20Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIf yes, what about the spine tail bone/appendix?
If no, why do we have non-functional parts in our bodies?
April 6th, 2013, 06:10 AM
If yes, what about the spine tail bone/appendix?
If no, why do we have non-functional parts in our bodies?
Originally Posted by jocular
No.
Evolution. That which survives- survives. And what survives is not always useful.
I can't understand why you "like" that response. Surely you believe that your god put them there for her own mysterious purposes.
Not useful to us, but useful as food for other living things
the tailbone has a use in that when you land on it, it hurts like !#$%
And the appendix has a new status. It's not just a remnant of some bygone functionality. It acts as a reservoir of gut bacteria ready to supply reinforcements when gastric upsets have disturbed the usual balance of gut flora.
The brain appears to be not used in some humans.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 6th, 2013 at 06:12 PM.
Do you happen to know where I can receive treatment for that?
School!
If we ever had such a useless organ, it would prove devolution if we "asserted" that they were functional in our supposed ancestors. Both organs you mentioned have functions. Details
Last edited by Some; April 7th, 2013 at 03:05 PM.
What utter nonsense.
How does biology prove a political process?
If you visit crank sites you get crank opinions.
Despite the tag line of "Detecting science & Filtering from pseudoscience" that blog doesn't know science from a hole in its arse.
Edit: for someone who uses "Anti-Pseudoscience" as his user title you too appear to have definite trouble distinguishing between science and pseudo.
I suggest an education. Quickly.
It must really suck having the uncertain and easily disputed concept of "proof" that you have. For you, if you walk outside and the ground is wet, you think that "proves" that it rained. Then, you see a sprinkler system had been turned on recently. Your entire concept of "proof" is not based on certainties, but on slipshod sloppy hare-brained assumptions, at best.
Your world must be a very confusing place for you.
Devolution
a continuing process of degeneration or breaking down, in contrast to evolution. Devolution - definition from Biology-Online.org
Sigh...
And how would a useless or leftover organ/body part "PROVE" that, Some? How would it be PROOF? It can barely be argued to imply it!
Yeah.
Pity they didn't provide a scientific explanation.
"Devolution", the verb "devolve" and the past participle "devolved" are all common terms in science fiction.
"devolution" in practice typically refers to changes that occur from a problem no longer existing rather than superior solutions existing.
Devolution (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In other words any "proof" of "devolution" from a now-useless organ is specious at best and pure (religion-driven) drivel at worst.
Maybe you should have read some of the comments on that page, along with the "definition".
This one, for example - As you can see both Christian and Hindu creationists are claiming devolution, ie mutations are all harmful and the result of a curse etc. Of course you can choose to believe in this if you want, but science does not support these claims.
Like I said: get an education.
Your edit doesn't make it any more true than the non-edited version.
It's STILL utter nonsense.
It wouldn't "prove" "devolution" even it were a fact (rather than an assertion).
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Please, do check up on the availability of education in your home country.
An education is not Some's M.O.
Some does not care about accuracy. Some only cares about promoting his fundamentalist beliefs at all costs.
He will be more than happy to lie for it, deceive for it, ignore or hide pertinent information for it, twist, distort and obfuscate and use the wrong words to emphasize what he wants to believe rather than factual or applicable words to describe his agenda.
He is, in short, a douche, who would be totally willing to ruin education and hold back all of progress of human advancement just to satisfy his own juvenile and primitive ego.
So this is where everyone is at now...
I've missed your droll humour there Dywyddyr
Last edited by Randwolf; April 7th, 2013 at 04:02 PM.
Arrgh! I have a stalker!
Hiya Randy.
Er, you Dissed my humour?
Good start, eh? Noted and corrected...Arrgh! I have a stalker!
Hiya Randy.
Er, you Dissed my humour?
...
I have testicles but have never been able to successfully attract a suitable mate, therefore, they are quite useless.
The testies are fine. It's the face that is the problem.
A former work colleague of mine was once asked by his doctor what he used as a contraceptive.
His reply: my personality.
