[_ Old Earth _] Evolving into a superior species

[Dunzo]

Evolution is not random ??? so it has a set plan ?

It's neither random nor planned. Systematic would be a good word to use, I suppose.

Sure list some of them i want to see.

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, so rather than make a fool of myself I'll just link you to:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2

 

[Heidi]

Evolution is not random ??? so it has a set plan ?

It's neither random nor planned. Systematic would be a good word to use, I suppose.

Sure list some of them i want to see.

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, so rather than make a fool of myself I'll just link you to:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2

Sorry, but when one doesn't know who the common ancestor is, what he looked like, when he lived, then it's impossible to know if he could breed anything, much less who his descendants are. So until you know who this fictitious beast is, you can't prove that he passed along any mutations. So evolution is still as imaginary as the common ancestor is.

 

[John]

It's neither random nor planned. Systematic would be a good word to use, I suppose.

Systematic =
Science in general is a systematic approach to discovery. Systematic sciences follow logical, consistent, and ordered methods. so no it would not be a good word.

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, so rather than make a fool of myself I'll just link you to:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2

i will look at these tomorrow its late here.

Edit: you should make another thread on this matter dunzo.

 

[Dunzo]

It's neither random nor planned. Systematic would be a good word to use, I suppose.

Systematic =
Science in general is a systematic approach to discovery. Systematic sciences follow logical, consistent, and ordered methods. so no it would not be a good word.

Very funny. Unfortunately, no matter how much you winge and complain, the field of biology is just as disciplined as every other scientific field of study.

 

[John]

It's neither random nor planned. Systematic would be a good word to use, I suppose.

Systematic =
Science in general is a systematic approach to discovery. Systematic sciences follow logical, consistent, and ordered methods. so no it would not be a good word.

Very funny. Unfortunately, no matter how much you winge and complain, the field of biology is just as disciplined as every other scientific field of study.

what ? whine and complain, how did you get that out of my post ?

 

[Dunzo]

Systematic =
Science in general is a systematic approach to discovery. Systematic sciences follow logical, consistent, and ordered methods. so no it would not be a good word.

Very funny. Unfortunately, no matter how much you winge and complain, the field of biology is just as disciplined as every other scientific field of study.

what ? whine and complain, how did you get that out of my post ?

It was an exaggeration. Creationists often claim that evolution, unlike other fields, is unscientific. It is, of course, one of the most scientifically scrutinized fields of study there is.

 

[freeway]

my question is? if evolution is true, then by evolution itself we should not be here, why would evolution evolved a species that can and would destroy itself, why not just stop at plants. but evolution evolved animals to eat the plants then evolved larger animals to eat the smaller ones, then evolved primates then a more intelligent creatures to eat the animals? so whats next, big men to eat the smaller ones like us.. does not add up... evolution seems to be a god of its own thats having fun with its creation.

 

[Jayls5]

my question is? if evolution is true, then by evolution itself we should not be here, why would evolution evolved a species that can and would destroy itself, why not just stop at plants. but evolution evolved animals to eat the plants then evolved larger animals to eat the smaller ones, then evolved primates then a more intelligent creatures to eat the animals? so whats next, big men to eat the smaller ones like us.. does not add up... evolution seems to be a god of its own thats having fun with its creation.

Well, in biology there's a thing called a symbiotic relationship. Assuming there were no organisms to use oxygen and turn it into C02, plants would have had a much harder time flourishing. Imagine an oxygen rich environment with no creatures to use it. All we can do is guess, but I bet a lightning strike would cause tons of damage when it ignited pockets of oxygen. There's no real way of knowing what kind of evolution of plants would occur in the event of no other animals, but needless to say, it is beneficial on a whole for plants that we are here.

 

[John]

It was an exaggeration. Creationists often claim that evolution, unlike other fields, is unscientific. It is, of course, one of the most scientifically scrutinized fields of study there is.

