Is the theory of Evolution true?

[Mattara]

"Replace" chromosomes? If it is even possible to "Replace" a chtomosome in the way you are talking you would be "combining" two people in a way. I hardly doubt that would work at all. It isn't that easy. The human genome is a highly advanced puzzle; everything needs to fit, from the physical to the chemical world.

 

[selfAdjoint]

"Replace" chromosomes? If it is even possible to "Replace" a chtomosome in the way you are talking you would be "combining" two people in a way. I hardly doubt that would work at all. It isn't that easy. The human genome is a highly advanced puzzle; everything needs to fit, from the physical to the chemical world.

Without in any way slightling the great complexity of the task, it's just a technical problem and as technical abilities advance (which they are currently doing by leaps and bounds) it may eventually become possible. As for combining two people, one might begin by duplicating the existing X-chromosome. Since that might cause some unhealthiy recessive pairings, it might be more conservative to use one of the two X-chromosomes from your parents that you didn't get; your father's and your mother's other one.

As Isaac Asimov sang (to the tune of Home on the Range):
"Clone, clone of my own
With its Y-chromosome changed to X..."

 

[fournier17]

I'm just wondering is the Darwin theory of evolution is actually acceptable? We were thought to believe about this theory since we were young but as our mind expands with other info I seem to find this theory somewhat false. He states that human origin comes from apes... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here? Shouldn't they evolve into humans too? Why did only some turns to human? the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.

Yes evolution is true, not only has natural selection happened in nature, but something called artificial selection has (which is the selective breeding of organisms that contain characteristics that are desirable by man) led to species that we desire. An example is domestic dog which were artificialy selected to be cute and cudely. I don't think if we were to travel back in time to before dogs were domesticated we would find wild basset hounds and chihuahuas. Another example is brocolli, and cauliflower which were derived from mustard plants through artificial selection. Have you even taken a general biology class? The basics of evolution are presented to you in that class, I suggest you learn more about evolution by taking a general bio course before you start to even qeustion the validity of evolution, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Phobos]

If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.

note: not all Christian religions take the Adam and Eve story so literally. Many Christians accept the theory of evolution. (I'm not familiar enough with Muslim religions...but presumably the same applies.)

While you're at it, the theory also conflicts with literal interpretations of Jewish and Hindu beliefs as well as pretty much every other religious creation story.

But the theory is built up from physical/verifiable lines of evidence rather than traditional beliefs.

 

[Intuitive]

I'm just wondering is the Darwin theory of evolution is actually acceptable? We were thought to believe about this theory since we were young but as our mind expands with other info I seem to find this theory somewhat false. He states that human origin comes from apes... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here? Shouldn't they evolve into humans too? Why did only some turns to human? the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.

Look at Cats, The common House Cat compared to the mighty Lion, Through Both Natural and Domestic selection all Cats, That's right, All Cats
can be cross fertilized domestically but the difference in species keeps them from Naturaly interbreeding with each other, There is one species called a http://images.google.com/images?q=liger&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images" which is domestically crossed breed between a Lion and a Tiger which has also made the Liger the largest current Cat in the World.

A Liger almost looks like a missing link to the Sabor Tooth Tiger.

Not to mention Dogs.

 

[Intuitive]

I also failed to mention the http://www.colszoo.org/animalareas/aforest/bonobo.html" which is closer to Humans than any other Primate known, Bonobos also have Human like sex forming many positions and do appear to have very much sexual pleasure just as Humans do, I have seen the Bonobos Females giving Oral Copulation to Bonobo Males when a Bonobo Male gives the Bonobo Female a Gift of some kind or even just a simple kiss, I have seen some pretty good documentries on Bonobo ape that I will never forget, If you want to study a Good Primate then take a look at the Bonobo.

What makes a Monkey different than an Ape, Apes have no external Tail.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What makes a Monkey different than an Ape, Apes have no external Tail.

Well no. In general old world monkeys lack the tail and new world monkeys have it. Compare Macacqies(sp?) and Cebus. Apes are a few closely related species of primates, including humans.

 

[Intuitive]

Well no. In general old world monkeys lack the tail and new world monkeys have it. Compare Macacqies(sp?) and Cebus. Apes are a few closely related species of primates, including humans.