What do you attribute to its survival? There must be some reason for survival and use even if not total use. I am not able to see a rational, not even with evolution moving from one state to another.No.
Evolution. That which survives- survives. And what survives is not always useful.
Maybe these "non-functional" parts still serve some purpose?What do you attribute to its survival? There must be some reason for survival and use even if not total use. I am not able to see a rational, not even with evolution moving from one state to another.No.
Evolution. That which survives- survives. And what survives is not always useful.
Evolution Of The Human Appendix: A Biological 'Remnant' No MoreThe lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example.
Why? Remember, evolution is not about individuals but about population of a species.There must be some reason for survival and use even if not total use.
Just because some feature of an organism appears to be neutral or inactive in its environment - eye colour variation in humans is a good example - that doesn't mean that when the environment changes the inactivity or neutrality will remain.
With enough genetic variation, a species has a better chance of surviving in one form or another when its environment changes, disappears or collapses. Things that once appeared to have no use or effect suddenly become the reason why some individuals do and others don't survive. And by that process the species will, eventually, change in some way.
There is no way of knowing this in advance. Apparently superfluous bits and pieces features of all organisms is basically the perfectly normal biological redundancy we see all around us. It's a real mistake to think that nature works on what we think of efficiency principles. Why would we think it's a good idea to do anything about a feature that's doing no harm? And remember, among humans there is no common attitude about what is and isn't efficient. There are people who ruthlessly throw out anything and everything and just "buy another one" if they accidentally discard something they need a few weeks later. Then there are people who have basements and attics and sheds, sometimes beautifully organised more often not, holding all sorts of things that they see as worth holding on to. Who's to say which is the more likely or appropriate approach in a natural system?
The fact that it hasn't died off yet.
Not dying is the main "reason" for survival.There must be some reason for survival and use even if not total use.
Just a comment on the appendix.
The idea that it has a function as a reservoir for 'good' bacteria is a major stretch. Diarrhoea will not get rid of all the good bacteria, and the residual population will rebuild really quickly. Before the invention of antibiotics, no such reservoir was truly needed, and the appendix was a frequent killer.
However, it has been found that natural selection cannot get rid of the appendix, because it works in small increments. To shrink the appendix means a number of generations with small appendixes. A small appendix is more likely to trap harmful bacteria and consequently become infected - an often fatal appendicitis. Thus natural selection works against a shrinking of the appendix, and it remains with us, despite the fact that it is, not just useless, but actively harmful. The essential uselessness of the human appendix is shown by the fact that those who have it removed suffer no harm.
Really? How so?
And?
Yet...
Really? How so?
Can you support this assertion?
Then Spine Tail Bone?
it does not help in balance
it does not work as an attacking/fending function
it does not help us in transport(like monkeys on trees)
Originally Posted by jocular
It is the anchor point for a large number of muscles and tendons in the pubic region, not the least of which is the pubococcygeus muscle which forms the floor of the pubic cavity, and aids in child birth and urine flow prevention during ejaculation.
pal are you talking about the coccyx in your description?
it does not make sense to me how the coccyx can aid inchild birth and urine flow prevention during ejaculation.
Originally Posted by jocular
Revise the link in my first post in this thread.
Paleo mentioned this. I'd suggest taking that information and doing some searching for yourself.
There doesn't have to be a reason for survival. Organs don't just magically disappear if they are no longer useful. (That would imply some sort of divine intervention by the creator fixing her mistakes.)
They will only disappear if there is some disadvantage to keeping them; i.e. they are actively selected against. This may just be the metabolic cost of producing/maintaining the organ. Or it might be some incidental disadvantage. For example, in species that have lost eyes, it may be because they were vulnerable to injury or disease. Or it might just be genetic drift; e.g. some mutations occur that would be bad for organisms that needed those eyes but are neutral for the population that is not living in caves with no light.
As there are mechanisms for inheritance with modification, leading to population diversity, and selection pressures on populations, it would take some sort of miraculous intervention for evolution not to occur. That is why it is such a useful technique in engineering.
I would suggest you reread my post. The coccyx is the anchor point for the pubococcygeus muscle. This muscle is what forms the floor of the pubic cavity.