I say its just bad science.

 

[Heidi]

It was an exaggeration. Creationists often claim that evolution, unlike other fields, is unscientific. It is, of course, one of the most scientifically scrutinized fields of study there is.

I say its just bad science.

Yes it is scrutinized which is precisely why so many scientists disagree with it. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

It was an exaggeration. Creationists often claim that evolution, unlike other fields, is unscientific. It is, of course, one of the most scientifically scrutinized fields of study there is.

I say its just bad science.

Yes it is scrutinized which is precisely why so many scientists disagree with it. ;-)

And yet the overwhelming majority do not disagree?

Regardless, no, there is not a huge number of scientists that do not accept evolution.

 

[John]

A majority means nothing, the majority of scientists back in the day thought that blood letting was a way to rid the body of dieseise, untill it was discoverd that it was wrong and harmful, the same is for the time we live in now its just waiting to be discoverd.

 

[Jayls5]

A majority means nothing, the majority of scientists back in the day thought that blood letting was a way to rid the body of dieseise, untill it was discoverd that it was wrong and harmful, the same is for the time we live in now its just waiting to be discoverd.

Bloodletting existed before science... thousands of years before modern science actually. The fact that modern science exposed as harmful in such a short time compared to the tradition of bloodletting is a positive noteworthy accomplishment of science.

 

[John]

A majority means nothing, the majority of scientists back in the day thought that blood letting was a way to rid the body of dieseise, untill it was discoverd that it was wrong and harmful, the same is for the time we live in now its just waiting to be discoverd.

Bloodletting existed before science... thousands of years before modern science actually. The fact that modern science exposed as harmful in such a short time compared to the tradition of bloodletting is a positive noteworthy accomplishment of science.

Science has always existed, science has never once created anything, they simply discover and apply :wink:

modern or ancient, it does not matter, there was a time when it was said everything that no one could invent anything else, well guess what they were wrong, i am just saying maybe we are wrong to day and evolution will prove to be false when the knowlage comes around.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

A majority means nothing, the majority of scientists back in the day thought that blood letting was a way to rid the body of dieseise, untill it was discoverd that it was wrong and harmful, the same is for the time we live in now its just waiting to be discoverd.

Bloodletting existed before science... thousands of years before modern science actually. The fact that modern science exposed as harmful in such a short time compared to the tradition of bloodletting is a positive noteworthy accomplishment of science.

Science has always existed, science has never once created anything, they simply discover and apply :wink:

modern or ancient, it does not matter, there was a time when it was said everything that no one could invent anything else, well guess what they were wrong, i am just saying maybe we are wrong to day and evolution will prove to be false when the knowlage comes around.

Science has not always existed.....

Science referes to a systematic way or process. The scientific method means gathering measureable and empirical data and using reason.

Bloodletting was developed through intuition, or a "gut feeling". Basically just guesses on how anatomy works.

Science has shown us that our intuition is often wrong.

So your intuition suggests that evolution is wrong. Science shows otherwise.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

i am just saying maybe we are wrong to day and evolution will prove to be false when the knowlage comes around.

Maybe one day we will find out that there is a chocolate center to the earth. Right now, evidence highly suggests something else. There mere fact we haven't been to the center of the earth doesn't mean we can't trust the science that says it is likely made up of a nickle-iron alloy.

 

[coelacanth]

I find it sincerely disappointing when people who clearly know nothing about science make a joke accompanied by gross misunderstandings of evolution in a horrible attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. If you could do so, you would win a Nobel Prize and have my congratulations to boot!

I don't understand everything about quantum physics, and when the strange and wild ideas generated by research in that field are put forth, I do not tell the physicists that they are wrong because I don't understand it and haven't spent the immense amounts of time studying it that they have. If I thought something were wrong and wanted to demonstrate that it was wrong, I would achieve the necessary level of understanding in order to engage a serious argument against it.

Regards,
coelacanth