(What makes a Monkey different than an Ape, Apes have no external Tail)

"Ape" (Old Eng. apa; Dutch aap; Old Ger. affo; Welsh epa; Old Czech op) is a word of uncertain origin and is possibly an onomatopoetic imitation of animal chatter. The term has a history of rather imprecise usage. Its earliest meaning was a tailless (and therefore exceptionally human-like) non-human primate, but as zoological knowledge developed it became clear that taillessness occurred in a number of different and otherwise unrelated species.

The macaque that you mentioned appear to be very closely related to the Baboon in appearance but has lost its Baboon Muzzle, Sort of like an evolved Baboon. Where as the Cebus is definitely a Monkey.

Within this group, both families of apes can be distinguished from these monkeys by the number of cusps on their molars (apes have five—the "Y-5" molar pattern, Old World monkeys have only four in a "bilophodont" pattern). Apes have more mobile shoulder joints and arms, ribcages that are flatter front-to-back, and a shorter, less mobile spine compared to Old World monkeys. These are all anatomical adaptations to vertical hanging and swinging locomotion (brachiation) in the apes. All living members of the Hylobatidae and Hominidae are tailless, and humans can therefore accurately be referred to as bipedal apes.

Getting back to the Bonobo, It is classified as the most Human like Ape, even more so than the Chimpanzee, Orangutans and Gorillas according to research and Bonobo does recognize itself in the Mirror in this case.

In the History of Primate Media, the Bonobo has not been given the Media it deserves and Darwin would of rolled in his Grave.

 

[Intuitive]

If we was to lose just a few tendons between the Metatarsal bone and the Middle Phalange of the foot then our feet would look like an Apes Foot.

since we chose to run after prey our feet must change to suit the new stress on them.

It has been seen that Chimpanzees use ambush techniques to capture and kill small deer but have not developed the ability to run down prey as efficiently as we can.

in the image of the Human foot, you can clearly see the arch in the Metatarsal between the Middle Phalange that appears to be an evolved addition and has been pulled together with developed tendons in its local area, With a little tendon surgery only you could have your very own Ape feet.

 

[Tojen]

2. Does the theory of evolution make any predictions? Is there a pattern in these evolutions ? Can we say that in X number of years, Homo Sapiens may evolve into one of many species with certain attributes ?

To do that, you'd have to be able to predict all environmental changes, such as isolation events as Mattara said, in the unforeseeable future, which is impossible. Through some cataclysmic event, humans might be forced to live in trees again so that only the lightest and most nimble of us would survive, but there's absolutely no way we can predict if that will happen.

Even in times of relatively constant environmental conditions, there's genetic drift:

Chance events can cause the frequencies of alleles in a small population to drift randomly from generation to generation. For example, consider what would happen if [a]... wildflower population ... consisted of only 25 plants. Assume that 16 of the plants have the genotype AA for flower color, 8 are Aa, and only 1 is aa. Now imagine that three of the plants are accidently destroyed by a rock slide before they have a chance to reproduce. By chance, all three plants lost from the population could be AA individuals. The event would alter the relative frequency of the two alleles for flower color in subsequent generations. This is a case of microevolution caused by genetic drift...(Campbell, N.A. in Biology 2nd ed. Benjamin/Cummings 1990 p.443)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

 

[Tojen]

Now, biologically, and based on known laws of physics, the above "version" of creation presented in Genesis is impossible--that is, grasses, trees, etc. (e.g., plants with chlorophyll) cannot be prior to the "greater light" (sun) which is the ultimate source of energy required for photosynthesis.

To say nothing of how two days came to pass before the sun popped into existence.

 

[sidhe2468]

I disagree with you. Science and religion are completely different. Religion requires its followers to have faith in the teachings, faith being defined as belief in something without evidence. Science is the exact opposite since the theories are upheld by experimental evidence, not faith.

Religion and science get along in almost every aspect and have not fight with each other, except in evolution. to find where science and religion part ways you must look to the origins of life. This is where both science and religion lose all ability prove anything, thay both make statements that cannot be backed up, and require a person to believe that the parts that cannot be proven are of little consequence the big picture. The first and most obvious augment against religion is "where did God or Gods come from?" The biggest one for science is "Where did matter come from?" The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Seeing as science must be proven over and over, and if one part of that scientific theory cannot be proven or is disproven then the theory is not science and is a belief. Science and religion stand together on every point, except for the one science that is not science, I say that they go together 100%

 

[Gerenuk]

Indeed, people should at least get the idea of evolution right before they argue against it.

