Evolution?? (1 Viewer)

[mr EaZy]

EVolution is pretty popular nowadays.

But many renown professors at various unis think that it may no longer be the solution to how life exists as we know it today!

Let us dedicate this thread to debating evolution,.
Anybody interested??

 

[TheKing]

um well
i like the theory that bacteri and viruses actually exsist in the tails of comets and that life on earth originate from a meeting with a comet....

evolution does not really answer how life began on earth, it is a theory that suggest a reason for the variety or organisms and the change of them,(can't say overtime if i want to be exactly correct as there are actually areas of enormous burst)
there are too many variables, pyou need to narrow the scope of the topic...

 

[mr EaZy]

They dont call this To infinity and beyond for no reason.

Sure evolution doesnt explain life origins although it wants to explain how membranes around ancient RNA replicated to form us beings - eventually.

Explain this, how on EArth did we evolve eyes that intercept gigabytes of data per second, transmit this data from our retina to our optic nerves and then between thousands of optic nerves and then o the back of our brain and then the info is transported back to our eyes as an inverted video image,

ALL THIS in a split second and with i dare say it 100% efficiency. That is 0% data transmission loss. Since when has evolution created such perfect structural beings!! This is true ALL people.

PEople with glasses only need to focus retina. but transmission is still perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evolution would expect 99% efficiency to survive at least!?!?
DArwin himself hated the thought of the eye. HE couldnt face it MATE!!!

 

[mr EaZy]

QUESTION

What Did DArwin Work as, before he set off on his BEAGLE adventure to R"evolutionary" change?

 

[Collin]

Evolution just like all other theories of creation and progression is simply a theory. The difference is, it seems to beat all the other ones hands down. Conclusively, the theory is not perfect, but pretty good. Evolution for example, seems reasonably intuitive, but the era where primordial soup evaluated to first cells remains a gap. I doubt we'll ever have the means to really validate any of these theories either.

The main point is, you can't prove evolution irrefutably, or to disprove it. Similarly, you cannot irrefutably prove or disprove God's existence.

 

[mr EaZy]

Creationism and Darwinism is not the issue here MAte!!!

We "scientists" are called to upon any issue and look into it and not just believe in it blindly.

Look, Evolution has lots of evidence for it. WE can see why bein dark skin can help us near the equator etc.

long beaks help too, but the theory is not perfect.

How do we correct something if we dont see a fault???????????/



SAying god did it won't do any good when it comes to science, because the way the universe is organised, seems to create a sense of awe of it. Hence we must investigate!!!!!!!!



Im doin this thread to get back at science teachers everywhere who seem to accept the theory and back it up whenever we find a fault in it.

 

[TheKing]

well then i have to ask you to prove it wrong...
just because it can't be proven to be completely correct does not mean that it is incorrect.

 

[Zarathustra]

Which professors dispute the validity of evolution - thats a pretty broad statement. Evolution is proven everyday by antibiotic resistant bacteria and insectice/pesticide resistant organisms.

What other explanation could there be - creationism is obviously wrong - for a theory to be superceded it must be superceded by something.

It is impossible to disprove a negative - try and prove me wrong...

"If Gods exist I could not bear not to be one. Consequently there are no Gods" - Nietzsche

 

[mr EaZy]

UHHH, King, please read the 3rd post. It is just one piece of evidence to show that Evolution is NOT wrong, but incomplete!! Theories are there to explain certain phenomena. Usually they fail to include all phenomena and need to be modified or replaced. Go to the physics section and read up on RElativity, Quantum Mechanics and READ! Einstein was a guy willing to challenge current propblems in a new way.

Ur quote i BElieve::
"Education is the progressive realisation of our ignorance" Albert Einstein

 

[mr EaZy]

ahhhhhhhhh........ Zarathustra
i dont know who u think u are by quoting Friedrich Nietzsche all the time, but know this,

Science cant explain gods existance. Hence, we try to explain scientific phenomena without god in the picture. That way, we can appreciate the world around us according to what common sense can help us make sense of this world.

Ill have u know: the theory of evolution has been changed many times. Theres evn a syllabus dont point wanting us to trace its historical development. The current subset of evolution accepted is punctuated equillibrium, which can still be refined as we learn more about genes and genetic mutations.

