intelligent design is the idea that everything had a designer. Where there is a design there is a designer. Einstein supported this.
Einstein was an atheist. He said if there was anything he believed in,, it was the beauty of the Universe and everything in it. Now you can interpret that as much as you want a s him supporting a higher belief, but he called himself an atheist, so that's what I'd go by.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I do not imagine a lizard gaining feathers. No matter how similar scales may seem to feathers for some people you cannot evolve from one into another in one day. You need a moderate term first. And, trust me, a lizard with feathery (aka weaker) scales would not survive. A lizard with lighter bone allowing it to jump would not survive either, lighter bones would hinder it. Moderate terms would not survive. Nor would mutants, which can at least explain where feathers come from. But even if a mutant is more advantageous, it won't reproduce without another identical mutant. Thus, the whole theory of evolution crashes down for me.
I understand what you're saying, and I've thought about this problem myself, though not specifically feathers.
But there are other aspects to keep in mind. A creature does not die simply because it has some features worse than it's competitors. Perhaps the lizard lacked natural predators for a long time where it lived, thus allowing it to develop in-between without dying. Perhaps a plague wiped out all the other lizards eating the same food, leaving a massive surplus to grow from.
We don't know, but not knowing does not disprove.
Quote from "Equinox" »
No one ever found a fossil of a moderate term of any evolutionary cycle. They saw the beginning, and the end, and that's it. Sounds a lot more like someone came, loaded up Spore, added a new creatures, and let it go whee run around to surprise the lizards.
So Homo Erectus is not considered the fossil in between Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens?
Quote from "Umpa65" »
You make perfect sense to me, but for who it actually concerns im afraid it might fall upon deaf ears.
Evolution seems to be a trend or a fad almost. People adopt these concepts as their own and turn down the idea of anything else and they slowly become these people not open to suggestion.
You know you're not contributingin any way with this statement. If you people here are ignorant, feel free to leave the discussion.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
And how do you know this? Do you actually know how many transitional fossils they have found. The first one was found just a couple years after Darwin wrote his book on the origin of species I believe. There has been much progress in the 100+ years since then, this isn't the 1800's anymore.
I read it, as a dominant factor in why The Theory of Evolution is not proven.
I read books in my time on this matter. Used to be fascinated. I realized that a lot of these books just want you to believe them but if you look at the facts they lack concrete proof in way too many areas. I read enough on evolution in my time and now I turn to philosophy, thank you very much. It's much more useful, it is something that is applicable now (believing in evolution or not would not make any difference to me, I'm just a deist and evolution doesn't disprove that), and it is something I can test on my own skin.
But, I do hate it when people tell me "evolution is proven". That is simply so not true. Show me a lab experiment of a lizard becoming a bird - I'll believe you. Until we can do that, I'll take this theory with a grain of salt.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
But there are other aspects to keep in mind. A creature does not die simply because it has some features worse than it's competitors. Perhaps the lizard lacked natural predators for a long time where it lived, thus allowing it to develop in-between without dying. Perhaps a plague wiped out all the other lizards eating the same food, leaving a massive surplus to grow from.
We don't know, but not knowing does not disprove.
I was thinking of this. But I also thought of many many other possibilities. Nothing is entirely truthful. Why should I believe this theory, only because it's the only theory?
I am not trying to disprove the Theory of Evolution - I have nothing against it. I just do not choose to blindly believe in it, and it doesn't seem logical to me at this point, either I am stupid or there is just not enough proof for me to make it sound logical.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
So Homo Erectus is not considered the fossil in between Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens?
Yeah but he's not exactly a moderate term, he's a moderate species, not to mention that I am less concerned about the evolution between all these "Homo" as opposed to the evolution between whatever they evolved from. I am also not very confident about the fact that intelligence is something that can evolve the way it evolved into the human mind. For nature to generate a creature that would change the course of the world's progress seems very strange and un-harmonios to me. Almost as if humans are not really of this world.
But, I do hate it when people tell me "evolution is proven". That is simply so not true. Show me a lab experiment of a lizard becoming a bird - I'll believe you. Until we can do that, I'll take this theory with a grain of salt.
Arguably though, that's wouldn't really prove evolution to you either. You don't seem do doubt the fact that a lizard can theoretically get feathers, only that evolution will never make it happen in practicality.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I was thinking of this. But I also thought of many many other possibilities. Nothing is entirely truthful. Why should I believe this theory, only because it's the only theory?
You should believe it, for it prevails where others fail. So far there's no evidence that outright disproves the theory, only areas where it hasn't been proven or disproven in.