In the end it I actually don't care what people think of evolution. Let everyone have this own opinion.

Are there any applications of the theory of evolution? I mean does it help in medicine or biology (protect species,...) ? Then of course I'd rather consult someone with a theory that might have some predictive power based on everyday logic. Religious post-question "I knew it"-statements wouldn't help.

Here's the prove that Darwin was right:

 

[khemix]

I'm just wondering is the Darwin theory of evolution is actually acceptable? We were thought to believe about this theory since we were young but as our mind expands with other info I seem to find this theory somewhat false. He states that human origin comes from apes... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here? Shouldn't they evolve into humans too? Why did only some turns to human? the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.

like others have pointed out, you do not know evolution well enough to critize it. animals don't "evolve" with the mere passage of time, it is completely random. mutation is extremely rare, and for it to have a positive effect is even rarer. so what happened is one or two chimps were born as mutants who could think, had children, who had children who happened to have better mutations and so on. basically evolution is being born lucky to have mutated genes, which as a result make you have more kids that pass on such traits.

the theory of evolution is a remarkable theory because of how applicable it is. it explains all of biology, and all of biology agrees with evolution on everything... from the genes to the organism. to my knowledge, no data exists that has yet contradicted the theory of evolution - although there are many attempts.






and i just realized this thread is 2 years old. bummer.

 

[sidhe2468]

like others have pointed out, you do not know evolution well enough to critize it. animals don't "evolve" with the mere passage of time, it is completely random. mutation is extremely rare, and for it to have a positive effect is even rarer. so what happened is one or two chimps were born as mutants who could think, had children, who had children who happened to have better mutations and so on. basically evolution is being born lucky to have mutated genes, which as a result make you have more kids that pass on such traits.

the theory of evolution is a remarkable theory because of how applicable it is. it explains all of biology, and all of biology agrees with evolution on everything... from the genes to the organism. to my knowledge, no data exists that has yet contradicted the theory of evolution - although there are many attempts.






and i just realized this thread is 2 years old. bummer.

I may point out that unlike they might have you believe, for a the ancestor of a monkey or ape to mutate into a human it would take hundreds of thousands of helpful mutations none of which have ever been observed. if one of the mutations in a chain of helpful mutations was bad the mutant would die and every helpful mutation wasted. As well if one mutant is born to have any chance of reproduction it would have to mate with another of its own kind meaning you have to double the number of helpful odds and have them run along the same time line for our current way of reproduction to even have a chance of evolving. The fact that we even have sex the way we do goes against evolution in that it is slow, labor is unpredictable and we only have one kid at a time (two or more have a very high chance of not working out at all, hence the statement one at a time) regardless much less than say a termite or ant, if natural selection is to be given credit for evolution we would reproduce like an ant or a fast breading animal seeing as this is the most efficient way for one species to survive in a harsh environment. To add to this why would we even give birth, if splitting like some micro organisms work so well for spreading an organism. Now that we have that out there, no one has ever found one of the millions of half mutated monsters and none of the ones that did not survive in fossil form, in reality we should find some of the mutant fossils, the numbers of which in reality would be much more numerous than the ones we find now.

Start looking at the world around and how many mutations must have gone into making the complicated things you see around you, then look up the parts of the "simple" single cell organisms that started evolution and you will see the down fall that plagues evolution from the start to end. This is assuming you do not look at the provability of a inanimate object getting life and the ability to reason. To think that not even a modern man can make a brain that works as good as the one we have let alone a inanimate object making its self.

 

[arildno]

Religion and science get along in almost every aspect and have not fight with each other, except in evolution. to find where science and religion part ways you must look to the origins of life. This is where both science and religion lose all ability prove anything, thay both make statements that cannot be backed up, and require a person to believe that the parts that cannot be proven are of little consequence the big picture. The first and most obvious augment against religion is "where did God or Gods come from?" The biggest one for science is "Where did matter come from?" The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Nonsense. Prior to any theories or explanations, we have the following diverging point:
1. Religions ASSERT that Gods exist, whereas science assert that matter exists.

Do you see a MAJOR difference in these two assertions?

Seeing as science must be proven over and over, and if one part of that scientific theory cannot be proven or is disproven then the theory is not science and is a belief.

Nonsense.