I just want to touch on the mention of appendix. I think to say the people who removed it suffered no harm, can only be valid if there was a follow up to the source of the human beings total anatomy, and knowing fully the involvement of the appendix in the total function.
That doesn't seem to make much sense. Are you saying that there is evidence of harm caused by appendectomy?
We are built from multi-functional building blocks - which makes wholly non-functional parts unusual. Unless genetic variation arises via accidents of mutation or recombination that prevents that part growing and it is associated with evolutionary advantage (or those retaining it endure distinct disadvantage in comparison) it's going to remain a part of us. Even if the genes remain unexpressed they are likely to be retained rather than lost.
The same thing might be said of people who have tonsils or adenoids removed.I just want to touch on the mention of appendix. I think to say the people who removed it suffered no harm, can only be valid if there was a follow up to the source of the human beings total anatomy, and knowing fully the involvement of the appendix in the total function.
It's easier to look at it in much the same way as people who lose a kidney or an arm, or are deaf in one ear or blind in one eye. They can live pretty well, even though the optimum conditions for a human body are to have all those bits present and functioning.
Not sure I agree in the case of the appendix. There is no data to show harm from not having an appendix, but plenty of data to show the harm of having one.
Before modern medicine, death from appendicitis was one of the more common ways to go. Literally millions of people have died from this, well before their time. I would not regard having an appendix as 'optimum condition.'
We also know the mechanism that prevents natural selection eliminating the appendix. It is most definitely not because there is any advantage to having one.
Uhm I don`t think our body has useless organs. Take example the wisdom theet, that does not grow to everybody anymore. As far as I`ve read and my doc told me, they do not grow anymore because we do not need them anymore. So yeah.
About spine tail bone, doesn`t it protect the spinal medulla?
So why do some people have MORE than the usual amount?
So why do some people have MORE than the usual amount?
Because it is evolutional process and it does not happen to everybody at the same time?
It`s like asking why some women still have their hymen.
Right.
In which case it could be argued that evolution is working towards giving everyone more teeth.
You're obviously not reading all of the posts.
I'll quote the relevant one:
Unless genetic variation arises via accidents of mutation or recombination that prevents that part growing and it is associated with evolutionary advantage (or those retaining it endure distinct disadvantage in comparison) it's going to remain a part of us. Even if the genes remain unexpressed they are likely to be retained rather than lost.
Post #41.
To some extent, I agree with what you are saying, but on the other hand, the appendix is dangerous when it goes bad or non-functional. When it is working, you do not know what it is doing totally. If you remove it, you may not notice the results as in conscious of the results on your body, however if you know the total function, it would allow you to make a better statement in terms of health, and functionality.Not sure I agree in the case of the appendix. There is no data to show harm from not having an appendix, but plenty of data to show the harm of having one.
Before modern medicine, death from appendicitis was one of the more common ways to go. Literally millions of people have died from this, well before their time. I would not regard having an appendix as 'optimum condition.'
We also know the mechanism that prevents natural selection eliminating the appendix. It is most definitely not because there is any advantage to having one.
short answer
Yes
eg: the appendix is a storehouse of beneficial gut bacteria
without which .....
see:
Vermiform appendix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.........
and the tailbone is important for sexual pleasure, and thereby, reproduction and continuation of the species
Every organ has a function. Disregard the immature wanna-be scientists and their assumptions to fit their ego-agenda. Like the hip bones of a whale as proof of evolution. In humans, the male genitals are attached to the hip bone and in females, the female genitals go through the hip bone. Whale's have the same genitals as us and the hip bone could serve the same purpose.. as support during intercourse.
If evolution is real... then a herbivore can willfully evolve into a carnivore and a carnivore can willfully decide to start eating grass, get hunted down and evolve into a herbivore.
Which it quite obviously is.
That can't happen and has nothing at all to do with evolution.then a herbivore can willfully evolve into a carnivore and a carnivore can willfully decide to start eating grass, get hunted down and evolve into a herbivore.
"Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago."Which it quite obviously is.
That can't happen and has nothing at all to do with evolution.then a herbivore can willfully evolve into a carnivore and a carnivore can willfully decide to start eating grass, get hunted down and evolve into a herbivore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I'm confused, why is the evolution wikipedia page indirectly indicating that a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa?
You said, "Willfully.""Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago."Which it quite obviously is.
That can't happen and has nothing at all to do with evolution.then a herbivore can willfully evolve into a carnivore and a carnivore can willfully decide to start eating grass, get hunted down and evolve into a herbivore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I'm confused, why is the evolution wikipedia page indirectly indicating that a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa?
yeah, you can't just evolve as a species because you want to. somebody needs to do a little more reading..You said, "Willfully.""Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago."Which it quite obviously is.
That can't happen and has nothing at all to do with evolution.then a herbivore can willfully evolve into a carnivore and a carnivore can willfully decide to start eating grass, get hunted down and evolve into a herbivore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I'm confused, why is the evolution wikipedia page indirectly indicating that a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa?
As in... Willfully killing animals and eating them.. the meat.You said, "Willfully.""Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago."Which it quite obviously is.
That can't happen and has nothing at all to do with evolution.then a herbivore can willfully evolve into a carnivore and a carnivore can willfully decide to start eating grass, get hunted down and evolve into a herbivore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I'm confused, why is the evolution wikipedia page indirectly indicating that a herbivore can evolve into a carnivore and vice-versa?
And, obviously, animals (other than humans) don't choose "wilfully" to be carnivores or herbivores. And even if they did, it would not affect evolution.
Last edited by Strange; April 13th, 2013 at 04:25 PM. Reason: oops
Carnivores eat meat.. so the herbivore willfully evolves into a carnivore by choosing to eat meat instead of grass.
I don't have to explain everything in detail. Its like I am talking to kindergarden kids.
Get back on topic. I'm done here.
Obviously wrong.
You should know. They would be about your mental ability by the look of it.I don't have to explain everything in detail. Its like I am talking to kindergarden kids.
Good. You clearly have no useful or informed contribution to make.Get back on topic. I'm done here.
lol! well first, animals can't really just "choose" to do anything like eat meat instead of plants...not that it would impact evolution whatsoever even if they could. so let's take humans for example..do you really think people going vegan will evolve us into vegans? no.. if we all start cutting off our left arm, are people going to start being born without a left arm?
Do things that a creature chooses (meat) in its lifetime alter its genetic code?
Originally Posted by jocular
no
as/re epigenetics
seems to work(mostly as so far noted) in adversity
without altering the genetic code
...............
adversity/survival also seems to be a trigger for altering the genetic code
but the details remain obscure
In other words, no evidence for this assertion.
No.
I wouldn't go so far as to agree with your "no evidence"In other words, no evidence for this assertion.
but
The archaeological (pre historical) past--is a study into obscurity, and every postulation seems to hold promise of explanation until something is found that contradicts it.
The latest I had read of this was as/re the genetic bottleneck attributed to the toba eruption. There seems to have been a neanderthal bottleneck then too, out of which, the taller and more gracile neanderthals(mostly from the eastern extent of their range) seem to have disapeared from the archaeological record-------if they ain't there, then they ain't breeding and the population changes into that which is more common.-----the question obtains, were the ones who were more gracile genetically different from the more stocky and robust ones who sheltered in southern europe? or Was the difference a matter of epigenetic transforms due to a different landscape or climate?
To the best of my knowledge, no DNA has been discovered nor studied of this eastern branch ------so obscurity remains
Also, Homo heidelbergensis has been postulated to have evolved starting anywhere from 1.3 million to 600,000 years ago, and it has been postulated that a rather traumatic climate event may have triggered that evolution, but with such a broad time span for that evolutionary jump, evidence remains as elusive as the dawn of that branch of our ancestors
ergo:
obscurity
but, we do have evidence that they existed
and we have evidence that (if indeed all classified as such) they had significantly different morphologies in different locations
the "why" and "how" of it all remains obscure
and may always be so
Indirectly, yes: Evolution 101: Bottlenecks and Founder Effects
Directly affecting the genome? I have never come across any evidence for that.
indicatres the likely existance of another causal factor(or 2 or 3 or ...)?indirectly
bottlenecks
if the survivors survived in small pockets/refuges, the likelyhood of mutation within a small refuge bound population?
if so
then when the climate improved, populations swelled, and began wandering, migrating, and trading, including sperm and eggs
a mating of the mutants?
creating a new genetic structure?
and
so
Not really. Just a consequence of the "law of small numbers".
Sculptor, you talked a lot and yet, provided zero support for the claim that environment caused genetic change.
Food, activity in search of food and sex are the only needs. Whatever drives survival, drives growth and whatever drives growth, drives genetic changes. If none of this happened, every human on this planet would look the same... same skin colour, same hair, same eyes, etc...
Interesting reads... Landes Bioscience Journals: Epigenetics
Cell - Sperm Methylation Profiles Reveal Features of Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution in Primates
Evolution exists but to insinuate that every mammal descended from one mammal is like saying that every building descended from one building because the blueprints look the same to a certain percentage. Let me know when crazy scientists make a microorganism without stealing DNA(blueprint) from an already ALIVE microorganism.
what does this have to do with anything?
Only if you don't know anything about it.
Can't you come up with your own thoughts instead of regurgitating irrational information?Only if you don't know anything about it.
Explain in layman terms how molecules evolve into microorganisms and then mammals... and don't forget to include where our "thoughts" fit into the equation.
Nothing should be passed off as fact until it is proven. Evolution as it is written is just a terrible atheist/egotistic selfish driven misinterpretation of the data.
Oops. The "irrational information" is from you.
As for "regurgitation" how many of your objections are solely your own and not simply a parroting of the same tired old "arguments" from people too lazy or indoctrinated to get an education?
What?Explain in layman terms how molecules evolve into microorganisms and then mammals.
Our thoughts? WTF?and don't forget to include where our "thoughts" fit into the equation.
You don't know anything about science and what "proof" means, do you?Nothing should be passed off as fact until it is proven.
Well at least you've chosen your user name carefully - you display a marvellous consistency in being wrong.Evolution as it is written is just a terrible atheist/egotistic selfish driven misinterpretation of the data.
Using the restriction, "laymans terms" is a weaselly way of reducing the necessary details.
Even so, an effort:
Emergence is the effect of complexity or order arising from chaos. You can observe this in ice. Chaotic water crystalizes into structured ice.
In chemistry, the chemical properties of many molecules are set. That is to say, if you combine the elements in the appropriate conditions- The results will always be the same.
From the emergence of organized molecules to mammals would require great detail, as well as many examples of the existent and physically tangible fossil record.
Which I have no doubt you will cover your eyes and stamp your feet and go full into denial mode if presented.
This is hilarious coming from a fundamentalist that is driven purely by the arrogant and self centered creation myths that give Mankind souls and divine placement, while everything else is just Dirty Animals for our use.
The next time you try flinging insults, you might refrain from projecting the obvious. Try attacking our character, instead.
How is it selfish? What do we gain from "passing off" evolution? Wouldn't we gain more if say, we promoted that there was a god that we could gain the favor of and be protected by. One that would ordain us with the authority to declare some deserving of rights and others undeserving? Wouldn't upholding faith in an all mighty creator bestow upon us more power to control the behaviors of others?Can't you come up with your own thoughts instead of regurgitating irrational information?Only if you don't know anything about it.
Explain in layman terms how molecules evolve into microorganisms and then mammals... and don't forget to include where our "thoughts" fit into the equation.
Nothing should be passed off as fact until it is proven. Evolution as it is written is just a terrible atheist/egotistic selfish driven misinterpretation of the data.
It would seem that acceptance of the theory of evolution and its inclination to cause atheism strips us of any power or assumed authority to declare what others should or should not do. It seems acceptance of evolution is the most selfless thing one can do. As well as the most humble as it strips us of our perceived righteousness and superiority to all other life forms.
Descent from a common ancestor is the only way of making sense of what we see around us. (Apart from magic.)
So you are saying that any living organism must be based on some previously existing life form? Hmmm.... That is what evolution says as well.Let me know when crazy scientists make a microorganism without stealing DNA(blueprint) from an already ALIVE microorganism.
The fact that every organism uses the same DNA code is a small part of the evidence for common descent. Oh, hang on, they don't just use the same code, they use a common set of genes as well. And we can trace the development of those genes.
But, of course, now we know the code it would be possible to create a new life form that contains genes that do not exist in any natural organism to create completely novel proteins. In fact, in principle, it would be possible to create an artificial organism that contained no genes that exist in nature. You could then go even further and use a completely different coding scheme in the DNA.
But we don't see any signs of such "intelligent intervention" in nature.
Last edited by Strange; April 16th, 2013 at 08:21 AM. Reason: spilling; clarification
You've struck a nerve. This is my pet peeve. You are using science, in this case evolution, to try to support a point of view which it does not really support. There is nothing about atheism that keeps one from declaring what others should or shouldn't do. There is no shortage of atheists on this site declaring what people should or shouldn't do.
Acceptance of evolution does not imply selflessness. Organisms which act according to the principles of evolution will behave in a way to increase the representation of their own genes in future generations. They themselves are A number 1, followed by close relatives, the closer the better. This is called kin selection. Any other organisms are way down the list, unless they can be used, or exploited, in some mutually beneficial arrangement. That doesn't mean atheists are not sometimes selfless, just that atheism does not in any way imply selflessness.
Going by what she said, she made it clear how it can imply selflessness. Your whole spiel, while not inaccurate, did nothing whatsoever to detract from her words.
When you compare what motivates the person, you're still left with human nature and belief and being an atheist does not, in any way, make a person into a cold and logical machine.
You missed the point. Atheism, not being a belief system, does not ordain justification for superiority over others. And being atheist does not expunge a human being of all belief systems. It only eliminates one that coddles superiority complexes based on an emotional connection to an imaginary superbeing/creator who supposedly favors people who live by one set of beliefs over people who live by other beliefs. No human being is without beliefs of some kind, but few belief systems give the believer the sense of power and superiority to the degree that religious belief does.You've struck a nerve. This is my pet peeve. You are using science, in this case evolution, to try to support a point of view which it does not really support. There is nothing about atheism that keeps one from declaring what others should or shouldn't do. There is no shortage of atheists on this site declaring what people should or shouldn't do.
Acceptance of evolution does not imply selflessness. Organisms which act according to the principles of evolution will behave in a way to increase the representation of their own genes in future generations. They themselves are A number 1, followed by close relatives, the closer the better. This is called kin selection. Any other organisms are way down the list, unless they can be used, or exploited, in some mutually beneficial arrangement. That doesn't mean atheists are not sometimes selfless, just that atheism does not in any way imply selflessness.
I'm sorry for striking a nerve, but by now you should realize, reality does that sometimes. My nerves get struck every time I notice a wrinkle, pimple or some other type of skin blemish on my face. I rant and cuss and moan about it but that doesn't make it go away. I just have to deal with it and hope that it will pass.
I also find it interesting that consistency's insulting remarks towards atheists didn't strike a nerve with you. Surely you are a fair minded person who doesn't feel unjustified insults should be slung around by either side. Surely you don't think its ok for theists to insult atheists and misrepresent science but its not ok for atheists to say anything the theists don't like. Especially since evolution does not equal atheism. It just has an inclination to lead to it. But not always, plenty of theists also accept evolution as a scientific axiom.
So tell me, why doesn't the misrepresentation of science, (calling theory of evolution a "terrible atheist/egotistic selfish driven misinterpretation of the data" not strike a nerve with you. Why doesn't calling scientists crazy not strike a nerve with you?
Do you want to explain to me how accepting evolution is selfless, or how it would strip us of our perceived superiority to other life forms? Because I can absolutely imagine someone who believes in evolution who is selfish, and who holds himself above any other life form.Going by what she said, she made it clear how it can imply selflessness. Your whole spiel, while not inaccurate, did nothing whatsoever to detract from her words.
When you compare what motivates the person, you're still left with human nature and belief and being an atheist does not, in any way, make a person into a cold and logical machine.
I can imagine pink unicorns, but what we can imagine is irrelevant.Do you want to explain to me how accepting evolution is selfless, or how it would strip us of our perceived superiority to other life forms? Because I can absolutely imagine someone who believes in evolution who is selfish, and who holds himself above any other life form.Going by what she said, she made it clear how it can imply selflessness. Your whole spiel, while not inaccurate, did nothing whatsoever to detract from her words.
When you compare what motivates the person, you're still left with human nature and belief and being an atheist does not, in any way, make a person into a cold and logical machine.
Acknowledging evolution, for many, means that we humans are not special in any sort of way. And that we simply happened by chance like all other life. Whereas, creationism, usually asserts that humans are a supreme being to "lesser" animals. And that humans are not animals themselves. To give up one's concept of superiority (based on the favor of a creator) over other life forms is an act of humility. And humility and selflessness go hand in hand.
But maybe we can stay on topic rather than going off on a philosophical tangent because you got a nerve struck. Two opinions were presented. You didn't like one. Too bad. You can control yourself, right? Let's stick to the OP.
hu·mil·i·ty
[hyoo-mil-i-tee or, often, yoo-]
noun
the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc.
Last edited by seagypsy; April 16th, 2013 at 08:34 AM. Reason: added defintions
@Neverfly You didn't answer the question and ice crystals form at a temperature too cold for any life form to form itself. Comparing biological life to crystals is like comparing a person who has had sex with a person who has never had sex, a virgin. There is a big difference.
@Strange
"Descent from a common ancestor is the only way of making sense of what we see around us. (Apart from magic.)"
Science doesn't have the answer just as much as the religious books don't have the answer. Just be humble and say you don't know because you don't and neither do I.
" So you are saying that any living organism must be based on some previously existing life form? Hmmm.... That is what evolution says as well."
You believe humans descended from a pre-chimpanzee ape and I don't. Big difference. There is no actual proof that a specie diverges into another specie other than self-interpretation of the DNA(blueprint) data to fit your own bias.
"The fact that every organism uses the same DNA code is a small part of the evidence for common descent. Oh, hang on, they don't just use the same code they use a common set of genes as well."
Its evidence of symbiosis and the closed-loop system of nature. Every organism doesn't use the same DNA, there is plenty of bacteria in our guts which are limited in what they can and can't breakdown with their limited yet different set of enzymes... hence symbiosis.
"And we can trace the development of those genes."
Self-interpretation to fit your own bias.
"But we don't see any signs of such "intelligent intervention" in nature."
What about viruses? Where do viruses originate from?
@seagypsy Just because someone doesn't identify as an atheist, it doesn't mean they automatically identify as a theist. Don't forget pantheism or a system based on our aura such as Human Design which is self-verifiable.
Just because you are ignorant of the evidence doesn't mean that everyone is.
Other than the fact we have seen it happen.There is no actual proof that a specie diverges into another specie other than ...
Which isn't what I said. Try at least to follow the argument.Every organism doesn't use the same DNA
Why do you think that scientists can only make an organism by copying the DNA from something else but magically, you think that doesn't happen in the real world?
Baseless assertion. Please show, in appropriate detail, the flaws in the analysis.Self-interpretation to fit your own bias.
Have you ever had sex? I'm starting to see the truth that all atheists are sexually repressed virgins.
Learn to read.
There was no comparison. It was an illustration (a simple one, but, apparently, not simple enough for you) of how order can arise from chaos.
Wrong.Science doesn't have the answer just as much as the religious books don't have the answer. Just be humble and say you don't know because you don't and neither do I.
Bullshit "systems" are ALWAYS "self-verifiable". In fact that's the ONLY way they're "verifiable".a system based on our aura such as Human Design which is self-verifiable.
That's because they're not, in reality, verifiable AT ALL.
Source please.
There are a few examples here: Observed Instances of SpeciationSource please.
