Do you believe in evolution?

jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jovial
Me too, and thanks. I dont think this is a winnable arguement for either side. I mean how can someone use science to argue against faith? How can one use faith to argue against science?
Perhaps it is not a winnable arguement, but not everyone here is trying ti win an arguement. Many people are trying to correct misconceptions and provide information to people who ask. Unfortunately there are some people who continue to insist they have proof of things yet claim they are too busy to provide that prood and yet continue to get involved in other discussions.
I know that I personally am not trying to convince anyone that evolution is true, I only am trying to point people to the evidence after they claim there is none.
 
jovial

jovial

Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Perhaps it is not a winnable arguement, but not everyone here is trying ti win an arguement. Many people are trying to correct misconceptions and provide information to people who ask. Unfortunately there are some people who continue to insist they have proof of things yet claim they are too busy to provide that prood and yet continue to get involved in other discussions.
I know that I personally am not trying to convince anyone that evolution is true, I only am trying to point people to the evidence after they claim there is none.
1058 posts any luck so far?
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jovial
1058 posts any luck so far?
I don't know about luck, but I feel I have learned something. Like someone informed me that prior to the worldwide flood there was no saltwater. That is something I wouldn't have learned if not for this wonderful thread.
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I don't know about luck, but I feel I have learned something. Like someone informed me that prior to the worldwide flood there was no saltwater. That is something I wouldn't have learned if not for this wonderful thread.
That's one person's opinion.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
That's one person's opinion.
And it is a very enteraining opinion, thus I feel that this thread is useful
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Hey Geridoc,
my books arrive tomorrow.

I've got a lot of reading ahead of me this weekend.

Enjoy!! Did you get Ancestor's Tales, by Dawkins?
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Maybe I'll get this back on topic. I have a question:
At what point did organisms decide to go from replication (making identical copies of itself) to reproduction (male and female)? This doesn't seem like something that could have evolved in organisms. First of all, wouldn't 2 organisms have to develop the same mutations that would cause them to reproduce? What benefit does reproduction have for a species anyway?
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Enjoy!! Did you get Ancestor's Tales, by Dawkins?
No.

I got "Evolutionary Analysis", "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea", and "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo". Any recommendations on which I should read first?
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Maybe I'll get this back on topic. I have a question:
At what point did organisms decide to go from replication (making identical copies of itself) to reproduction (male and female)? This doesn't seem like something that could have evolved in organisms. First of all, wouldn't 2 organisms have to develop the same mutations that would cause them to reproduce? What benefit does reproduction have for a species anyway?
There is a hypothesis that the origins of sexual reproduction are in the Rickettsia. These are unicellular organisms that have an uncanny resemblance in their activities to sperm. The invade cells, pick up some DNA and enter another cell, where they deliver the DNA. The hypothesis is that a Rickettsial infection was the origin of DNA transfer. This would not be unlike chloroplasts and mitochondria.
 
reefreak29

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
There is a hypothesis that the origins of sexual reproduction are in the Rickettsia. These are unicellular organisms that have an uncanny resemblance in their activities to sperm. The invade cells, pick up some DNA and enter another cell, where they deliver the DNA. The hypothesis is that a Rickettsial infection was the origin of DNA transfer. This would not be unlike chloroplasts and mitochondria.
and thats all it is, is hypothesis sad so much energy is wasted on hypotheseis
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
and thats all it is, is hypothesis sad so much energy is wasted on hypotheseis
What is sad about forming a new hypothesis? Should we not try to learn? I personally think that the pursuit of knowledge is very important. If we already knew everything life would be dull. Life is exciting because we can discover things, come up with new ideas, and create now technology.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance" - I'll give Socrates credit for that quote.
 
reefreak29

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
What is sad about forming a new hypothesis? Should we not try to learn? I personally think that the pursuit of knowledge is very important. If we already knew everything life would be dull. Life is exciting because we can discover things, come up with new ideas, and create now technology.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance" - I'll give Socrates credit for that quote.
i have a new one there is another life force 10000 light years away that created us to experament to see how long it would take for us to destroy ourselves
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
i have a new one there is another life force 10000 light years away that created us to experament to see how long it would take for us to destroy ourselves
That is good, now figure out a way to test the hypothesis and get to work.
You see, when people hypothesis how certain cellular structures developed in Eukaryotic cells they think of ways to test out their hypothesis and then they test them. That is what makes science fun, testing your hypothesis, proving yourself wrong or finding out something you hadn't even thought of.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
No.

I got "Evolutionary Analysis", "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea", and "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo". Any recommendations on which I should read first?
No question about it - start with "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea". Evolutionary Analysis is a textbook. Endless Forms is a great popularization of EvoDevo, but you should have the grounding of Triumph first. When you have abosrbed those, if you are still up for it, get a paperback copy of Dawkins' "Ancestors Tales". It is a huge book, but it covers 3.5 billion years, after all
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
That is good, now figure out a way to test the hypothesis and get to work.
You see, when people hypothesis how certain cellular structures developed in Eukaryotic cells they think of ways to test out their hypothesis and then they test them. That is what makes science fun, testing your hypothesis, proving yourself wrong or finding out something you hadn't even thought of.
Jerthunter: That is exactly what has happened. In looking at his hypothesis, the investigator actually found an active gene normally associated with brain development, and has associated defects in that gene with some forms of sterility. That's what is great about the scientific method, as you said.
 
agent-x

agent-x

Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
and thats all it is, is hypothesis sad so much energy is wasted on hypotheseis
Yeah those people should be busy tring to shove their beliefs down other people's throats, right reefreak?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top