That's how science works. We come up with an idea, and we test it. The Greeks did it with gravity, then came Newton, and today we have Einstein. Each step in the chain improves upon the flaws of the previous theory when they become apparent.
Newtonian mechanics were flawless at their time, and so were thought to be true, because they served their purpose. Then one day they turned out to be incorrect. What happened then was science found a better solution, one that did not discard the original ideas, only described them differently.
Evolution is the same. Dawrin "came up" with it, and since then it has evolved. Many ideas that Dawrin had are today known not to be true.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
I don't intend to join the argument or side with anybody , but some of you seem to share different views about Einstein's religious outlook, which made me decide to investigate it ..lol
1st from what i can gather he was'nt atheist , he was agnostic (according to wiki) (which is the best view in my opinion as it does not restrict you to such a narrow view) or Pantheistic (according to other references) .. my ref =
anyway .. don't shoot the messenger , i'm just trying to help set some facts straight so you can atleast eliminate one thing from the argument .. which has come a very long way from the original question..lol
I personally disagreed with evolution until sometime after high school. I wasn't religious, but I didn't agree with science either. What changed my mind was actually taking the time to read about it. You could spend hundreds of hours reading about evolution, and still have much more ahead of you.
If you are really interested in understanding both sides, I would recommend reading Evolution: And Why The Fossil Record Matters by Donald Prothero, who is an actual paleontology, unlike most of the people that try to educate each other on its flaws. There are thousands of people, that have been, for over a hundred years, dedicated their lives to advancing the theory of evolution, there is mountains of information to digest. Don't make the mistake of assuming your ignorance is shared by everyone, it's very easy to do, and even though I believe in evolution, I still make that mistake myself. Many of the holes people think exist in evolution, where already figured out decades ago, but people don't bother looking for the explanations enough to say that there isn't one. Just because you cannot find the answer from someone you may have had a previous debate with on the Inernet or by using Google or another search engine, doesn't mean the explanation does not exist, sometimes you have to pick up a book and read it from beginning to end to come across it.
Even after spending as much time as I have learning about it, I myself, still find that something I thought was not figured out, was figured out long ago or was never even an issue to begin with. There's tons of knowledge within the scientific community, but it can be difficult to find unless you're will to take quite a bit of your time to find those answers.
No he didn't.
yes he did!zomg, ill find the quote lmfao
actually toodkeng did a good job..
And since i apparently dont contribute and phrozen knows all about evolution then answer me this one.
Why is there only one species of humans?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I don't intend to join the argument or side with anybody , but some of you seem to share different views about Einstein's religious outlook, which made me decide to investigate it ..lol
1st from what i can gather he was'nt atheist , he was agnostic (according to wiki) (which is the best view in my opinion as it does not restrict you to such a narrow view) or Pantheistic (according to other references) .. my ref =
anyway .. don't shoot the messenger , i'm just trying to help set some facts straight so you can atleast eliminate one thing from the argument .. which has come a very long way from the original question..lol
Thanks for your contribution. I find quotes to be the most revealing.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it... I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism...
Most claims about Einstein stem from a quote showing his frustration with Quantum Mechanics:
God does not play dice with the Universe
You could call him an agnostic or pantheist. But I don't see anything that would pin him down as a proponent of Intelligent Design. Being that Einstein was a physicist and not a biologist, the quotes are focused at physics, not The Theory of Evolution, biology, etc... I've never come across a quote where he is talking about his dislike for evolution, and the Intelligent Design did NOT even exist back then, so of course, there is no quotes about his thoughts about that either.
yes he did!zomg, ill find the quote lmfao
actually toodkeng did a good job..
And since i apparently dont contribute and phrozen knows all about evolution then answer me this one.
Why is there only one species of humans?
silly because homo sapien is the only species of human. if it were something else we wouldnt call them human. but in a more serious way u need to touch up on your evolution theories. i am majoring in biology and political science (yeah real weird combo) so i know most of these answers and a lot of you are wrong. so to answer you...
survival of the fittest, aka, natural selection. the more dominant, or in this case, better suited for the environment at hand will have more success in breeding and expanding. this takes millions of years, which is also why a lizard cannot turn into a bird in a lab, there were many branches of the homo genus, but they went 'extinct' because of many reasons, weather, competition for food and land, illness, ability to adapt, and just bad luck.
also evolution is pretty much internationally accepted by the science community. theres loads of research on it. do yourself a favor and read some journals before you argue that its not true. its safe to say that every advanced biology course will have at least 3/4 of the book dedicated to evolution and its mechanics and theories.