Science and religion stand together on every point,

Nope. except for the one science that is not science, I say that they go together 100%[/QUOTE]

 

[sidhe2468]

Nonsense. Prior to any theories or explanations, we have the following diverging point:
1. Religions ASSERT that Gods exist, whereas science assert that matter exists.

Do you see a MAJOR difference in these two assertions?


Nonsense.

Nope. except for the one science that is not science, I say that they go together 100%

[/QUOTE]

I am not putting them in the same boat I am merely saying before you blatantly state that evolution is science you might want consider the fact that it cannot be proven, has never bean prove and has many holes, it is as pointless to say it is a science as saying religion is science. if you were confused and miss the point of my statement I hope this clarifies your confusion. before you say it is a science please answer the questions posed by the post I made just before this. If you cannot than Evolution is not science and if you do ill be happy to change my point of view, or find more problems for you to solve, seeing as there are many. My sincere apologies for not being clear and best regards

 

[sidhe2468]

Nonsense. Prior to any theories or explanations, we have the following diverging point:
1. Religions ASSERT that Gods exist, whereas science assert that matter exists.

Do you see a MAJOR difference in these two assertions?


Nonsense.

Nope. except for the one science that is not science, I say that they go together 100%

[/QUOTE]

Stating God exists then saying matter exists is better, only proves my point that nether are science. if matter was it is as easy as saying god was for both have no creation and cannot be. Every thing has to have a cause nothing can just come into existence of its own accord since it is not there to have a will of its own, as far as I know, matter has no will at all even now so to say in made itself is even worse than saying God a being with a will made him self, but it still remains that both are not science both are a belief. You never answered the question, where did matter came from? so please add this to the list of answers you give form my post on the problems of evolution, stated in my first reply to this post.

 

[khemix]

I may point out that unlike they might have you believe, for a the ancestor of a monkey or ape to mutate into a human it would take hundreds of thousands of helpful mutations non of which have ever bean observed. if one of the mutations in a chain of helpful mutations was bad the mutant would die and every helpful mutation wasted.

yes thousands of mutations are needed. but we had 8 million years since we split from the chimps. people don't seem to understand what a massive amount 8 million years is. look at what has happened to civilization in the last 1000 years. now clearly not much evolution happened, but it should give you an idea of what 8 million years is.

by what reason would there be only one mutant? at first yes, but if it is a useful one this mutant would have more offspring... which in turn would have more offspring etc. over time, more and more of the population would have this gene... until eventually most have it. then one chimp has another mutation, and the cycle continues. why would one dieng ruin the cycle?

As well if one mutant is born to have any chance of reproduction it would have to mate with another of its own kind meaning you have to double the number of helpful odds and have them run along the same time line for our current way of reproduction to even have a chance of evolving. the fact that we even have sex the way we do goes against evolution in that it is slow labor is unpredictable and we only have one kid at a time (two or more have a very high chance of not working out at all, hence the statement one at a time) regardless much less than say a termite or ant, if natural selection is to be given credit for evolution we would reproduce like a ant or a fast breading animal seeing as this is the most efficient way for one species to survive in a harsh environment.

only one parent needs the mutation. if you marry a blonde, chances are one of your kids will be blonde even if you have brown hair. our slow labor is derived from chimps, which derive it from another common ancestor. it worked out for them, and it works out for us. womne are still capable of having 20 children in their life time.

to add to this why would be even give berth if splitting like some micro organisms work so well for spreading a organism. Now that we have that out there, no one has ever found one of the millions of half mutated monsters and non of the ones that did not survive in fossil form, in reality we should find some of the mutant fossils the numbers of which in reality would be much more numerous than the ones we find now.

asexual organims put quantity over quality. they are very vulnerable to disease because they have similar codes. sex developed acidentally and happened to bring more diversity, which made disease less effective. fossils are extremely rare, so unless a mutant is extremely populous it won't fossilize. having said that, we have discovered many transition forms that correspond to evolution. ie. the deeper fossils are more primitive, and ones nearer to the surface tend to be more 'modern'. we see a pattern of development.

Start looking at the world around and how many mutations must have gone into making the complicated things you see around you. then look up the parts of the "simple" single cell organisms that started evolution and you will see the down fall that plagues evolution from the start to the end. This is assuming you do not look at the provability of a inanimate object getting life and the ability to reason. To think that not even a modern man can make a brain that works as good as the one we have let alone a inanimate object making its self

look at the 'life' your computer is capable of. pure inorganic metals working in relatively simple ways. something man has created in the last 100 years. computers have perfect reasoning ability.

be thankful we are capable of what we are, for it is truly amazing compared to all other animals.

