[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Lurker

What you call the evolution "myth" is not a myth in any way. It does not serve the purpose that myths or religions do. It's not a form of entertainment, it has not morality, it is not comforting etc.

really, were you there?

evolution is fact, the theory of evolution is a belief.

Living things evolve through DNA mutations, true, but how does this prove that ALL living things evolved from a single common ancestor? (by the way, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THEY DID, but I BELIEVE this, it is not something you could ever prove to me)

that very fact that you can not see the difference between the theory of evolution and the observed phenomenon is why I call foul with the science curriculum to begin with!

[✌➬]

Is best not to argue with suchfriends, he will drag it on and on.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

what I love is you bastards have the gall to call me willfully ignorant, when I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ACCEPT ALL OF THE THEORY of EVOLUTION, just as you do! I agree with you all in all of these regards accept ONE, that I do not believe the theory of evolution is somehow absolutely provable.

Where as I am trying to build a consensus, many of you have failed too even notice..

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

really, were you there?

evolution is fact, the theory of evolution is a belief.

Living things evolve through DNA mutations, true, but how does this prove that ALL living things evolved from a single common ancestor? (by the way, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THEY DID, but I BELIEVE this, it is not something you could ever prove to me)

that very fact that you can not see the difference between the theory of evolution and the observed phenomenon is why I call foul with the science curriculum to begin with!

You ask me if I "was" there. I am there. There are examples of evolution happening aroud us. For example, more elephants having no tusks becuse being hunted for the ivory - the elephants with tusks get shot and don't reproduce, the elephants without tusks don't get shot and reproduce.

I don't think it is so strongly believed by scientists that everything evolved from one common ancestor though it sounds reasonable.


You just keep repeating the sam fucking things. Why don't you listen?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by ✌➬

Is best not to argue with suchfriends, he will drag it on and on.

I know but it's so hard to stop myself. Though I'm not sure it really is an argument. Usually in an argument one person responds to what the other is saying. SushFriends seems to be responding to something that no one (at least none of us or any proper scientist) has every said.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Lurker

You ask me if I "was" there. I am there. There are examples of evolution happening aroud us. For example, more elephants having no tusks becuse being hunted for the ivory - the elephants with tusks get shot and don't reproduce, the elephants without tusks don't get shot and reproduce.

I don't think it is so strongly believed by scientists that everything evolved from one common ancestor though it sounds reasonable.


You just keep repeating the sam fucking things. Why don't you listen?

maybe you have not listened to me and that is why I have to keep on repeating myself...

evolution is an observed phenomenon, true, but this does not automatically prove that all the living things evolved from a common ancestor (which by the way, is the CENTRAL THESIS of the current theory, so who is willfully igorant here?)

I hear you man, I believe in evolution, how could I hear you anymore than to believe what you are saying? The trouble is that while I can accept what you say, you refuse to hear anything where I am coming from..

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

maybe you have not listened to me and that is why I have to keep on repeating myself...

evolution is an observed phenomenon, true, but this does not automatically prove that all the living things evolved from a common ancestor (which by the way, is the CENTRAL THESIS of the current theory, so who is willfully igorant here?)

I hear you man, I believe in evolution, how could I hear you anymore than to believe what you are saying? The trouble is that while I can accept what you say, you refuse to hear anything where I am coming from..

No I have listened to you, and every other person I've met who goes on about how evolution isn't absolutely proven and that people have faith in it like religion.

I shall repeat. No, it doesn't prove that everything evolved from one ancestor. But it's the best theory. but what if everything eveolved from two or three ancestors, would it really matter so much? Does that fundamentally change the theory?

Where you are coming from has nothing to do with it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

I said that current science EDUCATION in public schools does not necessarily promote individual question in regards to the theory of evolution, not that science does not promote questioning.

My whole beef is that science DOES promote questioning, and so that mainstream science education should ALSO promote this questioning, but it is clear from any 9th grade biology text book that this is not the case, them say the Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection IS how the universe came to be, not that is is a POSSIBILITY. Kids need to know that not everything the book or adults say is true, and science of all subjects is supposed to be the subject which encourages this, but that is not the reality of many science classrooms today..

the dumb cop fuckwad is not burning books because "they do not ask questions."

he is burning them because they teach darwinism.

you have to realize also that science could be divided in two parts:
1) the experimental method
2) the knowledge that derives from it

the experimental method teaches you to question things, the accumulated knowledge of science is indeed presented as "scientific fact", but usually in a historical context that demonstrates is fluidity-- e.g. the whole debate about planetary systems, the changing theories of the universe, the "wave vs. particle" theories of light. even a couple of years ago there was this fucking outcry among dumb people because astronomers decided that pluto was not a planet, after all.