Evolution is the same. Dawrin "came up" with it, and since then it has evolved. Many ideas that Dawrin had are today known not to be true.
no he was the first to gather evidence of it, also he offered no explanation if evolution was true, he gave explanations of how it happens (evolution had already been coined because of what scientists observed when they examined fossils and their current diversity, but there was no reason for it, which was why evolution was so weak back then, but when darwin published his book, he offered that reason) which are all true and the foundation of evolutionary biology, but the only reason he wrote origin of species was because another scientist was about to publish the same theories. and mendel also came out with genetic theories around the same time. if only those two knew each other...
A lizard with feathers is not going to have an advantage over a lizard without. It simply doesn't make any sense. A lizard without feathers is not going to get to archeopteryx form.
umm flying>crawling thats makes sense to me. flying offers numerous advantages, such as escaping predators, catching prey, ability to migrate...and that evolution took many years, you fail to understand that it doest work like a flow chart. theres many random variables involved, a la speciation and variation and recombinant genes and sexual reproduction and...a lot, id rather not list them all.
ok its not:
lizard - flying lizard - bird
its more like:
common ancestor<lizard - bigger lizard - dinosaur
common ancestor<winged reptile - big colorful winged reptile - birds
the reason they might have undergone those changes from that ancestor are hard to explain to someone who doesnt have prior knowledge of biology/evolution.
and that ^ took millions of years, and its not precise i know but for examples sake.
(if your talking about specifically just feathers on just lizards, its to look pretty and attract mates)
also about mutations, true mutations rarely have advantages and are very RARELY passed on to offspring, thanks to mendels outstanding work, its more of a population that undergoes adaptive changes to traits which are better suited for survival at the present time and conditions. population mechanics were never mentioned in anyones arguments yet about evolution. neither was gene drift and recombination of our very special mieosis process. (it takes a population of at least a certain amount, with no outside or inside influences, and then there is still very little chance for mutation that will pass (hardy-weinberg). chi squared chart and equation being used) try reading scholarly journals in biology about genetic variation, population mechs and evolution on whole. this will take weeks and months, and im not talking about wikipedia. actual journals.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
silly because homo sapien is the only species of human. if it were something else we wouldnt call them human. but in a more serious way u need to touch up on your evolution theories. i am majoring in biology and political science (yeah real weird combo) so i know most of these answers and a lot of you are wrong. so to answer you...
survival of the fittest, aka, natural selection. the more dominant, or in this case, better suited for the environment at hand will have more success in breeding and expanding. this takes millions of years, which is also why a lizard cannot turn into a bird in a lab, there were many branches of the homo genus, but they went 'extinct' because of many reasons, weather, competition for food and land, illness, ability to adapt, and just bad luck.
also evolution is pretty much internationally accepted by the science community. theres loads of research on it. do yourself a favor and read some journals before you argue that its not true. its safe to say that every advanced biology course will have at least 3/4 of the book dedicated to evolution and its mechanics and theories.
no he was the first to gather evidence of it, also he offered no explanation if evolution was true, he gave explanations of how it happens (evolution had already been coined because of what scientists observed when they examined fossils and their current diversity, but there was no reason for it, which was why evolution was so weak back then, but when darwin published his book, he offered that reason) which are all true and the foundation of evolutionary biology, but the only reason he wrote origin of species was because another scientist was about to publish the same theories. and mendel also came out with genetic theories around the same time. if only those two knew each other...
umm flying>crawling thats makes sense to me. flying offers numerous advantages, such as escaping predators, catching prey, ability to migrate...and that evolution took many years, you fail to understand that it doest work like a flow chart. theres many random variables involved, a la speciation and variation and recombinant genes and sexual reproduction and...a lot, id rather not list them all.
ok its not:
lizard - flying lizard - bird
its more like:
common ancestor<lizard - bigger lizard - dinosaur
common ancestor<winged reptile - big colorful winged reptile - birds
the reason they might have undergone those changes from that ancestor are hard to explain to someone who doesnt have prior knowledge of biology/evolution.
and that ^ took millions of years, and its not precise i know but for examples sake.
(if your talking about specifically just feathers on just lizards, its to look pretty and attract mates)
also about mutations, true mutations rarely have advantages and are very RARELY passed on to offspring, thanks to mendels outstanding work, its more of a population that undergoes adaptive changes to traits which are better suited for survival at the present time and conditions. population mechanics were never mentioned in anyones arguments yet about evolution. neither was gene drift and recombination of our very special mieosis process. (it takes a population of at least a certain amount, with no outside or inside influences, and then there is still very little chance for mutation that will pass (hardy-weinberg). chi squared chart and equation being used) try reading scholarly journals in biology about genetic variation, population mechs and evolution on whole. this will take weeks and months, and im not talking about wikipedia. actual journals.