 

[sidhe2468]

yes thousands of mutations are needed. but we had 8 million years since we split from the chimps. people don't seem to understand what a massive amount 8 million years is. look at what has happened to civilization in the last 1000 years. now clearly not much evolution happened, but it should give you an idea of what 8 million years is.

by what reason would there be only one mutant? at first yes, but if it is a useful one this mutant would have more offspring... which in turn would have more offspring etc. over time, more and more of the population would have this gene... until eventually most have it. then one chimp has another mutation, and the cycle continues. why would one dieng ruin the cycle?



only one parent needs the mutation. if you marry a blonde, chances are one of your kids will be blonde even if you have brown hair. our slow labor is derived from chimps, which derive it from another common ancestor. it worked out for them, and it works out for us. womne are still capable of having 20 children in their life time.



asexual organims put quantity over quality. they are very vulnerable to disease because they have similar codes. sex developed acidentally and happened to bring more diversity, which made disease less effective. fossils are extremely rare, so unless a mutant is extremely populous it won't fossilize. having said that, we have discovered many transition forms that correspond to evolution. ie. the deeper fossils are more primitive, and ones nearer to the surface tend to be more 'modern'. we see a pattern of development.

look at the 'life' your computer is capable of. pure inorganic metals working in relatively simple ways. something man has created in the last 100 years. computers have perfect reasoning ability.

be thankful we are capable of what we are, for it is truly amazing compared to all other animals.

now I would like to ask where the sex organs came form in the first place. Where the ability to reason and where life itself came into being, without a brain, without the ability to reason without any ability to reproduce. the laws that hold up evolution state that life itself is a unbeneficial purposes and should never have existed. I would also like to point out that since our current organs for reproduction where not present in single cell organisms you would have a hard time finding anyone to use them on... life has to have a beginning and it dose not come from nothing. the fact life even exists without any reason, rationality or destine is evolutions biggest problem.

I noticed you used the argument that we do have a middle fossil i bag to differ we have two similar fosses but none that transcend species or any half rock half animal life... never have we proven that any thing can change from one kind to another genetic differences happen all the time but not to the point of something completely new. As for computers you have missed the point that they still rely on a creator and did not make themselves and do not come close to the reasoning ability of humans since all information put in it comes for documents produced by humans.

 

[khemix]

life is nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions working the right way. as cynical as that may sound, it is true one way or another. we've already synthisized organic molecules in the lab using purely inorganic materials. all these complex features like the brain didnt come out of the blue, they evolved gradually over the course of billions of years. reason is billions of neurons working the right chemical reactions - it helped animals, so the trait of reason was passed down. as you know, simpler organisms such as bacteria don't have reason... they are still life though. why does life exist? chance. it all results from luck.

sex organs didn't appear at an instant, they were present in single celled organisms in a primitive form. as time went on these evolved into sex organs, over the course of billions of years. you underestimate how easy it is to have a mutation. a single amino acid can have devastating effects.

as for proving evolution, we have experiments that do it. bacteria... because they have very short life spans we can study thousands of generations. we've tested various forms of resistance and it worked.

 

[D H]

and i just realized this thread is 2 years old. bummer.

No joke.

Religion and science get along in almost every aspect and have not fight with each other, except in evolution. ...

Not a good start for one's first post at PF. You dredged up a two-year old thread for the sole purpose of writing a non-scientific rant in a decidedly scientific forum.

That said, Welcome to PF, sidhe2468!

The biggest one for science is "Where did matter come from?" The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

There is no law of conservation of mass. We know that mass can be converted into energy; we used that knowledge rather destructively to put an abrupt end to World War II.

The correct law of conservation of energy. Since mass is simply a bound form of energy, conservation of energy encompasses the older concept of conservation of mass.

Seeing as science must be proven over and over, and if one part of that scientific theory cannot be proven or is disproven then the theory is not science and is a belief.

You have a misunderstanding of science. Scientific theories, unlike mathematical theorems, cannot be proven true. If they could there would be no need to confirm a scientific theory. Mathematical theorems, once proven true, are true forever. The scientific method that underlies all of science relies on evidence. Observations that agree with what some scientific theory predicts would have be observed is confirming evidence of the theory. While confirming evidence does lend credence to the theory, it does not prove the theory correct. Scientific theories represent our best understanding of how things work. Every scientific theory has provisional status.

