golf claps* well put my friend. I'm pretty much the same way though I try not to swear too much, cussing is for people with nothing better to say..I do swear alot though.

[Tsukiyomi]

Oh ya, Monkeys have 98% DNA the same as us. That obviously means we used to be them.

Because you know, 2% evolutions make so much sense. And apes still being here and never evolving makes sense, not to mention them being retarded. Oh yes, and that missing link they never found makes sense.



Idiots. Maybe animals evolved, but humans from apes? The fuck we did.

Evolution doesn't mean a new species immediately takes the place of an old one, the apes we evolved from are no longer around, the current apes (not monkeys) evolved differently from the ancient apes.

They are simply a different path of evolution than the ones humans followed.

[Lance]

just because we are critians doesn't mean we have to be perfect followers or burn in hell...you need to read up because you don't know jack crap

[Robotkiller]

Oh ya, Monkeys have 98% DNA the same as us. That obviously means we used to be them.

Because you know, 2% evolutions make so much sense. And apes still being here and never evolving makes sense, not to mention them being retarded. Oh yes, and that missing link they never found makes sense.



Idiots. Maybe animals evolved, but humans from apes? The fuck we did.


Not really new research shows that monkeys are now using sticks and other tools to fight with so yes monkeys are getting smarter.

[diglossiablues]

Oh ya, Monkeys have 98% DNA the same as us. That obviously means we used to be them.

Because you know, 2% evolutions make so much sense. And apes still being here and never evolving makes sense, not to mention them being retarded. Oh yes, and that missing link they never found makes sense.



Idiots. Maybe animals evolved, but humans from apes? The fuck we did.


There never was a missing link, nor does anyone look for it anymore. There wouldn't be on intermediary step. However there are numerous incremental steps. Also the apes we see today are not considered to be ancestors of humans, but rather that chimps, and humans diverged from a common ancestor several million years ago, and there was a prior common ancestor that the humans/chimps and gorillas diverged from before that.

Chimpanzees are as close to us, genetically speaking, than horses are to donkeys... and they can make a viable mule...

[Nabe-san]

Evolution is like a tree really. Certain species develop an adaptation to survive and therefore their branch of the tree will keep growing and the others will stop. Adaptation is the exact reason why homo sapiens survived while the other early humans died out.

[Lance]

the fuck with monkeys...whoever told you this shit is a fucked up asshole...

[Robotkiller]

the fuck with monkeys...whoever told you this shit is a fucked up asshole...

okay modern science magazine is an asshole dude CHECK YOUR SPELLING.:amuse

[Tsukiyomi]

the fuck with monkeys...whoever told you this shit is a fucked up asshole...

If you want to be taken seriously and not as a child (which you essentially still are being only 14), then act a little older, act a little more mature and actually give arguments to back up your point of view instead of just swearing and insulting.

[diglossiablues]

the fuck with monkeys...whoever told you this shit is a fucked up asshole...

No "one" told me this... it's the result of at least a century's worth of research... finding and dating various steps along the evolutionary tree. One of the few viable rational arguments against it is to try and poke holes in radioactive dating techniques... however those are based on static rates of decay in radioactive isotopes - sure... a deity could have invented all that to test our faith, but that deity would have to be one merry prankster.

[Robotkiller]

If you want to be taken seriously and not as a child (which you essentially still are being only 14), then act a little older, act a little more mature and actually give arguments to back up your point of view instead of just swearing and insulting.

Hey age has nothing to do with maturity.:sad

[Nabe-san]

the fuck with monkeys...whoever told you this shit is a fucked up asshole...

What makes you say that?

You're not really adding anything to the discussion besides a person to make fun of.

[Tsukiyomi]

Hey age has nothing to do with maturity.:sad

It does to an extent, but its not the deciding factor, hence why I told him to act more mature. I'll treat you as adult as you act.

[Robotkiller]

No "one" told me this... it's the result of at least a century's worth of research... finding and dating various steps along the evolutionary tree. One of the few viable rational arguments against it is to try and poke holes in radioactive dating techniques... however those are based on static rates of decay in radioactive isotopes - sure... a deity could have invented all that to test our faith, but that deity would have to be one merry prankster.

I found that tree of which you speak http://www.niu.edu/pubaffairs/RELEASES/2000/MAR/primate/images/color_tree_thumb.jpg

[diglossiablues]

I found that tree of which you speak


Oh man! Prosimians are so damn cute! I'd keep one in my apartment if I could get away with it (and if it wasn't cruel to the animal).

[Robotkiller]

Oh man! Prosimians are so damn cute! I'd keep one in my apartment if I could get away with it (and if it wasn't cruel to the animal).

I likada lemurs tail so fuzzy.:amuse

[Tsukiyomi]

If I could have any of them I would go with a bonobo, aren't they supposed to be the most intelligent of the group?

[Robotkiller]

If I could have any of them I would go with a bonobo, aren't they supposed to be the most intelligent of the group?

I think so but COME ON lemurs, those things can jump imagine sicking that on someone.

[Tsukiyomi]

I think so but COME ON lemurs, those things can jump imagine sicking that on someone.

Yeah, but my bonobo would be smart enough to clean up and do my taxes for me.

[Robotkiller]

Yeah, but my bonobo would be smart enough to clean up and do my taxes for me.

The lemur could attack the tax collectors while I make my getaway.:laugh

[diglossiablues]

If I remember correctly, other than humans, binobos are the most violent of the higher order primates.

[sadated_peon]

The MAIN thing that gets me about this Kansas thing is that the ONLY way they could get “intelligent design” to be taught, as a science is to actually redefine what science is.

Because the ID people were unable to push their religious beliefs off as a science, they had to change the definition of science.

Basically there are NO MORE science classes in Kansas anymore. The Kansas Board of Education has removed Science from the Kansas curriculum so that they can push their beliefs.
If I remember correctly, other than humans, binobos are the most violent of the higher order primates.
no bonobos are non-violent. Common Chimpanzee's are more violent.

[diglossiablues]

The MAIN thing that gets me about this Kansas thing is that the ONLY way they could get “intelligent design” to be taught, as a science is to actually redefine what science is.

Because the ID people were unable to push their religious beliefs off as a science, they had to change the definition of science.

Basically there are NO MORE science classes in Kansas anymore. The Kansas Board of Education has removed Science from the Kansas curriculum so that they can push their beliefs.

no bonobos are non-violent. Common Chimpanzee's are more violent.

Ah yes -- it's the bonobos that are more sexually active. Thanks for correcting me, it's been a while since I studied primatology.

[rimpelcut]

they are idiots. evolution theory is a proven fact, teachers always say maybe we are related to apes because of the darwin theory. I think there are to many people there that influence the government with their religion and narrowed views and logic.

[diglossiablues]

they are idiots. evolution theory is a proven fact, teachers always say maybe we are related to apes because of the darwin theory. I think there are to many people there that influence the government with their religion and narrowed views and logic.


It's simple really:
1. Science is bad
2. Free thought is bad
3. Sex is bad (unless you're a senator, CEO or the like)
4. The Intelligencia are liberal commie pinkos who threaten our morality
5. Calm down, dumb up, shut up and go buy something.

...there, there... everything's OK now.

:P

[neko-sennin]

It's simple really:
1. Science is bad
2. Free thought is bad
3. Sex is bad (unless you're a senator, CEO or the like)
4. The Intelligencia are liberal commie pinkos who threaten our morality
5. Calm down, dumb up, shut up and go buy something.

...there, there... everything's OK now.

:P

Methinks he might be on to something.

If it were my class, I would have put my book down and waited for the science teacher to start saying something, you know, scientific. Even back when I was a Christian, I was still very interested in science, and would have been deeply embarrassed by something like this. Then again, it was incidents like this that ultimately led me away from organized religion to seek my path in the first place.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_v2_01.jpg

[vj01]

how ever i belive that evolution and drawing should be taught

[Rook]

The MAIN thing that gets me about this Kansas thing is that the ONLY way they could get “intelligent design” to be taught, as a science is to actually redefine what science is.

Because the ID people were unable to push their religious beliefs off as a science, they had to change the definition of science.

Basically there are NO MORE science classes in Kansas anymore. The Kansas Board of Education has removed Science from the Kansas curriculum so that they can push their beliefs.

no bonobos are non-violent. Common Chimpanzee's are more violent.And whether or not it is taught whether or not we came from apes has an effect on the teaching of physics, math, chemistry, and engineering......how?

I'm a mechanical engineering major and I don't recall the teaching of ID or evolution ever being even remotely relevent outside of history or possibly psychology. You can use science to try and prove either side, but the benefits are inconsequencial.

