There is also the factor that there will be an unconscious understanding that ideas must also evolve, which may mean that religious ideas are no longer absolute, so they have a strong, unconscious reaction.
Evolution or not?
Sort:
einstein99 wrote:
I understand rich, but remember every person alive has biases and prejudices which influence and color their world. I've seen evidence that suggests man did evolve from an MRCA(Most recent common ancestor) with chimps. I just let my faith take over in a situation like that. Its hard for some people to do that so be patient with others. 😉
Personaly i believe in evolution.As for man evolved from chimps,i don't fully agree.My hypothesis is some Adam's offspring have mixed marriage with original earth inhabitant(neanderthal,etc).Thus it made our bones evidence to be overlapping.Firstly Adam is the extraterrestrial here on arth.After giving birth of many couples of child with eve,their childs have multiplied.And it is inevitable the mixed marriage have happened.This why genetic research find similarity between man and chimps.As my evidence of Adam existence is some holly grave scattered along middle east have the giant size in which consistent with religion story(Adam is a giant).And after some millennias the giants were rarely exist and earth was inhabited with small people.Thus modern human is Adam's offspring.
I'm gonna make a new term for people who use Google too much- Google bots. I guess since I'm older I like to read regular books more often, but to each his own.
Elroch would make a great teacher in Russia Optimissed. If you disagree wirh him it's off to the gulag. It gives him a sense of power. Some sort of Freudian compensation going on I would guess. 😉
I'm starting to think that Alex, or Bobyyy is a paid representative for Google. Gaga for Google. 😋
That's where I believe a distinction should be made Optimissed. Is RANDOM evolution( mutations and selection)a term I coined, the force between these adaptive changes due to environmental stimuli or should we look for other types of mechanisms, perhaps, phenotypic plasticity(epigenetic changes by various allelic expression)
cryptic genes( genes expressed by DNA rearangements) or even acquired characteristics from somatic cells( non reproductive cells) being expressed in the germline( reproductive cells).
These are examples of NON RANDOM evolution, and from what the evidence shows, the preferred method for the evolutionary adaptive changes due to environmental stimuli.
You must read their books Einstein.
That's how they enlist new fanatics. They live in hope of converting the planet.
That was tried numerous times before under various guises, but now they call it science.
Don't worry Alex.
Even though evolution is only a bunch of concocted pseudo facts, at least Chelsea will win the premiership this year!
Nice cogs in your pic Anna, don't think I could walk in them tthough. 😕
Alex Rodriguez: I saw you mentioning the so called Islamic State before. Remember, that state is not Islamic at all. So ISIL or Daesh would be better suited.
Above all, I'm just a preteen so please avoid lashing out on me. To start with, I want to get some basic knowledge of what evolution is. I'm neither a denier, nor a supporter of the theory of evolution. I'd be grateful if someone helped me grasp what this fuss is all about.
einstein99 wrote:
Elroch would make a great teacher in Russia Optimissed. If you disagree wirh him it's off to the gulag. It gives him a sense of power. Some sort of Freudian compensation going on I would guess. 😉>>>>>
Elroch is on the staff of the mathematics depertment at Cambridge University, so he's obviously a good mathematician but whether he's in full possession of his faculties is another matter.
That was a rather bad joke because universities have faculties, such as a faculty of engineering within which mechanical engineering, for instance, would be a department. Department heads and faculty heads are professors. Elroch isn't a professor in the way we use that title.
He is clearly a sort of idealist-realist. That is, he believes that the ideal models, that he derives mathematically, incontrovertibly exist in reality. This doesn't allow the possibility that a different mathematical method might tend to depict a different picture (model) of reality. But he is sold on mathematics as an exact, predictive science, and of course, it isn't. I sometimes have this discussion with my son, who is approximately as good at maths as Elroch. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to hold a rational discussion with Elroch.
einstein99 wrote:
That's where I believe a distinction should be made Optimissed. Is RANDOM evolution( mutations and selection)a term I coined, the force between these adaptive changes due to environmental stimuli or should we look for other types of mechanisms, perhaps, phenotypic plasticity(epigenetic changes by various allelic expression)
cryptic genes( genes expressed by DNA rearangements) or even acquired characteristics from somatic cells( non reproductive cells) being expressed in the germline( reproductive cells).
These are examples of NON RANDOM evolution, and from what the evidence shows, the preferred method for the evolutionary adaptive changes due to environmental stimuli.>>>>
I tend to support the thesis that there's no reason to believe that the genetic mutation which allows organic evolution is random only. After all, if there were just a 1% tendency for non-random factors to operate, just think what an advantage the cumulative effect would give organisms that possess it.
Believing in random-only genetic mutation is an ideology that's driven by logical-positivism. It may be correct but we don't have to assume that it must be so. Very often, logical positivists are fanatics who systematically attack the idea that evolution may contain a non-random element. The simple answer is that we do not really know as yet.
^^ That's my official position but privately I'm pretty sure it is somewhat non-random.
alex-rodriguez wrote:
For example we are distant cousins of cockroaches and trees.>>>>
Well, I think that assumes that life only started in one place at one time, whereas perhaps the probability is that when conditions were right for life to start, it did so in many places at once or over a long period, geologically speaking. So we may not be related in any way to trees.
For example we are distant cousins of cockroaches and trees.>>>>
Well, I think that assumes that life only started in one place at one time, whereas perhaps the probability is that when conditions were right for life to start, it did so in many places at once or over a long period, geologically speaking. So we may not be related in any way to trees.
'DNA sequencing has repeatedly shown all life on earth is related'. After about 50,000 years DNA is too degraded for sequencing. Its been pushed back a little farther with extraction and laboratory techniques. but direct evidence doesn't show or prove that all of the life on our planet is related, at least not as common descent would theorize.
This conjecture would have to either be speculated upon or guessed at.
alex-rodriguez wrote:
Nice idea you got there Optimissed but DNA sequencing has repeatedly shown all life on Earth is related. But you did bring up an interesting subject which makes a lot of sense.
We're getting into the sort of territory here where such conclusions may be highly suspect, if, for instance, the same experimental method is repeatedly used, which could be flawed. It's the kind of subject where I'd want to be shown the evidence and shown how they reached their conclusion, with the opportunity to criticise or ask questions.
I find that the ivory tower elitists tend to be the most set in their ways Optimissed. They also tend to be more biased than us ordinary people. As for concerning the social sciences, not really sciences, they are bent on a certain worldview which I won't mention because of constraints to our freedom of speech on this thread( no politics or religion).
We're all prejudiced by various parameters, be it our social and cultural upbringing, religious environment, personal beliefs etc. That's why discussion groups can get a little shall we say *exciting* at times.
Yes, after a lot of bad experiences in discussion, science and philosophy groups on Facebook over the years, I finally started my own discussion group there, in order to be free of trolls and, even worse, insane and meglomaniacal moderators like our friend Elroch, for example. It was like you couldn't criticise the status quo in those groups. If you said you didn't accept the big bang and gave reasons for that, there would be arguments from authority telling you that the scientific world accepts it. And that you should "go study". If you mentioned non-random evolution, people would say "intelligent design" with all the bad connotations that tends to imply.
The group is nearly 1900 members now and it's busy. It's much more enjoyable than being subject to the whims of mad admins and the like.
Evolution cannot possibly be false, since it refers to change and adaptation in accordance with the environment.
The ridiculous Elroch blocked me from his evolution thread because that's the only way he can deal with those who disagree with him; the idea of structured discussion and argument being foreign to him. That's presumably how he has adapted and how his behaviour has evolved, due to environmental pressure on him. My behaviour has evolved because, like many others whom the ridiculous Elroch has blocked, I can't post on his thread no more.