View Poll Results: Did we evolve from Apes?

Voters
133. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    71 53.38%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    26 19.55%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    36 27.07%
Page 33 of 52 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #321
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No, that is not what I said at all.
    You exactly said that and you keep on saying the same. I have to come to the conclusion that you don’t understand what you are saying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I said that humans have never observed SPECIATION since the theory of evolution was developed in the mid-1800s.
    Had humans observed it before mid-1800s?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Nor would one expect them to, since speciation usually takes place over the course of millennia (or longer).
    So you are the man I have been looking for, the only man who posses a graph which would show how long does it take for a simple asexual organism to evolve into sexually reproductive organism? How many generations in the frame of time would it take to a primitive sea organism to develop wings and fly in the air? How long does it take to a new organ to establish communication with barin and accordingly with other organs? If there have been 0 speciation in all the rich world of species around us during all existence of humanity, how does it come that 0 multiplied by a millennium makes a positive number? Show me mathematics, and show what observations of the changes are described by the same mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    There are PLENTY of examples of speciation in the fossil record.
    Your interpretation of fossils is not an example of speciation. That is not to mention that there are no fossils to cause such an interpretation. Have you been to a Museum of natural history ever? Have you looked at the fossils, - you will see a reconstruction (by imagination) of a fossil and above it – drawings of the chain of evolution as results of imagination of the artist. Imagination is not a record.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And there are PLENTY of examples of scientists observing evolution, just not speciation.
    How evolution can be observed without speciation observed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Furthermore, I don't understand how you can logically accept the existence of small-scale evolution over relatively short time frames, while denying that a lot of small changes over a long time will add up to some major changes. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for this logical disconnect, so that I can show you where you are confused.
    I do not except it logically. It has been observed. Accepting it is not the matter of logic, but the matter of knowledge and ignorance. Making extension of observations into speculations is the matter of logic. You have you logic I have mine, however I can win a logical contest it wouldn’t me more than winning a logical contest, but any body proficient in logic would know that it is quite a meningless contest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I have no idea what you're talking about here. This thread is about the theory of evolution, and now you're talking about God and resurrection?

    Because the way you are trying to prove evolution to me – applying your logic to empirical evidence is no different from existent proofs of God.

  2. #322
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    There are ultimate tests for God seen directly through fossil and all the things around us.. Just like gravity, which you can not see, has tests to prove its existence..
    Gravity has real world effects which can directly be measured. Things don't exist in vacuum; things tend to interact with each other. There is no direct proof of god, there is only indirect information which is given weight by people wishing to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    So show me the measurable quantities of evolution -
    Look at the fossil record, at the archeological data, at DNA, at the evolution of certain species separated from other species, etc. The data behind evolution is out there, it has been measured, and has been reported. None of which can be said for gods.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    like the Cosmic Microwave Background. And since you are there Show me Random vacuum fluctuations brought into existence, observed and measured. Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The vacuum energy is deduced from the concept of virtual particles, Virtual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The term virtual has been defined...as "that which is not real" but may display the salient qualities of the real.Since you are at this try to convince me that virtuak reality you live in is the same as reality humans live in
    No, virtual refers to a time frame. Because of the uncertainty principle, energy conservation can be broken for very small amounts of time. The virtual particles, which are the matter/anti-matter pair produced from the vacuum field, exist only briefly before annihilating each other. But this existence has a very profound effect on many fundamental values, which can and have been accurately measured. The Lamb Shift is just such a measurement.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    immeasurable does not mean that cannot be proven to exist. Moreover its existance is a kind of self evident, as you are speaking here.
    Immeasurable does mean it cannot have any scientific proof. Science requires at some level a measurable quantity which can be studied. Perhaps in the realm of philosophy gods can be discussed and "proven", but not in the realm of science in which things must have something which can be measured, some form of observable.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    What is a concrete proof? Is there a concrete proof of Big bang?
    There are many good indications of the Big Bang at this point, such as CMB, expanding universe, etc. That is why it is the most accepted, there is measurable quantities which go with the Big Bang. While the is not what could be considered "concrete proof" with the Big Bang, the Big Bang has things which can be measured. That which has no measurable can not ever be fully proven. There is concrete proof that massive particles attract, that changes in index of refraction cause deviation in the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, etc. What is the proof of your gods?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #323
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No, that is not what I said at all. I said that humans have never observed SPECIATION since the theory of evolution was developed in the mid-1800s. Nor would one expect them to, since speciation usually takes place over the course of millennia (or longer).
    What about speciation via hybridisation, polyploidly and autopolyploidy of plants? Where new species of plants pop up and can not mate with their parent species. Thats a creation of a new species.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  4. #324
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Had humans observed it before mid-1800s?
    No one was really looking for it until the theory of evolution. Why would they?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    So you are the man I have been looking for, the only man who posses a graph which would show how long does it take for a simple asexual organism to evolve into sexually reproductive organism?
    "How long" would depend entirely on circumstance, but on earth it took about 2.5 billion years. The oldest forms of "life" (which were much simpler than anything we normally consider "life" today) appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, and sex first evolved about 1 billion years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    How many generations in the frame of time would it take to a primitive sea organism to develop wings and fly in the air?
    Approximately 3.35 billion years. The first life appeared in the oceans about 3.5 billion years ago. Archaeopteryx evolved about 150 million years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    How long does it take to a new organ to establish communication with barin and accordingly with other organs? If there have been 0 speciation in all the rich world of species around us during all existence of humanity, how does it come that 0 multiplied by a millennium makes a positive number?
    Because A) It isn't zero, it could be some fraction less than one; and B) just because it hasn't been observed in the 150 years since humans have been looking for it doesn't mean that it's never happened in the existence of humanity. Even humans themselves have evolved into different species. Homo habilis looked very different than homo sapiens.