[neko-sennin]

With me, it's mostly about the fact that religion is just striking back at science for undermining their ancient stature as being the sole authority on the "how" of the universe, and if they topple concepts like evolution, it will embolden them to drag us back into the Dark Ages on other fronts of the rare progress humanity has made in the last couple centuries.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_v2_01.jpg

[Deathinstinct]

I don't recall the teaching of ID or evolution ever being even remotely relevent outside of history or possibly psychology. The same can be said of a lot of required middle and high school classes I took, such as english, reading, music, art, gym/PE, biology, chemistry, physics, world geography, world history, and likely more. Just because the subject isn't necessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.


You can use science to try and prove either side, but the benefits are inconsequencial.Except 'intelligent design' or whatever it's currently called isn't science.

[sadated_peon]

And whether or not it is taught whether or not we came from apes has an effect on the teaching of physics, math, chemistry, and engineering......how?

I'm a mechanical engineering major and I don't recall the teaching of ID or evolution ever being even remotely relevent outside of history or possibly psychology. You can use science to try and prove either side, but the benefits are inconsequencial.
Well first of all engineering isn’t a science nor is math.
But it is not ID itself, but what they had to do to include ID into their “science” course (which are no longer science courses)

They have changed the definition of what science is, so it is no longer science.
It is like changing soccer so that you can touch the ball with your hands, and teaching your students that. You are still playing a game, but its no soccer anymore.
They are still teaching kids, but it is no longer science.

There are no longer any science classes in Kansas.

[rimpelcut]

What! what is the point of school then? no facts, no motivation of using intelligence. e.g science.

[Rook]

Well first of all engineering isn’t a science nor is math.
But it is not ID itself, but what they had to do to include ID into their “science” course (which are no longer science courses)

They have changed the definition of what science is, so it is no longer science.
It is like changing soccer so that you can touch the ball with your hands, and teaching your students that. You are still playing a game, but its no soccer anymore.
They are still teaching kids, but it is no longer science.

There are no longer any science classes in Kansas.Are you an engineering major or have you taken engineering classes? By your response, I would say no. Engineering is very much a science, and so is math. You've heard of Physics? Chemistry? Thermodynamics? Science courses, right? Courses in these areas I have to take to graduate. Why do they call it computer science or political science. Simply because something doesn't require a test tube doesn't mean it isn't science.

[hesd]

That's great! Belief in God is the saving grace of America from the brink of dissolution. Remember history, remember Lincoln the man who made America kneel and humble down to their creator.

[sadated_peon]

Are you an engineering major or have you taken engineering classes? By your response, I would say no. Engineering is very much a science, and so is math. You've heard of Physics? Chemistry? Thermodynamics? Science courses, right? Courses in these areas I have to take to graduate. Why do they call it computer science or political science. Simply because something doesn't require a test tube doesn't mean it isn't science.
A science is a category of study. Engineering is another. You can take engineering courses as a scientist, as well as taking science courses as an engineer but they are TWO separate disciplines.
Check ANY accredited college and you have two separate classifications for a school of Science and a school for engineering.
An engineer is not a scientist he is an engineer.

You write reports as an engineer this doesn’t mean that engineering and literature are the same thing.

[neko-sennin]

That's great! Belief in God is the saving grace of America from the brink of dissolution. Remember history, remember Lincoln the man who made America kneel and humble down to their creator.

He did? :S I don't remember that part.

A science is a category of study. Engineering is another. An engineer is not a scientist he is an engineer.

I mean no offense, but let's see what you can build without at least a rudementary knowledge of the laws of phsyics.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_v2_01.jpg

[vj01]

many people belive that in a million years time man will be able to breath under water is that true

[neko-sennin]

If we keep messing up the climate on this planet, we might have to. :D

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_v2_01.jpg

[~RAGING BONER~]

your all wrong...there IS a god and his name is ~BONER~

[Terumaru]

Well I have a feeling by that time the planet earth won't be around anyway.. XD;

[sadated_peon]

I mean no offense, but let's see what you can build without at least a rudementary knowledge of the laws of phsyics.
????
knowing scientific laws does not make you a scientist.

[neko-sennin]

????
knowing scientific laws does not make you a scientist.