You didn't answer my question. At all. There was more than homo sapiens according to evolution. But do you really expect me to believe that all of the other species of human died out? There were several, and many say that the intelligence of the homo sapien won out in the end. But the world is large...If evolution was the answer then i would expect to see at least one other species of human. What would make humans the exception for evolution than any other animal that survives well?
There are toonnnnnnssssss of species of tons of animals and they coexist together, why couldn't several species of human coexist together? Or even thousands of miles away from each other. It doesn't make sense to me at all and you didn't help at all to defend evolution on this topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
MICHAEL: What I’m saying is I agree with Steve completely that intelligent design theory which goes back I think the last eighties, 1980s, and certainly...
STEVE: Actually, earlier than that.
MICHAEL: Well, certainly -– well I think it goes back to Plato of course, cause I don’t think you’re saying anything new, but certainly as we know it, I think certainly was started by Philip Johnson in a big way with his book Darwin on Trial in 1991. And certainly that was the thing which got the movement going.
STEVE: It’s a science. Looking at information in the field of seismology. And I went to a conference on the origin of life. I was in my mid-twenties and it was in the early eighties and there were three scientists there that were arguing the digital information that’s encoded in DNA is evidence of a prior intelligence. And they were suggesting that the classical argument from design that goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle could be resuscitated on the basis of modern scientific discoveries.
WATTENBERG: Let me see if I can get this right what I think. All people who believe in intelligent design may or may not be creationists. But all people who believe in intelligent design are not creationists. (Freud) believed in an intelligent design, Einstein believed in an intelligent design, and Charles Darwin believed in intelligent design. He had an idea as to how the world works. And uhh…
so if this is the case it would seem that intelligent design had been around for 2300 years
You didn't answer my question. At all. There was more than homo sapiens according to evolution. But do you really expect me to believe that all of the other species of human died out? There were several, and many say that the intelligence of the homo sapien won out in the end. But the world is large...If evolution was the answer then i would expect to see at least one other species of human. What would make humans the exception for evolution than any other animal that survives well?
There are toonnnnnnssssss of species of tons of animals and they coexist together, why couldn't several species of human coexist together? Or even thousands of miles away from each other. It doesn't make sense to me at all and you didn't help at all to defend evolution on this topic.
i thought i did a decent job explaining it to you, i didnt include many detail because i dont know if u have any background in evobio.
well since all documented remains of other humanoids in genus homo are dead ones, we can safely assume that, yes i do want u to believe that all other homo species died out. because humans are a relatively weak taxa in biology, there were only around 100s of them at the time when most other homo species died out. homo sapien won the 'fight', but in all really, luck had to do with it just as much as evolutionary advantages due to our adaptation vs. theirs. not to mention, humans are very smart indeed, competition is what naturally drives species to go extinct, thats what 'we' did, we drove what few remaining sub-species of homo to extinction, the last species other than sapien was Neanderthal, died out some 25000 years ago. afterwards we traveled about and settled in the world.
there is much more detail involved but i would recommend a book or journal for you to read instead.
and now answer me this, if not evolution? then what created all the species of homo, and why did all but sapien disappear some 25000 years ago?
also, we should not be worrying about intelligent design anymore, it has been erased from all biology textbooks and seen by the scientific community as nonvalid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The intelligent design movement all happened after einstein died .. i can't disagree with that .. but ...the origins of intelligent design seem to stem all the way back to plato , here's some references;
...
so if this is the case it would seem that intelligent design had been around for 2300 years
Yes in one form or another. I think after Laplace (a.k.a. the Newton of France) solved an issue with gravity (perturbations) that Newton gave up on and left in the hands of the God of Gaps, people got uncomfortable and decided to put God back into the Heavens a different way. Since God was no longer governing the stars and all of the sudden people were just left with gravity controlling the Heavens, they made the watch maker analogy and saw the Heavens as a mechanical wonder created by God. People were uncomfortable with god missing and found a way to get him back by making him a mechanic / engineer / intelligent designer. Laplace, when asked about his lack of god in his book (Newton mentioned God in his), is often quoted as saying "I had no need of that hypothesis".
Even though he is not needed, he can be placed in the background as the watch maker to make everyone feel more at ease. It is such a powerful idea, because even if say, The Big Bang Theory is true or The Theory of Evolution is true, which Intelligent Design opposes, you could still say that, like the Theory of Gravity, The Big Bang and The Theory of Evolution were designed by God and consider them as being a part of another variety of Intelligent Design instead (note: The Big Bang was originally an idea promoted by a Bishop who actually did see it that way).