[QUOTE}except for the one science that is not science[/QUOTE]
I don't know if this oblique reference is to evolution or cosmology, but in either case you are wrong. Both evolution and cosmology are science. Both have well-developed theories bolstered by immense amounts of confirming evidence. Neither is a "proven to be true" science, but that is a straw man. There is no such thing as a "proven to be true" science.

I may point out that unlike they might have you believe, for a the ancestor of a monkey or ape to mutate into a human it would take hundreds of thousands of helpful mutations none of which have ever been observed.

This is a scientific forum, so it is best to back up statements like that with references. An entire branch of science, paleoanthropology, is dedicated to collecting evidence of the evolution of humanity. To say that they haven't observed anything is just plain wrong.

The fact that we even have sex the way we do goes against evolution ...

You have this exactly wrong: Sex is one of the key driving mechanisms behind evolution.

... and we only have one kid at a time (two or more have a very high chance of not working out at all, hence the statement one at a time) ...

That is completely wrong.

Now that we have that out there, no one has ever found one of the millions of half mutated monsters and none of the ones that did not survive in fossil form, in reality we should find some of the mutant fossils, the numbers of which in reality would be much more numerous than the ones we find now.

This is a oft-used, and completely wrong-headed distortion of evolution. That said, biologists have discovered many intermediate species, such as primitive whales with legs, a variety of horses, and a lot of different humanoid species.

You never answered the question, where did matter came from?

Science's main job is to explain how things are, not how they came to be. Explaining origins is nice, but not essential. That said, there is no inherent contradiction between the conservation laws and theories about the origin of the universe. It is energy that is conserved, not mass, and there are some very good reasons to think that the total energy of the universe is zero. Even if the total energy of the universe is not zero, so what? There is still no contradiction. The conservation laws result from various symmetries of space and time, and space and time were not symmetric at the instant the universe came into existence. The laws of conservation may not apply at this singular moment.

 

[arildno]

Stating God exists then saying matter exists is better, only proves my point that nether are science. if matter was it is as easy as saying god was for both have no creation and cannot be.

This is unintelligible.
You are obviously without capacity to distinguish between facts and fancy.
We KNOW that matter exists, it is a fact.
We do NOT know that God exists, that may well be a fantasy.

Do you understand that this is a major difference??

Unless you show a clear ability to appreciate this crucial difference, you are not to be regarded as intellectually competent to discuss the issues of various theories' justifiability.
In particular, you are not to be regarded as a valued contributor to the important debate on what set of indicators should be regarded as the standard by which we justify assertions, or dismiss them.
Nor are you to be considered capable of discussing the origins of anything.

 

[lonton]

Whether God existence or not is not really important, because human beings come into existence with different abilities, understandings about any particular things in discussion. They can give the others better notions of certain social behaviors. The updated version of a particular software offers better functionality to users for example, but since this world is NOT actually perfect, how can you expect a particular book or person's idea to be complete or perfect ? Use the main idea with what one comprehends to improve one's life. Such an improvement had better offer also positive impacts on society and other people's lives for the best.

 

[arildno]

Whether God existence or not is not really important,

Eeh, really?
A universe WITHOUT the existence of an omnipotent being is surely a completely different universe WITH such a being in existence?

because human beings come into existence with different abilities, understandings about any particular things in discussion.

Sure enough, but why does that diminish the importance of the question whether there exists a God or not??
Why is it at all relevant?

They can give the others better notions of certain social behaviors.

Who are "they"? The religionists??
It is certainly true that atheists may teach religionists quite a bit about what constitutes morality, but not the other way around.

The updated version of a particular software offers better functionality to users for example, but since this world is NOT actually perfect, how can you expect a particular book or person's idea to be complete or perfect ?

Eeh, the relevance being??

Use the main idea with what one comprehends to improve one's life.

What "main idea"?
That if you happen to do actions contrary to the asserted laws of God, then it is right and proper to burn in hellfire for an eternity?
Just because the omnipotent being is capable of effecting this?

Such an improvement had better offer also positive impacts on society and other people's lives for the best.

What improvements?