No, but I'm making a point about the relationship between scientific knowledge (math/phsyics/chemistry/etc) that is the *foundation* of all modern engineering achievements. About the limitations of trying to engineer *anything* with only medieval knowledge to work with.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_v2_01.jpg

[bronzhawk]

I personally do not see Evolution as a science. Science is supposed to be something that is observable and repeatable. Evolution has the observing this kind of down, it more like guess work (which I guess you can argue all science is to some extent). But we have yet to have experiments that prove evolution. After taking my introduction to polymer chemistry course, it seems unlikely that we evolved from nothing. In extremely well controlled environments we can barely make your standard single monomer polymer with a low polydispersity. When you add copolymers into the mix it is even harder. But yet we say that our dna (which is essentially a copolymer) with a polydispersity that is essentially 1, by pure chance... doesn't seem very probable to me.

[Deathinstinct]

I personally do not see Evolution as a science. .... But yet we say that our dna (which is essentially a copolymer) with a polydispersity that is essentially 1, by pure chance... doesn't seem very probable to me.So your scientific conclusion is that a magical man with magical hands created everything from his high perch among the clouds? Sounds well thought out.
No the creation of dna isn't very probable. Though creating isn't evolution, so I don't see the problem.

[neko-sennin]

I personally do not see Evolution as a science. Science is supposed to be something that is observable and repeatable.

Science is also about piecing together evidence. The records of this world sit right under our feet, waiting only for those who have attained the vision and insight to read it. If only there were a way to obtain DNA samples from more ancient organisms, then the fastest way to prove/disprove the theory of evolution would be to see if there is a direct chain of mutations dating back to four billion years ago. Then again, evolution happens at an accelerated rate among insects, and epecially viruses, bactria and other microbes. Every flu epidemic we've witnessed was the result of entire waves of mutations yielding entirely new subspecies of viruses.

yet we say that our dna (which is essentially a copolymer) with a polydispersity that is essentially 1, by pure chance... doesn't seem very probable to me.

...As for where the orignal DNA material came from *shrugs* science, religion(s), the guy down the street, that's anybody's guess. But that the inhabitants of this planet all evolved from earlier lifeforms, there are mountains more evidence for that theory than for all the others combined.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_v2_01.jpg

[rimpelcut]

I personally do not see Evolution as a science. Science is supposed to be something that is observable and repeatable. Evolution has the observing this kind of down, it more like guess work (which I guess you can argue all science is to some extent). But we have yet to have experiments that prove evolution. After taking my introduction to polymer chemistry course, it seems unlikely that we evolved from nothing. In extremely well controlled environments we can barely make your standard single monomer polymer with a low polydispersity. When you add copolymers into the mix it is even harder. But yet we say that our dna (which is essentially a copolymer) with a polydispersity that is essentially 1, by pure chance... doesn't seem very probable to me.

the thing is, these test don't mean a thing. It is just a test a person came up with and it failed and so they conclude we couldn't make it because we failed in understanding.
ok so our dna is very likely formed out of nothing. I would agree because you can't get something out of nothing. But the thing is there is something. It is called motion. Motion is the chi, it is what our universe is driven by. How can atoms spontaniously become a molecule? well science found that out, sortof.
What i'm saying is that it is most likely a mixture of a few things that came together and from that it developed. These few things are everything that our atmosphere and earth contains plus the affection of the solarsystem.
thinking that god was responsible for life is the least probable, that thinking comes most do to the fact that we humans are speculation sluts.
ofcourse our universe beeing the product of some intelligent could be and this could be the matrix but lets figure that one out ones we have finished figuring out our reality.

ps. all science discoverys are discoverys of relativity, maybe evolution is one big relativity?

[hesd]

I agree with the Bronzehawk that science should be repeatable..that's the method of deduction.This is the real foundation of science. Through deduction, one can actually prove or disprove a phenomenon under consideration well beyond unreasonable doubt. Coherently piecing up evidences (by evidences, i mean partial evidences to avoid sloppiness) and creating cogent arguments about their interrelationships are characteristics of the inductive process. As for the latter, we can only measure the strength of the partial evidences but we can't conclude based on, and generalize from, them lock stock and barrel.
Biogenesis has been proven; it's counterpart a subject of ongoing scientific inquiry. Scientists who try to simulate the primordial condition of the Earth in their labs failed to provide conclusive evidence for abiogenesis.
There are two kinds of evolution: macro evolution (which, as a statistician, is highly unlikely) and micro evolution. Micro-evolution is what confuses us to seeing all species variation as leading to, or indication of, macro evolution.
Speculation upcoming: If an archaeologist from outer space doesn't know human variation unearthed an NBA player and a vertically challenged individual, what can he infer from his findings? He might state the principle of evolution.