I see this, and other similar ideas, as very different from the Intelligent Design movement which is focused on The Big Bang and Evolution. Simply just saying that Newton agreed with Intelligent Design for instance, is deceptive, the Theory of Evolution wasn't even around back then. Not that it really matters, Newton also is said to have believed in astrology and alchemy, which, like Intelligent Design, are also now considered to be junk science.
It reminds me of an argument where people will say philosophers thought of the atom 1st, it took scientists another 1,000 years to catch up. What an atom is now and what it was back then, is far different. A 6 year old, 2300 years ago could have thought, that maybe if you cut something in half enough times, that you will come across an indivisible piece. Eureka! He thought of the Atom! This doesn't mean it took scientists 2300 years to catch up with the intellect of a 6 year old. The modern atom is a far cry different, it's composed of charged particles, something they could never even fathom.
Evolution, in one form or another, was around long before Darwin, but what evolution was 1,000 years ago is absolutely nothing like what it is today. Saying that (x) ancient philosopher believed in evolution is deceptive as well.
But anyhow, I don't disagree with you on this point. Intelligent Design, like Evolution or the Atom, has been around for a very long time. However, be careful when applying modern terms that have modern definitions, such as The Atom or Evolution or Intelligent Design, to old or flat out ancient ideas.
i thought i did a decent job explaining it to you, i didnt include many detail because i dont know if u have any background in evobio.
well since all documented remains of other humanoids in genus homo are dead ones, we can safely assume that, yes i do want u to believe that all other homo species died out. because humans are a relatively weak taxa in biology, there were only around 100s of them at the time when most other homo species died out. homo sapien won the 'fight', but in all really, luck had to do with it just as much as evolutionary advantages due to our adaptation vs. theirs. not to mention, humans are very smart indeed, competition is what naturally drives species to go extinct, thats what 'we' did, we drove what few remaining sub-species of homo to extinction, the last species other than sapien was Neanderthal, died out some 25000 years ago. afterwards we traveled about and settled in the world.
there is much more detail involved but i would recommend a book or journal for you to read instead.
and now answer me this, if not evolution? then what created all the species of homo, and why did all but sapien disappear some 25000 years ago?
also, we should not be worrying about intelligent design anymore, it has been erased from all biology textbooks and seen by the scientific community as nonvalid.
You cant actually prove any of that stuff you just told me. its all theory as to why we are here and they are not, making assumptions no matter how scientific dont actually prove anything. You cant just say....oh, humans are weak so the others just died out............thats not a good enough reason if your going to base an entire concept off of it. how convenient it is for the theory though
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I do say, this really hasn't stayed on topic. . . but then again. . by page 71 how the hell could it have? As a very strange thing to do by this point I'll actually attempt to stay on topic ;). The idea that there are beings (Primarily from a religious stand point) that are essentially servants of a higher power has fascinated people for millennia. Personally I do think that there are beings that one could define as angels, though probably very different than the traditional view point, often clouded by contradictory thoughts and feelings of people. Though I came from a more christian back ground I'm not a religious person, but in all essence a spiritual one. From my point of view, you could probably define an angel as any intelligent being that serves to help others on their journey, God, as the creative life energy that, without judgement or want, continuously creating and driving all physical and energetic processes within the universe, and evil merely as an energetic pattern that is by its very nature self destructive. Ordered systems tend to move into higher ordered systems by dispersing chaos into their environment. If there is too much, the system is forced to either reconfigure to handle the new change, or break down into a less ordered system of chaos. Angels are Facilitators ^_^.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
Think about it this way, there are hundreds of denominations. If angels exsist for one denomination then how the fuck does that serve the god of another denomination. You got Catholic angels doing things the Catholics believe is right and it's completely wrong from the standpoint of a Mormon or an Ahmish(..ian?..), or more conservatively, a Baptist or Methodist.
And that ain't even touching the angels from the Jewish standpoint vs the Christian standpoint...
Thats why I look at this less from a religous standpoint and more of a scientific standpoint...
And since all of them believe in some form of angel, and nearly every religion has some parallel of an angel, that makes me believe that there has to be something akin to what people would consider an "angel" in existence, maybe somewhere back in history, and since then it's just been covered with myth and legend.
It's amazing how religions are so similar and can denounce one another this is true, however, I think it's important to look past the belief systems of individual religions for the topic as much as saying to look past an individual's beliefs. There are forces working behind the scenes and on different levels that supersede our understanding, particularly those that claim religious knowledge; and for good reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
since we are on the evolution topic... has anyone considered the galapagos iguana? over the centuries it has developed black skin so when it swims in the frigid waters coming up from the antartic currents and comes out onto the rocks it absorbs as much heat to raise its body temp as fast as possible... this is an evolutionary marvel,
What does that have to do with evolution? Mere adaptation.
