Question From "Traditional man and country"

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

Why is it so hard for you to distinguish the biological concept from it's usage to explain the history of mankind? Molecular binding, protein synthesis, DNA replication etc happen many trillion of times every microsecond and that is not a myth. Using those concepts to provide a possible explanation of the mankind will necessary have something "religious".

It's hard to distinguish because behind the concept there are political motivations to tie the two together.

[Haykakan]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

There is no dought whatsoever that evolution exists. The environment determines what animals, plants and other organisms do, look like etc...
The ability to evolve is limited by the genetic makeup of the organism itself and the time the organism has to adjust to environmental factors. The thermal vents example is a excellent one it shows how creatures have evolved the ability to withstand high pressure, temperature and the ability to exploit a new source of energy. Taking some undergrad biology classes will clearup most questions regarding this subject. If after taking such classes you still dispute this basic theory then you had a bad teacher, are too dim witted or you simply have your own agenda and will not listen to reason anyways. Sience is not a fab it is the use of reason to explain what we want explained. People use the scientific method at times to further their own agenda and this is certainly wrong because they are selective in reporting only the findings that back up their argument and will not let you know when their own research disproves their prerconcieved assumtion. This is bad science and it is unfortunatly way too common today. Religion will allways try to discredit evolution because it renders most ideas religions are based on as silly fairytales. I do research on the graduate level and i am often surprised because the results will reveal unexpected findings. This is what makes science so interesting and usefull, you don't know anything unless you test it and you will often be surprised by the results your tests show. Keep a open mind free of predjudice when studying anything and you will learn way more then you thought you would.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

There is no dought whatsoever that evolution exists. The environment determines what animals, plants and other organisms do, look like etc...
The ability to evolve is limited by the genetic makeup of the organism itself and the time the organism has to adjust to environmental factors. The thermal vents example is a excellent one it shows how creatures have evolved the ability to withstand high pressure, temperature and the ability to exploit a new source of energy. Taking some undergrad biology classes will clearup most questions regarding this subject. If after taking such classes you still dispute this basic theory then you had a bad teacher, are too dim witted or you simply have your own agenda and will not listen to reason anyways. Sience is not a fab it is the use of reason to explain what we want explained. People use the scientific method at times to further their own agenda and this is certainly wrong because they are selective in reporting only the findings that back up their argument and will not let you know when their own research disproves their prerconcieved assumtion. This is bad science and it is unfortunatly way too common today. Religion will allways try to discredit evolution because it renders most ideas religions are based on as silly fairytales. I do research on the graduate level and i am often surprised because the results will reveal unexpected findings. This is what makes science so interesting and usefull, you don't know anything unless you test it and you will often be surprised by the results your tests show. Keep a open mind free of predjudice when studying anything and you will learn way more then you thought you would.

Soon as you use this theory to discredit religion, your entire argument goes out the window. I'm tired of importing oranges from Florida, and would love to see them evolve into my backyard in Canada. I'm also tired of burying/insulating the damn fig trees underground in the winter so they won't freeze. Since evolution is hypothesized to occur over millions and millions of years, it doesn't do a damn thing for me when I'm only in this world for a fraction of the time. And please don't feed me your genetically modified crap science food that even the 3rd world countries don't want to eat. Thanks.

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

It's hard to distinguish because behind the concept there are political motivations to tie the two together.

That is sad but true, but many ideas have been and will be exploited. That is not inherent to the idea. Is there a way to prevent it? Do you know of an alternative solution that is immune from political abuse?

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

Pretty much. It just comes down to a group of fundamentalists in their own right who confuse belief with absolutism and then attempt to verbally ostracize those who disagree. That sounds awfully reminiscent of fundamentalist Christians.

I don't see what in molecular binding, protein synthesis and DNA replication "sounds awfully reminiscent of fundamentalist Christians"? Who in this thread has "attempted to verbally ostracize those who disagree"?

You amaze me. Why all the exaggerations and false accusations? Isn't that dishonest?

Because of statements such as these:

Why is it so hard for you to distinguish the biological concept from it's usage to explain the history of mankind? Molecular binding, protein synthesis, DNA replication etc happen many trillion of times every microsecond and that is not a myth. Using those concepts to provide a possible explanation of the mankind will necessary have something "religious".

I'm sorry but I don't see how molecular binding, protein synthesis and DNA replication justifies drama and mysticism.

You start describing molecular binding, protein synthesis and DNA replication (all of which are testable), and a statement that is similar to the one I made about "microevolution" which revolves around "within species variation" of moths or fruit flies. This is all well and good.

Just to clarify, I did not "start describing" anything, I just mentioned them.

But then you go on to state faith based claims about "using those concepts to provide a possible explanation of the mankind."

I did not make any such claims, on the contrary I said
"Let's not confuse the simple principles of Biology with evolutionism that uses the concept of evolution to explain the history of mankind and our planet. It's irrelevant what were the actual phases of mankind's evolution and whether all living creatures have the same ancestor or 32784 different ones, that's "poetry" as Popper and other epitemologists would have said."
You're letting your emotions confuse you.

This goes back to my initial point about semantics and burden of proof. What is valid under "evolution" depends on how we define it. If you are going to define "evolution" as those things which are observable and testable, then we have no dispute. That is within the realm of the natural world.

That's all I claimed so far, so what justified all the drama?
So coming back to my original statement:
" Unless you show that the principles of Molecular Biology are totally wrong than there will be evolution as long as there is life"

But you don't just stop there. By making the statement of "using those concepts to provide a possible explanation of the mankind" (mankind does not need the definite article "the" preceding it), you only reaffirm what I have been stating - namely, there is a belief/faith/conjecture component embedded within this theory of "everything."

Yes, that's where I stopped. You have let your emotions confuse you.

You are arguing a red herring and playing mental gymnastics with yourself. If you want to be taken seriously and much less be engaged in dialogue, it would help if you actually: (1) read exactly what it is I stated and what my disagreements are and (2) address those actual arguments, not the ones you think I am addressing.

Here is an example of how we are arguing in case you need a more simpler demonstration:

The claim: XYZ is true.

My statement: That depends on how we define "XYZ." If the "YZ" portion is the model of how we came to be, then it's pseudoscience. We are not concerned with "X".

Your statement: There is evidence of "X" per molecular biology, therefore, "XYZ" must be true.

Fallacies committed in the process by you:

Straw man
Red-herring
Non-sequitur
Ad populum

Instead of more pointless drama and distorting what I said, why don't you share with us an alternative model? Wouldn't it be more productive?

[Haykakan]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

I think you guys think people who support evolution are arrogent because they say it exists but they don't have a few weeks to sit down and explain it to you. Thats why you should really take some science classes with good teachers otherwise talking to you two about this subject is truely pointless. FYI evolution really can be easily observed on a daily bases (take some classes and see for yourself), and things that you don't think effect you directly are still very important things and they really do effect you both directly and indirectly. It very much saddens me that people today are still arguing about stuff like this and have absolutly nothing to back up their arguments. Get educated then revisit the subject, there is no point in talking about it till then.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

" Unless you show that the principles of Molecular Biology are totally wrong than there will be evolution as long as there is life"

There will also be revolution as long as there is politics.

[jgk3]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

I think you guys think people who support evolution are arrogent because they say it exists but they don't have a few weeks to sit down and explain it to you. Thats why you should really take some science classes with good teachers otherwise talking to you two about this subject is truely pointless. FYI evolution really can be easily observed on a daily bases (take some classes and see for yourself), and things that you don't think effect you directly are still very important things and they really do effect you both directly and indirectly. It very much saddens me that people today are still arguing about stuff like this and have absolutly nothing to back up their arguments. Get educated then revisit the subject, there is no point in talking about it till then.

Mouse isn't arguing that there's no evolution, he's arguing that evolution cannot be used (alone) to prove a theory about man having non-human biological origins.

[Haykakan]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

The quote used by Anon implies that evolution is in dought and it is NOT!
"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."
In regard to humans evolving from non-humans again i ask you to take a intro level undergrad bio class and you will see that everything alive today evolved from things which were very different then what we see today and humans are no exception. Humans are in no way "special" or exempt from laws of nature despite what religion tells you. Get educated and this thread can truely become interesting.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

Humans are in no way "special" or exempt from laws of nature despite what religion tells you. Get educated and this thread can truely become interesting.

True, however, we are intelligent enough to intervene with the laws of nature. If evolution is a process then surely reverse evolution is also a process.