The Theory of Evolution?

[Ultra-Violence]

I was wacthing a program yesterday about evolution. And it seems to me that there are many gaps yet to be discoverd in the chain of *our evolution.

so my qeustion to you commrades is this Do You believe in the thoery of evolution and if so why?

i would also like to hear your take or spins on the Theory of evolution and charles darwin.

But what i have made my mind about the theory of evolution is that us homosapians and primapes came from the same ancestor but some were along the evolutionary chian we broke off. Thus thats how other complety species were created i.e Neanderthals.

i also so beilve in the the stuff darwin talks about natural selection.

But i dont consider my slef a darwinist. :hammer:

[Hefer]

Was that on the History channel?

Ape to Man?

If so, I too saw that show, I enjoyed it alot. Kinda wired how we killed off our cusins :P

[Mujer Libre]

I'm just curious about people who don't accept evolution (using the word "believe" makes it seem like a huge leap of faith- which is the domain of religion, not science); what do they actually think happened? Where did we come from?

Evolution obviously isn't a complete theory in the sense that we don't know exactly what evolutionary pathways happened, but I don't see how anyone can deny that natural selection acts on species. It always pisses me ff when people ignorantly refute evolution. But then ignorant people in general piss me off.

[anomaly]

What is the reason not to 'believe' in evolution? I too watched that program (Ape to Man) and it seemed to clear up the so-called 'missing links' problem very well. Of course, there are still 'evolutions' which cannot be completely explained yet. I believe two problems are 'bird evolution' and 'whale evolution'. Creationists are always driven by Genesis, not by truth.

[red_orchestra]

Evolution makes sense...sure. But it isn't the whole story, thats a given. Creationalism is pure and simply fucking BULLSHIT.

[Quantum Flea]

Evolution is not a theory, its a fact.


I was wacthing a program yesterday about evolution. And it seems to me that there are many gaps yet to be discoverd in the chain of *our evolution.

I highly recomend Richard Dawkin's book The Ancestor's Tale - It is an extraordinarily good representation of the path of evolution throughout natural history. Dawkins basically takes as many groups of living species as possible and shows where on the evolutionary chain they probably evolved appart - its a branching tale backwards in time that leads to one common ancestor.

Of course there are always going to be gaps in the evolutionary chain. Thats because not every species gets the chance to be fossilised. So if an intermediate species becomes extinct without ever having the opportunity to leave fossil evidence, then they will pretty much dissapear without a trace. Of course we have to make inferences about missing links. But the links that DO EXIST provide very good support for evolution.

I think the biggest problem people have when trying to get a grip of evolution is comprehending the MASSIVE time scale involved. In the history of our planet, humans are but a flicker in an instant. So they are too in the history of all life. Variation takes many many generations to become obvious. And as humans, we don't usually have the luxury of watching this sort of thing happen.

PLEASE don't give up on evolution just because its not probable. Its not probable in terms of the human lifespan, the ammount of time we usually judge things by, but it is very likely in the 4.5 billion years that our Earth has been arround for.

So I urge anyone to give it a second chance. There's heaps of reading material available, and even a whole bunch that is pallatable for those who are non-scinetists. I personally recomend Dawkins, but his perspectives are only facet of the story.

Happy reading.

[Ultra-Violence]

Commrades im not saying that i dont belive in evolution i was wondering if my fellow peers believe the same thing.

i siad i dont consider my self a darwinst becasue of him we have the whole *Aryan,Hispanic,Anglosaxon etc............ race crap bullshit.


:)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Seek and you shall find.

TalkOrigins.org will answer most if not all of your questions (http://www.talkorigins.org)

[Severian]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 10 2005, 08:49 AM
i siad i dont consider my self a darwinst becasue of him we have the whole *Aryan,Hispanic,Anglosaxon etc............ race crap bullshit.
On the contrary. The ideas of race and racism are centuries older than Darwin. So is pseudoscientific research aiming to justify racism. People had been measuring skulls to prove white men had the biggest brains for some time.