    Keep in mind that there is no ironclad rule that it takes X number of years for Trait Y to evolve. It depends entirely on the environment and circumstance. It's frequently been said that if you could hit the "Reset" button on the earth to return it to its primordial state, it is a virtual certainty that nothing even remotely resembling humans would evolve again. There are just too many random occurrences that affect the planet's environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    Show me mathematics, and show what observations of the changes are described by the same mathematics.
    Mathematics of what? I'm not sure what you're asking for.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    Your interpretation of fossils is not an example of speciation. That is not to mention that there are no fossils to cause such an interpretation. Have you been to a Museum of natural history ever? Have you looked at the fossils, - you will see a reconstruction (by imagination) of a fossil and above it – drawings of the chain of evolution as results of imagination of the artist. Imagination is not a record.
    Again, I'm not sure what you're implying? Are you suggesting that the scientists may have gotten the skeleton wrong, and what they think is the creature's skull is actually its ass?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    How evolution can be observed without speciation observed?
    There are countless examples. I'll just give you one of my favorites:

    Up until the 1700s, there were lots of pepper moths in England. Most of them were white, but there were a few black ones as well. They were the same species, but a few minor genes affected the color of them. The moths often lived around white birch trees. Unsurprisingly, the white moths camouflaged better than the black moths, and were less likely to be eaten. This explains why they outnumbered the black moths.

    When the Industrial Revolution began, England's new factories began producing large quantities of black soot, which stuck to the birch trees. Within just a few generations, the black moths suddenly outnumbered the white moths.

    In the 1970s, England (like most developed countries) began implementing stricter pollution controls...and now white moths are making a comeback once again.

    Evolution in action.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone
    Because the way you are trying to prove evolution to me – applying your logic to empirical evidence is no different from existent proofs of God.
    If you want to debate God, there is a religion/philosophy board on this forum.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #325
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Gravity has real world effects which can directly be measured. Things don't exist in vacuum; things tend to interact with each other. There is no direct proof of god, there is only indirect information which is given weight by people wishing to believe.
    God has real world effects which can directly be measured, gravity for an example.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Look at the fossil record, at the archeological data, at DNA, at the evolution of certain species separated from other species, etc. The data behind evolution is out there, it has been measured, and has been reported.
    Ok you measure fossils in centimeters, cubic centimeters, you take spectrum analyses… how does it show evolution?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    None of which can be said for gods.
    God is infinite. Infinity includes all centimeters and cubic centimeters and all other possible numbers, including … ok I will skip complication… everything. All your measurements are just particular cases of infinity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, virtual refers to a time frame. Because of the uncertainty principle, energy conservation can be broken for very small amounts of time.
    Energy conservation cannot be broken, it is an abstract.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The virtual particles, which are the matter/anti-matter pair produced from the vacuum field, exist only briefly before annihilating each other.
    But this existence has a very profound effect on many fundamental values, which can and have been accurately measured. The Lamb Shift is just such a measurement.
    If they existed their existence would have a profound effect on instruments. Profound effect on values is an effect of an abstract on an abstract.

    ‘’Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.’’
    Nikola Tesla,

    You are living in a virtual reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Immeasurable does mean it cannot have any scientific proof. Science requires at some level a measurable quantity which can be studied. Perhaps in the realm of philosophy gods can be discussed and "proven", but not in the realm of science in which things must have something which can be measured, some form of observable.
    Infinity is immeasurable. It undeniably exists both in mathematical and physical meaning. Indeed science is limited to numbers not going into infinity. Indeed science has limitations. Can you go back to measurables that would constitute an abstract mathematical model of evolutions, or at least to attempt to do like vacuum fluctuations?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There are many good indications of the Big Bang at this point, such as CMB, expanding universe, etc.


    here was That is why it is the most accepted, there is measurable quantities which go with the Big Bang. While the is not what could be considered "concrete proof" with the Big Bang, the Big Bang has things which can be measured.
    There are many good indications of god while the is not what could be considered "concrete proof it is the most accepted. There were all good indications that the sun was spinning around the Earth and there were all measurable there. I am yet to hear what concrete proof does mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That which has no measurable can not ever be fully proven.
    Only if you prove that infinity which is not measurable does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There is concrete proof that massive particles attract, that changes in index of refraction cause deviation in the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, etc.
    How ever it is related to Big Bang or evolution or explains what is concrete proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    What is the proof of your gods?
    The same as of evolution and Big Bang - logical deduction from measurable empirical evidence.
    Last edited by justone; 05-01-09 at 07:08 PM.