 

[Calculon]

wtf. Scientists accept evolution as a model to explain the diversification of life at this point because it is the best theory at the moment. If there was a better one with more evidence then we would use that. The point is that biologists do not blindly believe in it, they just accept it as the most likely explanation. You find me a theory with more evidence backing it up than evolution and I will give you a one off clap.

 

[mr EaZy]

Originally posted by Zarathustra
Which professors dispute the validity of evolution - thats a pretty broad statement.

Evolution is proven everyday ........

What other explanation could there be - creationism is obviously wrong - for a theory to be superceded it must be superceded by something.

It is impossible to disprove a negative - try and prove me wrong...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I watched a docunmentary once, which gave a 2min extract of a lecture from a few professors from a university in London and the USA. It also gave a list of other scientists who agree with the sentiment.

i cant name names unfortunately, but creationists do debate with science and not GOD!!!
------------------------------------------------

Look at the facts and judge for ur self, this thread was originally designed to counteract the ignorance out there that evolution is solid as soap. It can still be improved or if anyone wishes, it can be replaced. SCIENCE >>> is the word, nothing else!!


u said: "It is impossible to disprove a negative"

Ur right, we cant prove that "Evolution is wrong" is wrong!!, thats the whole point of this thread!! there may be a "sumthin in the gap.......What could it be!!!!!!!

 

[mr EaZy]

Hey calculon, ur right, the best theory is always taken, and frankly, there is no other accepted theory that challenges evolution, that is why we need scientists out there who challenge WHAT they THEMSELVES believe in so that we can develop better theories that help out everybody!!

 

[Calculon]

Originally posted by mr EaZy
Hey calculon, ur right, the best theory is always taken, and frankly, there is no other accepted theory that challenges evolution, that is why we need scientists out there who challenge WHAT they THEMSELVES believe in so that we can develop better theories that help out everybody!!

And I'm sure that there are a million monkeys on a million typewriters working on that as we speak. The point is that it is hard to come up with a new theory, and I'm sure that plenty of people are trying.

 

[Zarathustra]

Evolution is one of the most indisputable theories I can think of - you put punctuated equilibrium as an example - that is within the confines of evolution. Sure, the exact mechanisms may not be known - that doesn't put evolution into dispute only the specifics of any given theory.
There comes a point where scepticism becomes stupid and useless - I think you have almost reached that point. There are many questions we can ask our selves which are impossible to answer.

 

[hipsta_jess]

ill go with whatever the academics at my uni tell me to go with, so long as it gets me a pass in the course.
currently, i need to go with evolution. if they make some ground breaking discovery, ill go with it.

 

[mr EaZy]

You know what, your all right. Evolution may well be "just a theory", but its the best theory out there. No doubt it can be improved, but as long as it helps us understand the pathways of how life appeared on EArth, i guess thats good enough. When i did the biology last year, i found it hard not to notice that the HSC/prelim course focused on how the theory was correct, without considerations for how it was somewhat limited in explaining complex organs such as the "eyes" already described in thread three:
(Basically : light E --------> electrical E without E losses).

For the purpose of the HSC, i just did what i was told, because the evolution content of the HSC ( as far as im concerned) is correct, so i didnt have a prob with what it contained, rather, i had probs with what it didnt contain, which made me unable to fully understand the big picture of evolution.

 

[mr EaZy]

Also, i think its unfair to call people (scientists ) monkeys. They are just doing what they like- u know, getting knowledge and all. I dont think many people are working on this theory, its a waste of time really. Plus, we still need to learn more about cells before we can make statements about how they developed.

I think our current understanding of evolution is a subset of the true version of evolution yet to be uncovered. It is therefore correct to some degree. Its just like classical physics, a subset of quantum physics. calling scientists "Monkeys" is just the sort of attitude that caused Max Planck to hide his paper on quantum E from the public domain..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we dont have to prove it wrong, just try to understand that it is not perfect, it is just a theory and that it can be improved.

:uhhuh: I think this sums up what ive been trying to say all along

 

[Survivor39]

Personally, panspermia is pretty interesting. Then again, I found some people discussing evolution and some origin of life.....which is completely different aspects of biology....ARGH! what are we discussing again??

 

[abdo]

Ill have u know: the theory of evolution has been changed many times. Theres evn a syllabus dont point wanting us to trace its historical development. The current subset of evolution accepted is punctuated equillibrium, which can still be refined as we learn more about genes and genetic mutations.

yes my friend, the theory has evolved a bit... i think its due to natural selection. naturally