Darwin basically shared the assumptions of his time and class on race; the ideas typical of upper-class British liberals in the 19th century.

What was new, thanks to Darwin: his work strengthened the theory that all humans are descended from a common ancestor; and weakened the old theory of "polygenesis" - different origins of the different "races." Even in his lifetime. The modern understanding of human evolution, even more so.

And his work encouraged biologists to think of groups of living things as populations, with important variation within the population or species. (That variation is essential to evolution by natural selection.)

Which encourages scientists, and everyone else, to see the tremendous variation within any group of people, not just the different types or stereotypes.

The effect of Darwin's work and theory was to weaken the "scientific" justifications for racism.

[xnj]

what do people think of this long series explaining the basics of evolution from the RCP's paper:

The Science of Evolution (http://www.rwor.org/s/evolution_e.htm)
by Ardea Skybreak

i'm only up to the third part, but it seems like a good read so far

[Ultra-Violence]

On the contrary. The ideas of race and racism are centuries older than Darwin. So is pseudoscientific research aiming to justify racism. People had been measuring skulls to prove white men had the biggest brains for some time.

Darwin basically shared the assumptions of his time and class on race; the ideas typical of upper-class British liberals in the 19th century.

What was new, thanks to Darwin: his work strengthened the theory that all humans are descended from a common ancestor; and weakened the old theory of "polygenesis" - different origins of the different "races." Even in his lifetime. The modern understanding of human evolution, even more so.

And his work encouraged biologists to think of groups of living things as populations, with important variation within the population or species. (That variation is essential to evolution by natural selection.)

Which encourages scientists, and everyone else, to see the tremendous variation within any group of people, not just the different types or stereotypes.

The effect of Darwin's work and theory was to weaken the "scientific" justifications for racism




thanks for the info commrade i honestly he was the one responsible for the whole race seperation thing. :hammer:

[Decolonize The Left]

I accept evolution because I am an atheist and an evidentialist. Consequencially, evolution is the most appealing form of explanation I can find.

-- August

[Mr Flibble]

well......evolution is the only scientific theory i know to explain us, so i'd rather bleive that then beliving in a god which made us out of dirt

[Ultra-Violence]

well......evolution is the only scientific theory i know to explain us, so i'd rather bleive that then beliving in a god which made us out of dirt

nad created the world in 7 days and created women from one of our rib bones!

:lol:

Religion is Opium for the masses :hammer:

[Led Zeppelin]

Do You believe in the thoery of evolution and if so why?


Yes, because it is a scientific theory regarding the existence of life.

[bolshevik butcher]

I believe in it because its jsut about scentifically provedn and logical.

[encephalon]

it is logical, cogent, sound. Depends on nothing more than materialism. Has substantial archaelogical evidence to back it up.

Saying that you don't "believe" in the theory of evolution is synonymous with saying that you don't "believe" in the theory of gravity. They are both called theories (as opposed to scientific hypotheses) because they have been tried and tested over and over again, and each time the theories have consistently proven valid. Perhaps even more urgent: if you don't "believe" in evolutionary theory, then in essence you don't believe in biology, or at least biology of the past century. Especially Genetics.

Oh, and yes: Richard Dawkins writes very well and explains things in ways so that a person doesn't have to be a biologist to understand it.. kinda like the Isaac Asimov of today's biology field. For those of you who don't have a very good understanding of evolution (whether you accept it or not.. that is, whether you accept reality :P), try reading his book "The Blind Watchmaker" as well.

[Mujer Libre]

Heh, I'm reading "The Blind Watchmaker" at the moment. Well, trying to find time to read it...

[Quantum Flea]

Yes, because it is a scientific theory regarding the existence of life.

Careful there - don't believe everything you read. Just because something is scientific doesn't guarantee its truth.

[Severian]

You know a better method of searching for truth? One with a better track record of success?

[Clarksist]

Careful there - don't believe everything you read. Just because something is scientific doesn't guarantee its truth.


It is HIGHLY probable that the scientific theory has a better base then say....................................... blind faith.

[Ultra-Violence]

the theory of gravity.