scientific knowlege is also presented along with its limits-- the vast unknown things in the universe, the frontiers of science, quests for new theories, etc.

yes, scientific knowledge can get a little calcified at times, and dumb people (and bad teachers) think it's some kind of secular gospel, but even with those handicaps it is not, by far, by a million miles, not as dogmatic as the dumbfuck literal-interpretation school of bible reading that is trying to supress the teaching of evolution. not by a million miles. the dumbfucks, you see, do not set up an experiment to test the truth or falsehood of evolutionary theory-- instead, they claim the authority of an invisible man in the sky as quoted in an archaic book. dumbfuck and authoritarian and un-questioning indeed. fuck them, and their donkey progeny.

[Rob Instigator]

genetics PROVES that all life on earth is related and descended from a common ancestor.

the theory of evolution through natural selection describes the MECHANISM by which this happens.

[acousticrock87]

I don't get why the nonreligious side of the argument gives a fuck what other people think. Personally, I miss believing in the afterlife. I wish I still did. I know a lot of atheists who insist on "converting" the religious. What is the point of that? I could care less if anyone ignores the obvious, as long as they aren't actually starting a war over it or stopping the press, which usually is not the case in personal debates like this. Let the harmless be happy. Must we turn nonreligiosity into a goddamn religion? Fucking Dawkins.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by acousticrock87

I don't get why the nonreligious side of the argument gives a fuck what other people think. Personally, I miss believing in the afterlife. I wish I still did. I know a lot of atheists who insist on "converting" the religious. What is the point of that? I could care less if anyone ignores the obvious, as long as they aren't actually starting a war over it or stopping the press, which usually is not the case in personal debates like this. Let the harmless be happy. Must we turn nonreligiosity into a goddamn religion? Fucking Dawkins.

when you see science under attack from the god camp, can you expect anything other than a counteroffensive? the church burned books AND people since the middle ages, now the born-again dunces threaten to drive america back to amish times-- i would leave them alone if they weren't constantly twisting my arm to give up on knowledge in the name of the superstitions and to post their ten commandments in front of courthouses.

furthermore, i have had countless of religious proselityzers knock on my door to offer pamplets and salvation, but never, ever, have i had an atheist knock my door to offer salvation from religious blindness.

so the numbers are against you, i'm afraid.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

genetics PROVES that all life on earth is related and descended from a common ancestor.

the theory of evolution through natural selection describes the MECHANISM by which this happens.

no, genetics SUGGESTS this, but it is by no means proof, and in the future other evidence could come to light which suggests otherwise..
and on top of it all, while I also believe in the DNA evidence, the bias is the means of collecting, there is a SHITLOAD of room for human error in the research process involving billions of DNA code.. people make mistakes very very often when dealing with vastly complex number sequences, it is human nature to make mistakes, and I-man do not ASCRIBE any HUMAN teaching as infallible or even moderately correct, because of these natural human flaws.

Evolution is a fact, but the theory that everything evolved from a common ancestor is an idea, and a remarkably accurate and clever one, but still, is by no means a provable phenomenon.. as there will ALWAYS be a lack of true evidence.

My whole point through out this thread is this:

Both religious folks and science folks would find more harmony if they were ease up on their dogmatism, I am not dogmatic in any of my approaches, be they scientific or religious.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

yes, scientific knowledge can get a little calcified at times, and dumb people (and bad teachers) think it's some kind of secular gospel

thank you! that is the most truthful statement in this ENTIRE THREAD, and was the kind of discussion I was hoping for..

, but even with those handicaps it is not, by far, by a million miles, not as dogmatic as the dumbfuck literal-interpretation school of bible reading that is trying to supress the teaching of evolution. not by a million miles. the dumbfucks, you see, do not set up an experiment to test the truth or falsehood of evolutionary theory--

but all that negativity only fuels the fire.. a little peace goes a long way. I am trying to bridge the gap, not burn the bridge.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

no, genetics SUGGESTS this, but it is by no means proof, and in the future other evidence could come to light which suggests otherwise.

this i agree with. i'm actually not sure i've read about the "common ancestor". there are at least 4 completely divergent life form groups that i recall-- animals, plants, protozoa (protista or something), fungus and some sulfur bacteria or something... need to brush up on that. do they ALL have a common ancestor now?
...