I don't get it how people manage to compare adaptation (color change, fur change) with scales turning into feathers. We can make different species of dogs, but we can't turn a lizard in a bird.
"and now answer me this, if not evolution? then what created all the species of homo, and why did all but sapien disappear some 25000 years ago?" - creation theory can explain this just as (and better than) evolutionary theory does. I don't see why should everyone blindly believe particularly into evolution if creation can explain everything just as well?
they all died because they couldnt compete with the brain capacity of homo sapien... we were just superior taking over their towns, superior at hunting strategies and superior in organizing towns/armies etc.. they lost just because they were inferior... its kind of like when you start a business... if you offer inferior service you are going to collapse... borders offered less selection and inferior service to barnes and noble and now borders is going bankrupt... its precisely what darwin said... survival of the fittest... and the iguanas were a totally seperate species until they became cut off from their predecessors and the 2 sets of the same animal evolved to suit their environments or perish
What does that have to do with evolution? Mere adaptation.
I don't get it how people manage to compare adaptation (color change, fur change) with scales turning into feathers. We can make different species of dogs, but we can't turn a lizard in a bird.
"and now answer me this, if not evolution? then what created all the species of homo, and why did all but sapien disappear some 25000 years ago?" - creation theory can explain this just as (and better than) evolutionary theory does. I don't see why should everyone blindly believe particularly into evolution if creation can explain everything just as well?
I understand what you're saying, and I've thought about this problem myself, though not specifically feathers.
But there are other aspects to keep in mind. A creature does not die simply because it has some features worse than it's competitors. Perhaps the lizard lacked natural predators for a long time where it lived, thus allowing it to develop in-between without dying. Perhaps a plague wiped out all the other lizards eating the same food, leaving a massive surplus to grow from.
We don't know, but not knowing does not disprove.
So Homo Erectus is not considered the fossil in between Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens?
You know you're not contributingin any way with this statement. If you people here are ignorant, feel free to leave the discussion.
I read books in my time on this matter. Used to be fascinated. I realized that a lot of these books just want you to believe them but if you look at the facts they lack concrete proof in way too many areas. I read enough on evolution in my time and now I turn to philosophy, thank you very much. It's much more useful, it is something that is applicable now (believing in evolution or not would not make any difference to me, I'm just a deist and evolution doesn't disprove that), and it is something I can test on my own skin.
But, I do hate it when people tell me "evolution is proven". That is simply so not true. Show me a lab experiment of a lizard becoming a bird - I'll believe you. Until we can do that, I'll take this theory with a grain of salt.
I was thinking of this. But I also thought of many many other possibilities. Nothing is entirely truthful. Why should I believe this theory, only because it's the only theory?
I am not trying to disprove the Theory of Evolution - I have nothing against it. I just do not choose to blindly believe in it, and it doesn't seem logical to me at this point, either I am stupid or there is just not enough proof for me to make it sound logical.
Yeah but he's not exactly a moderate term, he's a moderate species, not to mention that I am less concerned about the evolution between all these "Homo" as opposed to the evolution between whatever they evolved from. I am also not very confident about the fact that intelligence is something that can evolve the way it evolved into the human mind. For nature to generate a creature that would change the course of the world's progress seems very strange and un-harmonios to me. Almost as if humans are not really of this world.
You should believe it, for it prevails where others fail. So far there's no evidence that outright disproves the theory, only areas where it hasn't been proven or disproven in.
That's how science works. We come up with an idea, and we test it. The Greeks did it with gravity, then came Newton, and today we have Einstein. Each step in the chain improves upon the flaws of the previous theory when they become apparent.
Newtonian mechanics were flawless at their time, and so were thought to be true, because they served their purpose. Then one day they turned out to be incorrect. What happened then was science found a better solution, one that did not discard the original ideas, only described them differently.
Evolution is the same. Dawrin "came up" with it, and since then it has evolved. Many ideas that Dawrin had are today known not to be true.
1st from what i can gather he was'nt atheist , he was agnostic (according to wiki) (which is the best view in my opinion as it does not restrict you to such a narrow view) or Pantheistic (according to other references) .. my ref =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/05/einstein_god_is_human_weakness_1.html
and 2nd .. it seems to me that einstein did actually support intelligent design .. here's some references
http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/3155
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/01/Einstein-and-Intelligent-Design.aspx
http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1244.html
http://familyactionorganization.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/investigating-origins-einstein-and-intelligent-design/
anyway .. don't shoot the messenger , i'm just trying to help set some facts straight so you can atleast eliminate one thing from the argument .. which has come a very long way from the original question..lol
actually toodkeng did a good job..