[Kineas]

I'm not studying science nor engineering in university now, but what I do remember of scientific theory would be that science is not a "finished" subject in any sense of the word.

Scientific research is still going on at almost every other area of the subject. That's what professors and post-graduate students do to earn their status, basically.

A hundred years ago, there were plenty of people who also had this MAJOR misconception that they already knew everything there was. With a hundred years of hindsight behind us, that is now totally laughable.

With innovations and inventions coming up so often nowadays, can anyone of us really claim that science is a "finished" subject as of now? Our descendents a hundred years from now will laugh at this statement, and so perpetuate the vicious cycle.

My point? Don't knock evolution off just because there is a lack of evidence. Darwin just put up a theory. Given the nature of the amount of work needed, looking for ancient fossils, extracting them, studying them and etc, it's going to take a long time. And since the centre of the universe doesn't revolve around you nor me nor anyone else, we might never get to know everything in our lifetime. So don't sweat it.

[sadated_peon]

No, but I'm making a point about the relationship between scientific knowledge (math/phsyics/chemistry/etc) that is the *foundation* of all modern engineering achievements. About the limitations of trying to engineer *anything* with only medieval knowledge to work with.
I could say the same thing about literature and engineering, and the limitations of trying to engineer *anything* while being illiterate.
It doesn’t mean that engineering is literature, like it does mean that because it uses science/math that they are the same thing.
I personally do not see Evolution as a science. Science is supposed to be something that is observable and repeatable. Evolution has the observing this kind of down, it more like guess work (which I guess you can argue all science is to some extent). But we have yet to have experiments that prove evolution. After taking my introduction to polymer chemistry course, it seems unlikely that we evolved from nothing. In extremely well controlled environments we can barely make your standard single monomer polymer with a low polydispersity. When you add copolymers into the mix it is even harder. But yet we say that our dna (which is essentially a copolymer) with a polydispersity that is essentially 1, by pure chance... doesn't seem very probable to me.
And you have just described abiogenesis not evolution.

[bronzhawk]

the thing is, these test don't mean a thing. It is just a test a person came up with and it failed and so they conclude we couldn't make it because we failed in understanding.
Are you talking about the polydispersity testing? If so that means you don't understand the tests that are used to find the polydispersity. The techniques used, are based entirely off of chemistry and physics that we know about.

So your scientific conclusion is that a magical man with magical hands created everything from his high perch among the clouds? Sounds well thought out.
No the creation of dna isn't very probable. Though creating isn't evolution, so I don't see the problem.
No, my conclusion is that by my understanding of science from all of the chemistry and physics courses that I've taken in college and high school, I see the universe as too complex to be made completely by chance. When you try to do things by chance science tells me that things don't turn out as nicely or perfectly if I where in ambient conditions as compared to a extremely well controlled environment. This leads me to believe that there was a creator involved.

One a total side note here, how in the world to paleontologists construct a new species out of single tooth and like a rib bone or something like that?

And you have just described abiogenesis not evolution.
I said it once and I'll say it again. abiogenesis is the evolution of non-living to living. If you are going to do hand waving of this important part of the "no god or powerful being argument." Who says that he/she/it didn't make everything as we see it today (for the most part, excluding things that got extinct).

Going off on an other limb. I'm going to make a plug to a thread I started, and am "recruiting" people that may not normally head off to that area of the forum. Please click on my sig below to check out my photo manips and please comment on them there. That is the end of this public servious anouncement....

[sadated_peon]

I said it once and I'll say it again. abiogenesis is the evolution of non-living to living. If you are going to do hand waving of this important part of the "no god or powerful being argument." Who says that he/she/it didn't make everything as we see it today (for the most part, excluding things that got extinct).
Evolution by definition is from a living thing, to another living thing. To say that abiogenesis is evolution is wrong because calling it that violates the definition of what evolution is.

[hesd]

Evolution by definition is from a living thing, to another living thing. To say that abiogenesis is evolution is wrong because calling it that violates the definition of what evolution is.