  6. #326
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Mathematics of what? I'm not sure what you're asking for.
    Yeah I don't get it either. So little of biology comprises of mathematics because biology is full of complex and imperfect systems that degrade and mutate unlike physics of course where things are more stable.

    Mathematics is perfect, life is imperfect. I'm not sure Justone gets it.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  7. #327
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    It is not hard at all, though it may take a few minutes. It is hard even to stay calm. You asked once. I represented. You said something like ''I don't care'' and went away. Did it happen, - yes or no? Why I should spend minutes of life for some guy with no sense of decency?
    Okay fine, there must be be no empirical evidence of your god. Thankyou and good night.

  8. #328
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    God has real world effects which can directly be measured, gravity for an example.
    Gravity in and of itself does not prove God. It proves there is gravity.

  9. #329
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    God has real world effects which can directly be measured, gravity for an example.
    What about gravity necessitates a god?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Ok you measure fossils in centimeters, cubic centimeters, you take spectrum analyses… how does it show evolution?
    It shows the change of species on the earth over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    God is infinite. Infinity includes all centimeters and cubic centimeters and all other possible numbers, including … ok I will skip complication… everything. All your measurements are just particular cases of infinity.
    Hmm...I think this is rather contrived and hokey. God is everything and measurements are part of everything. Not really anything useful in any of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Energy conservation cannot be broken, it is an abstract.
    There is an uncertainty rule with energy and time, energy conservation can most certainly be violated for brief periods of time. Without this ability, vacuum fluctuations could not occur, and if vacuum fluctuations could not occur, there would be no Lamb shift. But there is, we've measured it.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    If they existed their existence would have a profound effect on instruments. Profound effect on values is an effect of an abstract on an abstract.
    Do you think if you use certain words enough times, your arguments start to make sense? Abstracts aren't what measurements are made off of, measurable things aren't abstract. If you want to say number system or something is abstract, perchance. But not in the relation with measurable quantities, once rooted to something concrete, the measurements become concrete. Your statement is nothing more than an absurd deflect.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    ‘’Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.’’
    Nikola Tesla,
    So you found a quote. It doesn't prove anything. Maybe what you state there could be applicable towards theorists (and I'm not sure that would be true even given a theorists penchant for horrible math), but not towards the experimentalists. We relate everything back to the real world, for the real world is what we deal in. Everything measured has a real result. My work is specifically with ultracold atoms and laser cooling and trapping. I have atoms, atoms tell the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    You are living in a virtual reality.
    Wish you'd tell that to my adviser so I could get out.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Infinity is immeasurable. It undeniably exists both in mathematical and physical meaning. Indeed science is limited to numbers not going into infinity. Indeed science has limitations. Can you go back to measurables that would constitute an abstract mathematical model of evolutions, or at least to attempt to do like vacuum fluctuations?
    Infinity is good for boundary conditions, and functional infinity can have a place as well. It's not measurable, but it is well defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    There are many good indications of god while the is not what could be considered "concrete proof it is the most accepted. There were all good indications that the sun was spinning around the Earth and there were all measurable there. I am yet to hear what concrete proof does mean?
    Concrete proof is proof built from measurement, not of abstract thought and desires of magic. There were good indications the sun was spinning around the Earth till the telescope was invented. More data came in and proved otherwise. And what was the cause of the sun moving before we measured it and found it to be natural force? It was gods which did it. Gods were always ascribed as the answer when humans didn't know, and time and time again it was found that gods had nothing to do with it. So is true with evolution, evolution is your new geocentric universe. Heliocentrism was denied for quite some time by the religious fanatics, even in the face of data. Eventually the data became so overwhelming that it had to be accepted. But you fight evolution with the zeal of the geocentrists. Despite there being evidence to the contrary, you rally against science to preserve your ideals of your god. Gods were proven wrong in the past, they'll be proven wrong in the future; and the zealots will change or die out. That's measured reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Only if you prove that infinity which is not measurable does not exist.
    It's a well defined quantum.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    How ever it is related to Big Bang or evolution or explains what is concrete proof?
    They're of the same thing, these are theories and quantum of science. These things have measurement behind them.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The same as of evolution and Big Bang - logical deduction from measurable empirical evidence.
    I've yet to see any argument which demanded a god, nor one which was even based on measurement and not philosophy. In the end, your protest seems more the denials of a zealot than one based on fact or measurement. I'm to look at your arguments and somehow believe you're correct and all the scientists are wrong. Scientists whom are trained well in their studies and seek the truth vs. someone with obvious conflict of interest. What is the most logical choice? Given a choice between nature and magic, what do you think is the most obvious choice? I expect you to answer as your biases and blind adherence tell you too and somehow think it appropriate. But for the objective readers, it's clear who makes the most sense in their posts.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #330
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?




    Just checking in to see how this was coming along...


Page 33 of 52 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •