Evolutionary missing link found.

Sigh. I'm well aware of the differences, and as a matter of fact, I explained them to you earlier in the discussion. The reason I asked was because you seemed insistent about making the point that you only believe in Creationism to an extent, as you also believed in science, which implies that there's some sort of scientific side to your beliefs on the origin of life, aka abiogenesis.

Believing in Creationism and evolution isn't the same as believing in Creationism to an extent, as they're not mutually exclusive. Many people believe that some sort of god created life, yet still strongly believes in natural evolution, but they're still Creationists. Believing in natural evolution has nothing to do with whether you're a Creationist or not.

As for the arrogance in claiming to know a fraction of what happens around us, there isn't really any. People are aware that there's a stackload of stuff we don't know yet, and no-one's claiming that we know everything, or even close to that. However, we do know a fair portion of what we know there is no know, if you understand what I'm getting at there, and scientists are forever trying to make sense of the unknown. For example, we do not know what about eighty percent, or so, of our own DNA actually codes for, and overall, it appears to have no purpose. To discover whether it does code for anything, and, if it does, what that is, geneticists are experimenting in removing the 'unknown' sequences and observing what happens. As a whole, scientists in every field are very aware that there's a heck of a lot of stuff out there that we simply do not know, if we even know it exists in the first place at all.

As for the cells inside the fish, etc, as I was saying earlier, if you understand the processes involved, it's inevitable. The problem is, people aren't taught it. Also, you've put the whole process in a very, very bad light. Species do not just 'adapt' to their environment. What happens is changes naturally occur, of every sort, both beneficial and damaging, namely through reproduction, due to processes such as the crossing over of chromosomes, which not only leads to genetic diversity, but often arises in anomalies in the DNA sequence, dubbed 'mutations' though to most that's probably extremely misleading, which is often just fatal, meaning that the embryo will never develop. However, a lot of the time they often just lead to slight differences in the way the organism functions, predominantly at a molecular level. So, after all these changes occur, which can be both good and bad, you've got a whole lot of organisms with a whole lot of slightly different traits. Here's where the process of natural selection takes place, as the organisms which have beneficial characteristics, regardless of whether that's a result of inheritance or because of a mutation, are more likely to survive and pass on their 'better' genes than the organisms which don't. As I said, it's inevitable that that would happen, so no, organisms don't just undergo certain mutations that just happen to protect it from predators. The reason you probably find it hard to believe is because you were never taught the full extent of the process involved.

 

it's not logical to believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution because of one simple fact: macro evolution is a series of micro evolutions.

for example: a animal's dna forms a micro evolution/mutation, every young that animal has will harbor, in some way, that mutation. Say thier young also forms a mutation due to micro evolution, now it has 2 of them. Continue this trend and thousands/millions of years later. That 1 animal's decendants, if they survived, would have dna with so many micro evolutions that it no longer resembles the dna of that first animal, and by extension, its body shape and design would be different.

What most people dont seem to realize is that evolution doesn't directly conflict with how religions say how the earth was created, as evolution only talks about the diversity of life, not how it started or where the matter came from. And as Itza said, its not like the cells are 'smart' and know what to change, its by whether or not a animal survives that determins if a change in the dna was beneficial or harmful, as harmful mutations wont tend to last within a species.

 

As with all "missing links" this one really isn't a big deal. It was mainly released (found 25 years ago) to advertise a book and TV show. Within days of it being announced to the world, scientists have called its legitimacy into question. There is no doubt it is an incredibly rare fossil. But it’s closer to an ape or monkey missing link than a human one. A specialist at the Carnegie museum of natural history in Pittsburgh described Ida as more like "A third cousin, twice removed".

What pisses me off is that it gives a negative view that scientists are self serving and obsessed with grant money. Which the majority are not. The media is going to back flip and attack it which will damage the reputation of evolution amongst the general population who do not understand it. In contrast to what trash media says we don't need a magic fossil to support evolution, we already have enough evidence to draw a very real conclusion.

Creationism can go hand in hand with evolution. But people have to realize that evolution is not just a fluffy theory. Just look at your facial structure , knees, backbone (None are properly designed for walking upright) or even the appendix to name a few...

 

How? . Its time to quote the Wikigod:

Funny how theist decide to take the bible literally at times, or hypothetically at others, at their sole will. I find it amusing, considering how many people claim the bible is the unquestionable word of God, and the basis of our morals.
Anyway, back to the point

Creationism says: God created the world and man in his likeness, throughout 6 days, resting on the seventh.

Evolution says: Man was ''made'' through natural selection.

Sure, many people would say something like this:

''Yes, I do think the theory of evolution is right, but ultimately, who created the very first cell that ended up creating all living beings we know of these days? .. that must be God ofc. EVERYTHING needs a creator''

To which I would reply:

1- Again, the Bible clearly says that GOD made man. If you agree with the statement I just wrote, you're disagreeing with the Bible. So, either you're right, and the Bible is wrong, or the Bible is right and Science is wrong. Hmm... guess who's the winner.

2- Who created God? (Himself is not an answer. Why? Because if you say that God created himself, then I can tell you with the same line of thinking: ''Well, the very first cell created itself too. And the Big Bang created itself as well, so in that case we wouldn't need a creator at all)


Bottom line is.. guys, sure, there MIGHT be a being out there so powerful that we could consider him a deity.. but whoever that is, is not God as we know him, nor Buddha nor any of the other man-made deities.

Of course, this is my most humble opinion. Feel free to flame me xD

 

@Itzahexgor, your not understanding what I mean. I mean why the processes work the way they do. It is more the reason behind why nature changes the way it changes. You can explain how it does it and the mechanics all day but to me it doesn't explain why. It is hard to describe in words what I'm trying to get across to you to be honest though.

 

Sigh, yes. Regardless of media hyping and monetary gain being object goals here, im going to agree in the hope that some people will eventually understand that the creationism ONLY in respect to 'a intelligent designer made life' can indeed go hand in hand with evolution


However, you must understand - following religious teachings in respect to the genesis story over evolution. In such a manner as to deny, blatantly obvious facts - the age of the earth, evolution... Religion in this respect already has its conclusions, some of you here frown upon anything to do with 'science' like its soul attempt is to destroy your beliefs, but it isnt. Religions already have their conclusions, and they look for evidence to prove them. Science is the pursuit of evidence of which it uses to REACH conclusions. Thats probobly the most arrogant part about religions for me, they pronounce clearly despite fact and evidence stating otherwise that THEY have the conclusions. THEY know what happens when they die. THEY know what is right, and what is wrong. When at the end of the day, they're just humans like everyone else... Wondering why they're floating along through space on this rock just like the rest of us.

Just look at the Pope - anytime a flaw or contradiction is found in their teachings, they address it - Oh God meant this, God meant that, he didnt really mean to slaughter those billions of people. They already reached their conclusions but the important part here is that the evidence they used to reach those conclusions has been proven to be otherwise by logic and understanding that the Human race has learned through embracing science. Their evidence is flawed but they are bound to it by ancient doctrines, if evidence in scientific pursuit is flawed then the whole thing is discarded, the conclusions are found to be inaccurate due to incorrect evidence and a new hypothesis is worked upon. In religion, as i said, its the oppersite, they use fallible interpretation or miss interpretation of such things to modify the evidence to appear acceptable to the widespread norm. To elaborate - they had their 'evidence' being the bible - 'evidence' is found to have contradiction and fallibility when dinosaurs are discovered (only one example) Evidence is then interpreted or modified in a manner to be acceptable.

That is why the two cannot truely be together until people embrace science for what it is and learn not to be held back by religious fallible doctrine. Scientific method in respect to finding anwsers, not arrogant assumptions to gain conclusions. Perhaps then we will make more leeway in discovery for our predicerment here.

 

long story short, catholic, believe in evolution.
God created the universe, through a series of 'days' things evolved and man came into being. it can work perfectly well together. because think about it, in order for matter to exist something had to make it, was it always there? science dictates something cannot come from nothing. It had to have come from somewhere, and if it did that thing was there, thus creating a paradox. Thus theories like the big band etc. I believe God created it, and set things in motion. I still believe animals, protosoans, and everything changed, evolved and mutated over time, just that God started the process. THAT is how they can go hand in hand.

and yes, I powered Renatus down. You, Renatus, are the arrogant one for thinkign everyone needs to believe a certain way, and if not they're ignorant, stupid or don't understand. you're too busy beign conceited on your high stick of pompusness and superiority and are certain on proving others wrong. LEt other people believe what they want, just ebcause it's different doesn't mean it's wrong. I cannot stand when people say 'this is the proof i'm right, believe it or you're arrogant'. You basically said that in your first post and I've seen nothing but attacks from you dictated towards others and that is not something i tolerate. Learn to discuss without being an asshole, or you'll end up just like GM/Light did, tipping the scales too far and ending up on perma band wagon. I'm not threatening you, I'm jsut saying have respect for other members.

 

Tell that to Renatus then, not me. Based on previous threads and his comments it seems he is strongly against Creationism of any kind and that evolution is the only right and logical answer to life. That is at least what I gather from his posts on the subject.

 

and in that matter he is entitled to his opinion is he not


i am not sure what i believe, i will see whats true after my death(or not)

 

Of course he is, but at the same time so are we right? Disagreeing on one thing doesn't mean we don't think we are entitled to each others opinion or disagree on all things.

Actually, I think you have a pretty good opinion ijffdire because the fact is that we don't know yet either way. So I would think the most sensible thing to do would wait until you can determine which is more right.

We don't know what thinking is, consciousness, or the soul if you will is yet and how they play a role in our existence. Thats why I say i believe in these things to a extent because I think either one of them could potentially be possible.

Instead of arguing I think we should just ask the question does intellgience and consicousness come from mechanics or do mechanics come from intellgience and consicousness. By mechanics I mean science, gravity,etc and by intelligence and consicousness I mean your indivdual thinking consicus or self. Then there is another question, are they the same?

 

@Mael

To be honest i just said the cliche "Creationism can go hand in hand with evolution." quip to reduce the chance of entering into a conversation which Itza was leading since i had just woken up and had to leave the computer alone for 8 hours....sadly the point i was making that the whole finding bones thing doesn't mean much was overlooked because of this >.>

Sorry for making you go on a rant...i agree with you completely and in no way believe in the bible or any organised religous teachings. HOWEVER you can't deny that its possible that IF we were created that whatever did it did use evolution (I used the word "did" Since evolution is occuring thus we, as the product ..yada yada yada same logic i've stated in previous threads)

 

Then you're by definition not a Catholic and are going to hell with me.

You obviously didnt read or understand Hex's point. I am not thinking everyone needs to believe a certain way. I simply pointed out that denying basic biology is a stupid thing to do. By your logic your mum is arrogant because she taught you. And yes, it is a stupid thing to do - this isnt something which you can say oh i dont believe that part, because this part of evolution has been proven. So again arrogance has nothing to do with this - READ hexes posts before you froth your patriotic forum dribble over the keyboard and rush to try and throw silly insults my way- which may i remind you; isnt very mod like is it?

Yeah because teaching basic biology to inept people makes me conceited. I have already provided evidence for why they are wrong to not believe in evolution in that respect - yet again it is like denying gravity. Arrogance has nothing to do with this here, education however does.

This is why you're an idiot - i am letting other people believe what they want. But if some people are going to be stupid enough to deny basic ****ing biology then i have the right to tell them why DOING SO makes them ignorant WITH showing them evidence for my argument - within the confines of the forum rules. Which i have done. Again, arrogance has nothing to do with this, grow up and learn to understand the context of what is being argued here before you jump hastily to the stage and yell such crap.

You mean point out basic biological facts? I didnt say they were arrogant to the proof for evolution i said they were ignorant for denying it - AGAIN see Hexes post in respect to me arguing evolution. Key word would be goddamn gravity.

Attacks? Please - take off your bias vision filter for a moment and look at everyone elses posts - if you were perceptive enough you would realise that Hex has argued exactly the same thing as me. It is not an attack to say someone is ignorant for not accepting basic biology, the sooner you learn this the better kurai.

What a terrible world i live in, where one cannot point out fact without others being so silly to not understand context or even the argument at hand and thus throwing insults around like asshole. You know what the funny part is? The insults you decide to throw at me are failing you as a mod. - As i said, they are ill thought out and crudely placed. You should probobly realise that you labeled Hex an asshole too with that statment, as our arguments were the same - all i did was sum up with a more blunt conclusion.

Your main qualm is that to you i come off as arrogant because i pointed out basic proven facts of evolution and said if you dont accept these then you're ignorant. Hear me out now - we said this because it is most definatly the case, just as you would call someone ignorant who ran around saying 'LUL GRAVITY IS JUS A THEORY' and then fell off a cliff. Its exactly the same thing Kurai... So no, it was not a arrogant attempt to blanket my beliefs on everyone like you seem to claim, everyone else picked up on that, not sure why you didnt.

Regardless, if a mod like you cannot grasp (Hex and the other can, so it must be an isolated issue of face palm) that what we were discussing had nothing to do with arrogance, then im not sure i want people like you in charge in the first place.

 

@Renatus, i kindly ask you to remove all the personal insults from your arguements, because if you dont, someone less nice then me, say, wearing a banhammer, will remove them, and probably you for a while

use the same mindset i use with most conspiracy theorists: they are dumb, not my problem, let em figger' it out for themselves.

 

So im to walk around and not pay any attention when she throws miss placed insults when she clearly doesnt even understand the discussion at hand? WHILE she decides through her bad understanding that i should be down repped? WHILE she wears the collar of a Mod status? **** that.

Its one thing to be insulted, its another thing to be insulted by someone who clearly doesnt undestand the discussion and who is in a position of power. Why should i be punished for the face palm of another?

 

so kids, this is what we call a downwards spiral, when one persons negative actions are the cause and justification of another persons negative actions, and then the first person finds justification in that again

Renatus, if no one stops this will only get worse.

also, i see a big difference between

and

and yes, hex has argued exactly the same, but his words were like a fine peace of poetry, nay, music to my ears, while yours brought me crashing to this dark world again(AKA, he did it in a nicer way)

 

Our* arguments were the same, i see no reason why presentation of said arguments should affect the judgment of the conclusions when both parties take the time to read and understand.

If she had taken the time to read and understand - this 'spiral' would not have occured. As then her opinions of me would have been utterly oppersite. And thus no insults would have been hurled by her.

But yes, **** it, she can figure it out for herself like all the other mods managed to, - im going to take a holiday.

 

Don't worry about it, actually I agreed with you too. I just wanted to develop an idea I had based on that comment, that's all.

True, and I did mention this in my post. The possibility of a creator is there. Science, unlike religion, does not ascertain facts without evidence to back it up. So, because there is no solid evidence against a god, the possibility remains.
However, there IS evidence indicating that all known religions are man-made, so as I was saying before, if there is a god its not how we picture it. Maybe he is there but does not interfere. Maybe he just created the universe and left to create others, leaving us do our bidding. Maybe.. there is no god :O
Unfortunately, we won't live to see the answer to that.

Oh, by the way:

And who created God? Wouldn't that create a paradox too?

Or maybe God created himself.. in which case I reply:

The universe created itself. º_º


And still.. back to my previous point.. maybe something or someone had to create it. This someone created the big bang, which means that he was there before time began. Whoever this something/one is, his abilities are way beyond ours. So you could call him a God in the sense that it has powers that we can't even dream to have.
Just like we humans are gods compared to ants.
But does that mean he/it is divine? or that he wrote the bible? or that there is a heaven? etcetcetc?

I honestly don't think so.

 

read up on a definition of catholic.t here are only 7 things you need to believe ot be called catholic, read the apostle's creed kthx.

I'm sorry what? I'm not caring about what Hex said, it's about what you said. man up. Also, lol, me throwing insultswhen you say i'm going to hell, am an idiot, and are talking about my mom? yeah...i'm being the immature one. read a dictionary and look up hypocrite

"Especially those still ignorant enough to not believe evolution." is what you said. yeah, that's totally within forum rules, being an asshole and talking **** and calling me stupid.
=

also, don't stereotype me. just because i'm a mod doesn't mean i have to believe like all the others. The cool thing about the world is diversity and different beliefs. also, gravity is a theory. It's a way to explain what happens but it's not a 'law' it's not 100% always going to happen. ofc, there hasn't been any case of us seeing it doens't, but it still is. you also forget people used to have 'proof' spontaneous generation existed then found out more information./ we don't understand everything, my dear forum member. so for now it's all theories, despite all the 'proof' in the world.

Yes, have fun being temp'd :3

also maelstrom, idk @_@
that's the thing, it's all theroeis and guesses, but for now i choose to believe it's how the universe happened x3 As always, things still need to be figured out. i'm not gonna say i believe everything, i'm still searching for answers ^ ^

 

then i guess the last 3 Popes have/is gone/going to hell too, as they each stated they believe in evolution mixed with religion, like Kurai said. I too believe evolution and Chrisitanity can exist together, as long as you dont take the Bible literally.

for those who dont know, here is one of the common versions of the Apostle's Creed(notice no mention in literally believing the Bible):

Calling someone ignorant because they believe religion over science is, in itself, an insult. Though I do not agree with thier ideology, I would not call them ignorant/idiots.

About gravity though, its not a law because they do not know how to describe it 100% accuratly. They know gravity exists, but they do not know exactly WHY it exists or why molecules pull on eachother, hence why it still remains only a theory.

Also, even scientific laws dont always work 100% of the time. Look at Newton's 3 laws of motion, they do not always work when science goes into special relativity.

 

Yeah. Well, as long as we keep our minds opened it's ok to have different beliefs.

The problem is that many people don't share what I would call your ''healthy belief''. Instead, they'd rather impose their ideas on others.
For example, anti-abortion groups, anti-gay movements, anti-atheism movements, anti-stem cell research groups, pretty much the whole middle east, etc.
So scientific and human development is crippled and obstructed in many ways by these people, and that sucks.

Truth is, as you said, these fundamental questions need to be figured out, but in the meantime, It would be wise not to take anything for granted, not make any assumptions based on no evidence, and most importantly, respect other people's beliefs and opinions.
If we as a society could archieve this, then religion would be perfectly fine and theist and atheist could coexist peacefully, and technology would advance very very quicly, even faster than nowadays.

Unfortunately, this utopic idea is never bound to happen, so theist and atheist will keep colliding like matter and antimatter

Just my two cents