This isn't a definitional problem. Evolution has its foundation on abiogenesis. Read Biology by Campbell. The primordial soup->RNA->blablabla->human. We cannot view evolution as disjoint from abiogenesis.
See post #92.

[sadated_peon]

This isn't a definitional problem. Evolution has its foundation on abiogenesis. Read Biology by Campbell. The primordial soup->RNA->blablabla->human. We cannot view evolution as disjoint from abiogenesis.
See post #92.
This is a problem with including two different scientific explorations. The theory evolution, and the multitude of abiogenesis hypothesizes. Evolution is not abiogenesis and is NOT dependent on it.
Evolutions foundation has nothing to do with abiogenesis, its founder Darwin did not even accept that abiogenesis was possible, and never included it with evolution.
The
“The primordial soup->RNA->blablabla->human.”
Is describing the process by which humans can come about from nothing, but his is NOT evolution. Nor does any science book claim that abiogenesis is included in the theory of evolution.

[rimpelcut]

bronzehawk. so what kind of science is it then? The word means creation of living things out of dead things. so I guess they did not have the proper conditions to make that happen. if that word means creating life out of nothing then that would be something only god or the matrix builders can do.

science has provided us with laws. but in nature there is only one law of the fluctuation between potentials of temperature and pressure. these laws are formulas describing a certain phenomenon. Sometimes scientists discover thing where these laws don't work and because of this they have to adjust the formulas or put something extra in them or whatever. Now evolution is nothing but natures attempt to balance things out so that everything runs smoothly. Man has been given the ability to percieve everything nature does. That is a very big weight on your shoulders because now you have to understand everything. If you don't and you are impatient you become crazy. Desire, fear, dipression, lazyness. When nature is understood you can make a balance in your environment making it a utopian place for yourself and fulfilling natures origional intention with man.

[Rook]

This thread seems to be turning into another great creation/evolution debate with no real end in sight. Since I have no real knowledge outside my fields of study (engineering, math, theology), I am simply going to state my point of view based on the thread's original intent.

Personally, I am a Christian young-earth creation proponent. The reasons for such are many (reason, scientific, philisophical, theological, and personal). I do not know whether or not Intelligent Design will ever remain in the classroom, and personally, I believe it matters little. Whether or not we believe in evolution/creation, young-earth/old-earth, accident/created also matters little because it produces nothing scientifically beneficial to mankind that I know of.

If ID people are trying to instate religion into the classroom, then obviously they are in the wrong. No one I know of ever became a believer through science. Trying to prove the supernatural through natural means is useless.

Instead, all the religious scientists I know of (Newton, Galileo, some of my professors, etc.) studied science for the love of science, which is how it should be. I am a mechanical engineering major in one of the top 25 engineering programs in the country. Not because I'm trying to enforce some ideology or trying to get more Christians into engineering, but because of my love of discovery of how things work and designing machines.

I simply only want kids just to be told known facts instead of dogmatically hailed claims (ape-to-man without any missing links discovered whatsoever along with many other claims of evolution). I will agree that religion does not belong in the classroom, but neither does forced humanist naturalism. Kids need real knowledge, not ideology, to learn what they can apply in the work force. Period.

Kids can learn theology at church, but that does not excuse public schools from outlawing student prayer in the school building or firing teachers for wearing necklaces with crosses on them. Public schools shouldn't endorse religion, but they should not banish it either. We love our religion, and we will show it. Deal with it. As long as it doesn't hurt others, is unforced, or interrupt the learning process, it should be acceptable and allowable.

Anyways, that's my opinion.

[hesd]

I believe that this thread has awry. Anyway,

This is a problem with including two different
scientific explorations. The theory evolution, and the multitude of
abiogenesis hypothesizes. Evolution is not abiogenesis and is NOT
dependent on it.
Evolutions foundation has nothing to do with abiogenesis, its founder
Darwin did not even accept that abiogenesis was possible, and never
included it with evolution.


It was my hypothesis that evolution is grounded on abiogenesis.
However, i am not trying to do a sythesis. In every scientific
explanation and theory or law, there are implicit assumptions and
unarticulated suppositions. In this regard, we can strongly infer
that evolution is related with abiogenesis (spontaneous creation).
Remember that evolution is a "process in the making"--meaning it has
an alpha and an omega. It does not deal with the question: where did
life came from? But basically if you trace the evolutionary
progression, the first living thing came from non-life, or so states abiogenesis.

