Ida, evolutionary model, challenged by new discovery

[code1211]

Define 'proof' in your world. All evidence supports the accepted theory; only the details and early stages are really in question.

LOL!!!

Only the "details" and "early stages" are in question

It takes far, far, more Faith to believe in evolution, than in religion.

Every time Pioneer engineers a type of corn that is more drought resistant or has more kernals per cob, that is evidence of evolution. The same is true of breeding thoroughbred horses or prize winning bulls for the state fair.

The tangible evidence of evolution is all around all the time and everyday. Evolution requires nothing more than observation. Thomas would have been an evolutionist if he lived today.

The evidence of religion is only the faith of the believers. Any tangible evidence of faith that is needed is actually a thing that undermines faith.

 

[Diuretic]

Science is a series of practical processes, religion is a belief system. One has little to do with the other. We can believe what we wish, believing means never having to prove anything. Science requires evidence and proof of claims.

Until science solves the mystery, they are no more correct than the most rabid literal bible thumper.

True enough - but we're a long way off that I think. The point is though that science has the potential to solve the mystery, religion has no such potential.

 

[Diuretic]

Science requires evidence and proof of claims.

Except when it comes to the pseudo science of evolution.

Evolution requires mostly faith and not much hard science.

My only response to that is - wrong. Evolution isn't a science, pseudo or otherwise, it's a theory.

 

[Diuretic]

This is a relatively ignorant question, considering all three have a common ancestor.

No proof of that exists. Once again provide even ONE example of proven mammal species that we can PROVE developed into 2 or more distinct separate species.

I don't think it can be done, since no one was there to document such a phenomenon.

It just requires evidence, not an eyewitness.

 

[elvis]

No proof of that exists. Once again provide even ONE example of proven mammal species that we can PROVE developed into 2 or more distinct separate species.

I don't think it can be done, since no one was there to document such a phenomenon.

It just requires evidence, not an eyewitness.

So, what are we evolving into? or will we destroy ourselves before we reach the next level?

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think it can be done, since no one was there to document such a phenomenon.

It just requires evidence, not an eyewitness.

So, what are we evolving into? or will we destroy ourselves before we reach the next level?

Life is like Donkey Kong ?

 

[Diuretic]

I don't think it can be done, since no one was there to document such a phenomenon.

It just requires evidence, not an eyewitness.

So, what are we evolving into? or will we destroy ourselves before we reach the next level?

I have no idea what we're evolving into, none at all. And as for self-destruction, we've got that urge to reproduce and that also carries with it the idea of survival I think. We're more likely to get wiped out by a virus than wipe ourselves out.

 

[elvis]

It just requires evidence, not an eyewitness.

So, what are we evolving into? or will we destroy ourselves before we reach the next level?

I have no idea what we're evolving into, none at all. And as for self-destruction, we've got that urge to reproduce and that also carries with it the idea of survival I think. We're more likely to get wiped out by a virus than wipe ourselves out.

the "experts" say the odds of a nuclear weapon going off in a US city in the next 20 years is 50/50. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated. It would seem the will to destroy ourselves is catching up quickly with our will to reproduce....
If the "experts" are correct regarding the 50/50, and you are correct about the virus, it doesn't bode well for reaching our next level.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Science is a series of practical processes, religion is a belief system. One has little to do with the other. We can believe what we wish, believing means never having to prove anything. Science requires evidence and proof of claims.

No it does not. It requires a theory and then with out any evidence the belief that theory is right. A theory is nothing more than a guess, sometimes a very educated guess , sometimes a leap of faith guess. Some theories have some evidence to SUGGEST they are right but no REAL proof at all. No evidence what so ever. A lot of theories have nothing what so ever in evidence or proof.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Define 'proof' in your world. All evidence supports the accepted theory; only the details and early stages are really in question.

LOL!!!

Only the "details" and "early stages" are in question

It takes far, far, more Faith to believe in evolution, than in religion.

Every time Pioneer engineers a type of corn that is more drought resistant or has more kernals per cob, that is evidence of evolution. The same is true of breeding thoroughbred horses or prize winning bulls for the state fair.

The tangible evidence of evolution is all around all the time and everyday. Evolution requires nothing more than observation. Thomas would have been an evolutionist if he lived today.

The evidence of religion is only the faith of the believers. Any tangible evidence of faith that is needed is actually a thing that undermines faith.

You are ignoring the facts. Yes there is evidence that WITHIN a Mammal species there is evolution, few deny that. To date there is not one shred of evidence that a mammal can evolve into 2 or more distinctly different species.

 

[JBeukema]

. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated.

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

 

[elvis]

. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated.

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

why not? why would this be as far as it goes?

 

[JBeukema]

RGS's ignorance is almost entertaining

 

[RetiredGySgt]

. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated.

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

Let me get this straight, evolution stopped in our case?

 

[JBeukema]

Why don't you idiots mosey on over the the League of Reason and ask them what they think of your assertions?

 

[Diuretic]

Science is a series of practical processes, religion is a belief system. One has little to do with the other. We can believe what we wish, believing means never having to prove anything. Science requires evidence and proof of claims.

No it does not. It requires a theory and then with out any evidence the belief that theory is right. A theory is nothing more than a guess, sometimes a very educated guess , sometimes a leap of faith guess. Some theories have some evidence to SUGGEST they are right but no REAL proof at all. No evidence what so ever. A lot of theories have nothing what so ever in evidence or proof.

A theory in science isn't a guess. A hypothesis isn't a guess either. A theory can prove a hypothesis.

Belief is about faith. Faith is personal and subjective. Science and its theories are impersonal and objective. The elements that make up faith, the things that someone believes in, aren't provable; a scientific theory is provable or it isn't a theory.

 

[Diuretic]

. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated.

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

Let me get this straight, evolution stopped in our case?

Speak for yourself!

 

[JBeukema]

. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated.

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

Let me get this straight, evolution stopped in our case?

Evidently in your case. Evolution does not lead to anything 'more sophisticated', it merely favors that which is more fit. Come back when you have an education; you're too stupid and ignorant to discuss such matters.

 

[Diuretic]

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

Let me get this straight, evolution stopped in our case?

Evidently in your case. Evolution does not lead to anything 'more sophisticated', it merely favors that which is more fit. Come back when you have an education; you're too stupid and ignorant to discuss such matters.

That's a fine sense of intellectual superiority you have there JB.

 

[elvis]

Let me get this straight, evolution stopped in our case?

Evidently in your case. Evolution does not lead to anything 'more sophisticated', it merely favors that which is more fit. Come back when you have an education; you're too stupid and ignorant to discuss such matters.

That's a fine sense of intellectual superiority you have there JB.

so survival of the fittest, does that indicate that we WONT kill every human on Earth?