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Both religious folks and science folks would find more harmony if they were ease up on their dogmatism, I am not dogmatic in any of my approaches, be they scientific or religious.

right, but it's the dogmatic religulous that have traditionally led the offensive. like i pointed out, it's the dumb cop at the school board fucking with the biology teacher's pick; it's nt the biology teachers fucking with teaching curriculum at sunday school.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

but all that negativity only fuels the fire.. a little peace goes a long way. I am trying to bridge the gap, not burn the bridge.

maybe in a perfect world, but i think the progressive and enlightened public is tired of taking it up the ass from the religious right. it's time to take up the hatchet and split their fucking skulls. yea.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

this i agree with. i'm actually not sure i've read about the "common ancestor". there are at least 4 completely divergent life form groups that i recall-- animals, plants, protozoa (protista or something), fungus and some sulfur bacteria or something... need to brush up on that. do they ALL have a common ancestor now?

...

yes, the DNA evidence suggests that all life on earth, all of the four major branches you speak of, stem from the common ancestor who is today believed by DNA sequencing to be sulfur bacteria.. they are the bottom of the chain (err, the start rather)

technically speaking, there is only ONE kind of life on earth, DNA.

 

 

Celine Brochier explains, "The first emerging phyla in the tree of life based on the small subunit of ribosomal DNA (16s rRNA) are hyperthermorphic.. the most parsimonious explanation for this result is that the ability to live in a hot environment is an ancestral trait inherited from the Last Universal Common Ancestor.."

What is the LUCA?

right, but it's the dogmatic religulous that have traditionally led the offensive. like i pointed out, it's the dumb cop at the school board fucking with the biology teacher's pick; it's nt the biology teachers fucking with teaching curriculum at sunday school.

yes, but my momma taught me to treat others as you'd like to be treated.. if some assholes have been fucking it up for thousands of years, why use their tactics? You will only recreate an equally fucked up situation as you started with..

[!@#$%!]

thanks for the info. i'll look it up.

re: the "biological kingdoms", there are a number of theories (5, 6 or 3 in latest, according to wikipedia). not a solid decision as classification is always ultimately a matter of... language.

are you sure we have a common ancestor with that motherfucking bacterias that live at superhot temperatures? well i'll look it up.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

...
yes, but my momma taught me to treat others as you'd like to be treated.. if some assholes have been fucking it up for thousands of years, why use their tactics? You will only recreate an equally fucked up situation as you started with..

my momma taught me not to let myself be punked by assholes. fuck oral roberts, the falwell descendents, the 700 club, the fucking apocalypse peddlers, the dumbass cop that wants to deprive children of a scientific education, the asswads who would have this country return to the 17th century-- fuck them, fuck them, fuck all of them, they are my enemy, and i make no apologies for it, and i will work for the destruction of their toxic ideology of ignorance and superstition with which they control throngs of fools and enrich themselves, the fucking pigs.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

are you sure we have a common ancestor with that motherfucking bacterias that live at superhot temperatures? well i'll look it up.

as of yet, the DNA evidence places thermotogales as the first species, they have some of smallest DNA sequences, and further share the MOST DNA with all other species, suggesting they are the base of the tree..

and i will work for the destruction of their toxic ideology of ignorance and superstition with which they control throngs of fools and enrich themselves, the fucking pigs.

I like the revolutionary zeal, but remember that the people must be moved before you start a movement..

You can crush the ignorant ideologies without crushing those who follow them..

[pbradley]

Teach science and philosophy.

Any consideration of creationism belongs in the latter.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

this i agree with. i'm actually not sure i've read about the "common ancestor". there are at least 4 completely divergent life form groups that i recall-- animals, plants, protozoa (protista or something), fungus and some sulfur bacteria or something... need to brush up on that. do they ALL have a common ancestor now?
.

YES. they are all DNA based life forms, using the exact same proteins and amino acids to create their forms, all from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

YES. they are all DNA based life forms, using the exact same proteins and amino acids to create their forms, all from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR

couldn't those aminoacids have organized independently in different places? sort of like life in other planets?

im still thinking of the miller experiment. from that "primordial soup", one and only one? that would be dawkins's "selfish gene"... self replication encoded & taking over the muck.

so one and only one gene ever did that? that's pretty amazing. can someone post me a link to an article about that? please? i'd love to read the findings...

--
i found this:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DEED9143DF937A2575 2C0A96E948260

"Dr. James A. Lake of University of California in Los Angeles who conducted the genetic study, said the results were not quite what he had expected, but were determined by computer analysis of a great deal of data. But the conclusions are a matter of some dispute. Some evolution specialists consider the work important and original. Others disagree strongly."

that was back in... 1988!

i'll keep looking-- thanks.