That it is better to beat your children when they are disobedient towards the laws of God, for surely it is better to inflict a momentary pain upon them, than that your loved children should suffer for all eternity in hell?

 

[sidhe2468]

No joke.

Not a good start for one's first post at PF. You dredged up a two-year old thread for the sole purpose of writing a non-scientific rant in a decidedly scientific forum.

That said, Welcome to PF, sidhe2468!


There is no law of conservation of mass. We know that mass can be converted into energy; we used that knowledge rather destructively to put an abrupt end to World War II.

The correct law of conservation of energy. Since mass is simply a bound form of energy, conservation of energy encompasses the older concept of conservation of mass.


You have a misunderstanding of science. Scientific theories, unlike mathematical theorems, cannot be proven true. If they could there would be no need to confirm a scientific theory. Mathematical theorems, once proven true, are true forever. The scientific method that underlies all of science relies on evidence. Observations that agree with what some scientific theory predicts would have be observed is confirming evidence of the theory. While confirming evidence does lend credence to the theory, it does not prove the theory correct. Scientific theories represent our best understanding of how things work. Every scientific theory has provisional status.

[QUOTE}except for the one science that is not science

I don't know if this oblique reference is to evolution or cosmology, but in either case you are wrong. Both evolution and cosmology are science. Both have well-developed theories bolstered by immense amounts of confirming evidence. Neither is a "proven to be true" science, but that is a straw man. There is no such thing as a "proven to be true" science.



This is a scientific forum, so it is best to back up statements like that with references. An entire branch of science, paleoanthropology, is dedicated to collecting evidence of the evolution of humanity. To say that they haven't observed anything is just plain wrong.


You have this exactly wrong: Sex is one of the key driving mechanisms behind evolution.
That is completely wrong.


This is a oft-used, and completely wrong-headed distortion of evolution. That said, biologists have discovered many intermediate species, such as primitive whales with legs, a variety of horses, and a lot of different humanoid species.


Science's main job is to explain how things are, not how they came to be. Explaining origins is nice, but not essential. That said, there is no inherent contradiction between the conservation laws and theories about the origin of the universe. It is energy that is conserved, not mass, and there are some very good reasons to think that the total energy of the universe is zero. Even if the total energy of the universe is not zero, so what? There is still no contradiction. The conservation laws result from various symmetries of space and time, and space and time were not symmetric at the instant the universe came into existence. The laws of conservation may not apply at this singular moment.[/QUOTE]

The law of conservation of mass states matter cannot be created or destroyed, the one you planed on putting in its place was the law of conservation of energy this states that the amount of energy put into something will have the same amount of energy come out, or stored but the numbers do not change. It is true that if you prove science then it is true. If on the other hand you prove thousands of thing right on the basis that in order for what you see to be true than something must have been in place in the past to make it such, than every thing before it cannot be proven due to the assumption that it works because of a unproven theories.

now to the point of sex drives. Sex is a complicated set of chemical codes hormones and pheromones that drive one organism to reproduce. If any part of that complicated system is not present then it is broken, to prove this remove the male reproductive parts and see how long the sex drive remains. In order to have any chance of sex even becoming the drive for something to change from inanimate to animate you would have to say dirt had sex and had the parts to do such, in order for that to be the drive to change into a living organism. Correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that gasses, Non animated dirt and chemicals in other forums feel, think, have sex, or even have a will from which evolution would make it change. If you are to say evolution gave life you then place evolution as a being with a will to dominate and the ability to force change. In essence you have made evolution God since nothing can affect its own change. This in itself leaves the question if nothing is, where does the want to evolve come from? If you say something always was you are making the assumption that before anything else was it was, this then becomes the same problem you have in proving god. If you cannot prove god is and that makes it a religion, not being able to prove anything has existed for ever, if it has, not being able to prove where it comes form makes evolution improvable and in turn a religion as well. Science cannot be a belief it must be tested and proven, and if anything is built on a belief it also cannot be science because in part it was never fully proven.

If you can see matter but not god but nether can be proven to have a beginning you must say matter is, was, and is always present. this dose not prove evolution it only make one have to believe that some thing can have no beginning and no end, if you must believe something and it cannot be proven that again makes it a religion. if evolution is only a religious view held by some scientists since not all hold to it, it should not be in our textbooks, and definitely should not be taught as proven true.

 

[russ_watters]

Anti-science crackpottery in a two year old thread. Thread closed.