And some here: Some More Observed Speciation Events
And here: Speciation in real time
And some here: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network
Oh look, more: Instances Of Observed Speciation
And also: Observed speciation - EvoWiki
I'm sure there is some duplication there. But that might keep you quiet (hopefully) for a little while.
i don't get where this idea comes from that you have to be an atheist to understand and accept evolution..
You had better stay out of the other thread on evolution then !
headed over there nowYou had better stay out of the other thread on evolution then !
Because evolution demonstrates a complete lack of intelligent design. You don't have to be an atheist- you just have to let go of the belief in a Divine Creator.
It's pretty hard to reconcile Divine Creator from God. If you really understand the Evolutionary process, you really do have to let go of the ancient and primitive superstition of a creator/God. There's just no two ways about it. It's like believing in spontaneous generation and evolution at the same time. There's no way of doing it - something is going to be muddled up.
For some, it's too long a habit to let go of, so they still "claim" the belief. For others, it's a matter of God not being the creator, but just a part of the Universe at a much higher order than ourselves (And just as irrational a belief, in any case- it doesn't even have biblical support- why bother?)
It's politically correct to tip the hat to those that claim both- I do not see it that way, though and I am NOT P.C.
You might ask PhDemon in a PM how he does it. He's a favorite poster of mine, but in this instance- I think he's trying to pull a continent out of a hat.
I don't believe in a single creator as you state Neverfly, because we could say... who created the creator...
I believe in a spontaneous fusion creation process by the planets and the Sun because I wasn't born with continuous access to this powerful energy most people have inside themselves... I can look at certain women in the eyes and download this powerful energy through the eyes.. It is these supernatural experiences that keep me skeptical.
I don't believe we evolved from a common ape ancestor because if our gut size was bigger before... why didn't we keep eating leaves? Its more likely that our gut length has always been the same size and this limitation is what drove us towards surviving and eating calorie dense foods like nuts and fruits in addition to leafy greens.
LOL. Not enough data to make conclusions. I will remain skeptical until it is proven.There are a few examples here: Observed Instances of SpeciationSource please.
And some here: Some More Observed Speciation Events
And here: Speciation in real time
And some here: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network
Oh look, more: Instances Of Observed Speciation
And also: Observed speciation - EvoWiki
I'm sure there is some duplication there. But that might keep you quiet (hopefully) for a little while.
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Diet has an effect on gene expression and it isn't even listed. Why is that?
Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As you can see, there isn't much data to be jumping to conclusions.
I can only assume you didn't actually read any of those then. That is like looking at Galileo's leaning tower of Pisa experiment and saying, "you still haven't convinced me that gravity exists."
Then, like a good scientist (implausible as that sounds), you will be forever sceptical. It will never be proven. If you are looking for certainty then you want mathematics (down the corridor on the left) or religion (upstairs ... that's it, keep going ... up, up ...)I will remain skeptical until it is proven.
(Haven't got time to look at the other questions).
I made no such assertion. You are reading too far into my statements. Perhaps due to your own personal bias and personal sensitivities.
Because diet doesn't change the genes. (You do know how inheritance works, don't you?)
Ok, so you're insane. Got it.
Stop being dishonest. You are not a skeptic- you are a believer. You believe in the supernatural. That is not skepticism.
An inability to align the scientific findings with your preconceived superstitious nonsense is not skepticism.
Because it doesn't have an effect on gene expression.
Go look in someones eyes and download their energy. Make sure you clear your cache and upgrade your brains RAM.
Do pseudogenes count?
I own a pair of those. They are actually polylycra spandex leggings but colored in a way that makes them look like extremely form fitting jeans. Oh you said pseudogenes, not pseudojeans. My bad. I have no idea what you are talking about , but I am no expert on biology.
Last edited by seagypsy; April 17th, 2013 at 12:07 AM.
What are the gereral benifits from nature, to believe or not believe in God? Can anyone show reasonable proof that evolution is biased in anyway.
"Proof" that evolution is biased? What are you going on about?
| « How can chickens/sheep(no defence mechanism) exist if evolution did happen? Those that survive, survive, and those unfit for survival,dies off. | Electricity » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