And since i apparently dont contribute and phrozen knows all about evolution then answer me this one.
Why is there only one species of humans?
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Thanks for your contribution. I find quotes to be the most revealing.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it... I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism...
Most claims about Einstein stem from a quote showing his frustration with Quantum Mechanics:
God does not play dice with the Universe
You could call him an agnostic or pantheist. But I don't see anything that would pin him down as a proponent of Intelligent Design. Being that Einstein was a physicist and not a biologist, the quotes are focused at physics, not The Theory of Evolution, biology, etc... I've never come across a quote where he is talking about his dislike for evolution, and the Intelligent Design did NOT even exist back then, so of course, there is no quotes about his thoughts about that either.
survival of the fittest, aka, natural selection. the more dominant, or in this case, better suited for the environment at hand will have more success in breeding and expanding. this takes millions of years, which is also why a lizard cannot turn into a bird in a lab, there were many branches of the homo genus, but they went 'extinct' because of many reasons, weather, competition for food and land, illness, ability to adapt, and just bad luck.
also evolution is pretty much internationally accepted by the science community. theres loads of research on it. do yourself a favor and read some journals before you argue that its not true. its safe to say that every advanced biology course will have at least 3/4 of the book dedicated to evolution and its mechanics and theories.
no he was the first to gather evidence of it, also he offered no explanation if evolution was true, he gave explanations of how it happens (evolution had already been coined because of what scientists observed when they examined fossils and their current diversity, but there was no reason for it, which was why evolution was so weak back then, but when darwin published his book, he offered that reason) which are all true and the foundation of evolutionary biology, but the only reason he wrote origin of species was because another scientist was about to publish the same theories. and mendel also came out with genetic theories around the same time. if only those two knew each other...
umm flying>crawling thats makes sense to me. flying offers numerous advantages, such as escaping predators, catching prey, ability to migrate...and that evolution took many years, you fail to understand that it doest work like a flow chart. theres many random variables involved, a la speciation and variation and recombinant genes and sexual reproduction and...a lot, id rather not list them all.
ok its not:
lizard - flying lizard - bird
its more like:
common ancestor<lizard - bigger lizard - dinosaur
common ancestor<winged reptile - big colorful winged reptile - birds
the reason they might have undergone those changes from that ancestor are hard to explain to someone who doesnt have prior knowledge of biology/evolution.
and that ^ took millions of years, and its not precise i know but for examples sake.
(if your talking about specifically just feathers on just lizards, its to look pretty and attract mates)
also about mutations, true mutations rarely have advantages and are very RARELY passed on to offspring, thanks to mendels outstanding work, its more of a population that undergoes adaptive changes to traits which are better suited for survival at the present time and conditions. population mechanics were never mentioned in anyones arguments yet about evolution. neither was gene drift and recombination of our very special mieosis process. (it takes a population of at least a certain amount, with no outside or inside influences, and then there is still very little chance for mutation that will pass (hardy-weinberg). chi squared chart and equation being used) try reading scholarly journals in biology about genetic variation, population mechs and evolution on whole. this will take weeks and months, and im not talking about wikipedia. actual journals.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
You didn't answer my question. At all. There was more than homo sapiens according to evolution. But do you really expect me to believe that all of the other species of human died out? There were several, and many say that the intelligence of the homo sapien won out in the end. But the world is large...If evolution was the answer then i would expect to see at least one other species of human. What would make humans the exception for evolution than any other animal that survives well?
There are toonnnnnnssssss of species of tons of animals and they coexist together, why couldn't several species of human coexist together? Or even thousands of miles away from each other. It doesn't make sense to me at all and you didn't help at all to defend evolution on this topic.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
The intelligent design movement all happened after einstein died .. i can't disagree with that .. but ...the origins of intelligent design seem to stem all the way back to plato , here's some references;
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/02/platonic-roots-of-intelligent-design.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#Origins_of_the_concept
and ive cut out parts of the conversation for quick reference from this link that i posted before
http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/show_1244.html
MICHAEL: What I’m saying is I agree with Steve completely that intelligent design theory which goes back I think the last eighties, 1980s, and certainly...
STEVE: Actually, earlier than that.
MICHAEL: Well, certainly -– well I think it goes back to Plato of course, cause I don’t think you’re saying anything new, but certainly as we know it, I think certainly was started by Philip Johnson in a big way with his book Darwin on Trial in 1991. And certainly that was the thing which got the movement going.