I'm going to ask an authority on this to verify the connection that I am trying to establish. And i'm humble enough to concede if the authority refutes the relationship between the two theories.:P

[rimpelcut]

yo hesd. the abiogenesis has two variations: one is creation of live out of dead material and second: creation of life out of nothing.

[hesd]

yo hesd. the abiogenesis has two variations: one is creation of live out of dead material and second: creation of life out of nothing.

It's beyond doubt that you're really an active member of this forum. rep ya for that! but i guess you're just saturated with repz!:tem

As far as my education takes me, I believe that abiogenesis takes only a single form, life from inanimate matter. You could view the 1st variant (or so you say) as a subset of the 2nd. hence, the inanimate material came from nothing, and from the dead matter comes life. I'll really do update this. You know (and this is a little secret between the two of us, coz i don't really like to sound conceited or anywhere near it),

the authority i'm talking about is my Harvard professor. I'll ask her on Monday and post her view here asap.

[rimpelcut]

yes. My view is that that dead material that(so you say) comes from nothing didn't come from anywhere, it simply exists. if you have absolutely nothing it would make no sense for something to appear from it. since we have something the only logical conclusion would be that something or life or god simply exists. But when you look at the universe you have apperantly dead material and life. Those two cannot be seperate because that would mean that they repell eachother which would mean there is inbalance in the world and in the end seize to move. All things move even the apperant dead material. Even the molecule that is at absoluut zero temperature and therefore is completely still is moving. He keeps moving but things surrounding him are keeping him in place but in essence he is still moving creating a balance between the opposites.

[sadated_peon]

It was my hypothesis that evolution is grounded on abiogenesis.
However, i am not trying to do a sythesis. In every scientific
explanation and theory or law, there are implicit assumptions and
unarticulated suppositions. In this regard, we can strongly infer
that evolution is related with abiogenesis (spontaneous creation).
Remember that evolution is a "process in the making"--meaning it has
an alpha and an omega. It does not deal with the question: where did
life came from? But basically if you trace the evolutionary
progression, the first living thing came from non-life, or so states abiogenesis.
Evolution’s first step, does not say it comes from non-life. Evolution never deals from going from non-life to life, nor does it rely on any other hypothesis to describe how it may have happened.

There are many different was to describe this situation some general ones are.

God created first life then evolution took over.
First life was created from non-life (abiogenesis) evolution starts.
Many gods created first life then evolution took over.
Non-personal god created first life then evolution took over.
Non-personal gods created first life then evolution took over.
Aliens (of some sort) created first life then evolution took over.

Those are the general categories that I know of.

Now there are many who content that the process in which humans came to be on this earth includes abiogenesis and evolution, and describe both these together to describe how humans came to be.

But evolution does not included abiogenesis nor is it dependent on it.
I'm going to ask an authority on this to verify the connection that I am trying to establish. And i'm humble enough to concede if the authority refutes the relationship between the two theories
ok.

[rimpelcut]

Evolution’s first step, does not say it comes from non-life. Evolution never deals from going from non-life to life, nor does it rely on any other hypothesis to describe how it may have happened.

There are many different was to describe this situation some general ones are.

God created first life then evolution took over.
First life was created from non-life (abiogenesis) evolution starts.
Many gods created first life then evolution took over.
Non-personal god created first life then evolution took over.
Non-personal gods created first life then evolution took over.
Aliens (of some sort) created first life then evolution took over.

Those are the general categories that I know of.

Now there are many who content that the process in which humans came to be on this earth includes abiogenesis and evolution, and describe both these together to describe how humans came to be.

But evolution does not included abiogenesis nor is it dependent on it.

ok.

yes abiogenesis is a seperate thing: people say monkeys are because they were born, maggets are born out of nothing. Now this is not the theroy of evolution but it is the same as evolution for the question we try to answer: how did life came to be.

[crabman]

Some people think darwinism is bullshit.

I think some of it is, and some of it isn't. But my ancestors were no fucking shit flinging apes. Anyone who thinks that we were, is a fucking moron who really makes me thing maybe some people's ancestors were apes.

see see, its people like you that makes people think creationists are idiots. Just go crawl back in your hole and think before you start typing something.

[neko-sennin]

No offense, Crab, but most Creationists don't need any help making themselves look like idiots. You, at least, seem to know something about the theories you're debating.