STEVE: It’s a science. Looking at information in the field of seismology. And I went to a conference on the origin of life. I was in my mid-twenties and it was in the early eighties and there were three scientists there that were arguing the digital information that’s encoded in DNA is evidence of a prior intelligence. And they were suggesting that the classical argument from design that goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle could be resuscitated on the basis of modern scientific discoveries.
WATTENBERG: Let me see if I can get this right what I think. All people who believe in intelligent design may or may not be creationists. But all people who believe in intelligent design are not creationists. (Freud) believed in an intelligent design, Einstein believed in an intelligent design, and Charles Darwin believed in intelligent design. He had an idea as to how the world works. And uhh…
so if this is the case it would seem that intelligent design had been around for 2300 years
well since all documented remains of other humanoids in genus homo are dead ones, we can safely assume that, yes i do want u to believe that all other homo species died out. because humans are a relatively weak taxa in biology, there were only around 100s of them at the time when most other homo species died out. homo sapien won the 'fight', but in all really, luck had to do with it just as much as evolutionary advantages due to our adaptation vs. theirs. not to mention, humans are very smart indeed, competition is what naturally drives species to go extinct, thats what 'we' did, we drove what few remaining sub-species of homo to extinction, the last species other than sapien was Neanderthal, died out some 25000 years ago. afterwards we traveled about and settled in the world.
there is much more detail involved but i would recommend a book or journal for you to read instead.
and now answer me this, if not evolution? then what created all the species of homo, and why did all but sapien disappear some 25000 years ago?
also, we should not be worrying about intelligent design anymore, it has been erased from all biology textbooks and seen by the scientific community as nonvalid.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Yes in one form or another. I think after Laplace (a.k.a. the Newton of France) solved an issue with gravity (perturbations) that Newton gave up on and left in the hands of the God of Gaps, people got uncomfortable and decided to put God back into the Heavens a different way. Since God was no longer governing the stars and all of the sudden people were just left with gravity controlling the Heavens, they made the watch maker analogy and saw the Heavens as a mechanical wonder created by God. People were uncomfortable with god missing and found a way to get him back by making him a mechanic / engineer / intelligent designer. Laplace, when asked about his lack of god in his book (Newton mentioned God in his), is often quoted as saying "I had no need of that hypothesis".
Even though he is not needed, he can be placed in the background as the watch maker to make everyone feel more at ease. It is such a powerful idea, because even if say, The Big Bang Theory is true or The Theory of Evolution is true, which Intelligent Design opposes, you could still say that, like the Theory of Gravity, The Big Bang and The Theory of Evolution were designed by God and consider them as being a part of another variety of Intelligent Design instead (note: The Big Bang was originally an idea promoted by a Bishop who actually did see it that way).
I see this, and other similar ideas, as very different from the Intelligent Design movement which is focused on The Big Bang and Evolution. Simply just saying that Newton agreed with Intelligent Design for instance, is deceptive, the Theory of Evolution wasn't even around back then. Not that it really matters, Newton also is said to have believed in astrology and alchemy, which, like Intelligent Design, are also now considered to be junk science.
It reminds me of an argument where people will say philosophers thought of the atom 1st, it took scientists another 1,000 years to catch up. What an atom is now and what it was back then, is far different. A 6 year old, 2300 years ago could have thought, that maybe if you cut something in half enough times, that you will come across an indivisible piece. Eureka! He thought of the Atom! This doesn't mean it took scientists 2300 years to catch up with the intellect of a 6 year old. The modern atom is a far cry different, it's composed of charged particles, something they could never even fathom.
Evolution, in one form or another, was around long before Darwin, but what evolution was 1,000 years ago is absolutely nothing like what it is today. Saying that (x) ancient philosopher believed in evolution is deceptive as well.
But anyhow, I don't disagree with you on this point. Intelligent Design, like Evolution or the Atom, has been around for a very long time. However, be careful when applying modern terms that have modern definitions, such as The Atom or Evolution or Intelligent Design, to old or flat out ancient ideas.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
And that ain't even touching the angels from the Jewish standpoint vs the Christian standpoint...
Thats why I look at this less from a religous standpoint and more of a scientific standpoint...
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
gamma11 > east
I don't get it how people manage to compare adaptation (color change, fur change) with scales turning into feathers. We can make different species of dogs, but we can't turn a lizard in a bird.
"and now answer me this, if not evolution? then what created all the species of homo, and why did all but sapien disappear some 25000 years ago?" - creation theory can explain this just as (and better than) evolutionary theory does. I don't see why should everyone blindly believe particularly into evolution if creation can explain everything just as well?
gamma11 > east
for why lizards dont become birds. my post.
creation theory inaccurately dates the age of the earth and our solar system by an amazing billions of years.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."