As for evolution itself, I have no beef with thinking of monkeys as my ancestors. I look around this planet at my fellow humans, and I can't help seeing a resemblance.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/maximum_sig_03.jpg

[rimpelcut]

yeah man you are totaly true, I swear a few days ago I was sitting in the tram and looking at people and I thought damn some of them look like monkeys some of them look like ogres.

[Haruka]

yes abiogenesis is a seperate thing: people say monkeys are because they were born, maggets are born out of nothing. Now this is not the theroy of evolution but it is the same as evolution for the question we try to answer: how did life came to be.
It has been a proven fact that maggots do not spontaniously appear. Flies lay eggs inside a host, and then the eggs hatch, leaving the maggots there to eat the host.

[RockLee]

I seriously hope people don't believe in abiogenesis anymore: it is simply ludicrous from a scientific standpoint. The only time I'll ever accept abiogenesis is in two occasions:

a) molecules assembled in a primordial soup atop clay and became a cell

b)in a religious context.

I have no problem with people who believe in intelligent design, I just have a problem with people who believe that must all accept intelligent design as 100% proof. Intelligent design is basically religious faith, not scientific fact. You can't force faith upon others, only facts can. XD

[rimpelcut]

It has been a proven fact that maggots do not spontaniously appear. Flies lay eggs inside a host, and then the eggs hatch, leaving the maggots there to eat the host.

your not getting it do you? read my post again and again till you get it.:)

[rimpelcut]

I seriously hope people don't believe in abiogenesis anymore: it is simply ludicrous from a scientific standpoint. The only time I'll ever accept abiogenesis is in two occasions:

a) molecules assembled in a primordial soup atop clay and became a cell

b)in a religious context.

I have no problem with people who believe in intelligent design, I just have a problem with people who believe that must all accept intelligent design as 100% proof. Intelligent design is basically religious faith, not scientific fact. You can't force faith upon others, only facts can. XD

well I believe in A) are you saying that I believe in abiogenesis? abiogenesis means except life out of dead material, life out of NOTHING.
I see molecules and atoms as life and also quarcks and radiation so therefore I see no difference between that apperent dead material and animal life.

[hesd]

@ Sedatedpeon and Loco: Remember my promise? : ) Yeah, I consulted the 'authority' with regard to the alleged relationship between abiogenesis and evolution. There is no direct relationship between the two. Darwin did not explicitly accept and assimilate the abiogenesis theory to his theory of evolution. However, modern biochemists use the theory of evolution to explain the biological change that occured among the protobionts (primordial cells). Essentially, the theory of evolution was utilized to bridge the development of these biomolecules to what they are now--complex life forms.

So the parameter is set: Evolution and Abiogenesis are related so far as we talk of the chemosynthetic theory of life / heterotroph theory.

[rimpelcut]

yeah and abiogenesis is the theory that the primordial cells apeared out of nothing. This theory can be aplied even to radiation once scientists find the evolution of radiation to matter and then life. Then when they realize that something can't come from nothing and that something is the only thing existing in reality they will throw away the word "appear" out of the theory.

[sadated_peon]

@ Sedatedpeon and Loco: Remember my promise? : ) Yeah, I consulted the 'authority' with regard to the alleged relationship between abiogenesis and evolution. There is no direct relationship between the two. Darwin did not explicitly accept and assimilate the abiogenesis theory to his theory of evolution. However, modern biochemists use the theory of evolution to explain the biological change that occured among the protobionts (primordial cells). Essentially, the theory of evolution was utilized to bridge the development of these biomolecules to what they are now--complex life forms.

So the parameter is set: Evolution and Abiogenesis are related so far as we talk of the chemosynthetic theory of life / heterotroph theory.
Woot, I win.

What’s my prize.

[hesd]

lol! Peon-sempai, you only partially won. At the risk of being a broken telegraph (lol!), abio and evo are related so long as we're talking of chemosynthesis / heterotroph / autotroph theories. But okay, i'll give the trophy to you. i hope you'll get to see Voldemort at the other end of that portkey. : )

[rimpelcut]

jemoeer gimmy gimmy! no? ok :ninja Ninja StyLe!!!! :yelling :guns

[Sands]

let's just say religion and science don't mix
what about the ppl who aren't christian?
they don't believe the same things