Im gonna correct you on this one commrade but its the law of gravity the Theory of evolution is a theory because it still has many gaps that science has yet to discover.

[Che NJ]

I can't believe this topic is still up for debate. Almost 100% of legitimate scientists agree that evolution isn't even worth debating anymore and should just be accepted as fact. I for one, thought we had gotten past this. I grew up thinking evolution is fact so I can see why it's easy for me to be so pro-evolution, but there are not many gaps left. Gaps in the fossil record exist because not everything gets fossilized. Just because we don't have a record of every species' ancestors doesn't mean it didn't have any. I know some I.D. people claim that things like the eye could not have developed without intelligent intervention based on mathematical grounds, but the fact is we don't have the numbers to plug into these equations they come up with. As was mentioned above, if you don't accept evolution, you don't accept biology.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Kids, evolutionary theory has more evidence supporting it than I have of me existing.
In other words, a lot.

[encephalon]

You know a better method of searching for truth? One with a better track record of success?

Beligerent subjectivity?

[Hefer]

I accept the theory; but then again it's just a theory. Some people just don't pay attetion to the truth because the don't wish to accept the fact we are nothing more special than any other animal (except the fact of our massive brain). Thou I do sometimes wish heaven is real......!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LET IT BE TRUE!!!! :P

[encephalon]

Im gonna correct you on this one commrade but its the law of gravity the Theory of evolution is a theory because it still has many gaps that science has yet to discover.

Scientific law is a generalized description of the empirical behavior of matter, while scientific theory attempts to explain it with empirical evidence. Isaac Newton knew what gravity did, but he could not explain why gravity did it.

There's a host of holes for which we have no answer concerning gravity as well. There's the fact that despite trying for over half a century, we've yet to unify quantum physics with classical physics, even though both of them seem to take place. We simply know (or think we do, rather) that, based on repeated observation, both sets of these laws seem to remain evident. We have gravitational theory in working towards explanations of not only gravity itself, but why it behaves differently on different levels.

That said, scientific laws are not at all infallible, or at the very least not always complete. Einstein's work changed the law of gravity, and before that everyone accepted newton's gravitational law as complete. Widespread acceptance of a scientific law does not mean that it is wholly correct, and should always be questioned and tested whenever possible.

But again, so much empirical evidence has been collected that validate the theory of evolution that, in general, it can be accepted without questioning the process in its entirely (although it is far from complete), much like gravitational theory. The main process that drives evolutionary theory--natural selection--can and should be accepted as a scientific law. It is as evident (that is, it happens in an observable fashion) as gravity itself when you drop a pencil.

[Clarksist]

Im gonna correct you on this one commrade but its the law of gravity the Theory of evolution is a theory because it still has many gaps that science has yet to discover.


Well, scientific "laws" are not really "around" anymore. The scientific community has pretty much rejected the idea as nothing can be infinitely proven.

Something like gravity is obvious. But without being able to test something infinitely you can't say its absolute.

The theory of gravity is just that, a theory. We know it happens, but we don't know it always happens in the conditions we have theorized it does.

It is maddening, but nonetheless true.

[anomaly]

Laws have been rejected? What laws? Newton's laws, at least, seem to be doing fine. The law of gravity doesn't 'always happen' in the 'conditions' we've 'theorized'? Huh? Didn't Newton prove that any mass exerts a gravitational force, and this force is dependent upon the size of the mass as well as the distance between it and the object upon which it is exerting the force? It has proven true for every mass in our solar system! Not giving it the title of 'law' seems a bit nitpicky ("you can't prve, that in the far reaches of the universe, gravity works like it does here).

[Black Dagger]

You know a better method of searching for truth? One with a better track record of success?

Quantum Flea is a scientist, you missed his quite obvious point, spectacularly. He never remarked on whether there was or was not a 'better' method than science, he simply said that "[J]ust because something is scientific doesn't guarantee its truth". As a response to, "Yes, because it is a scientific theory regarding the existence of life"- which seemed to imply that its status as a scientific theory guranteed its validity.

[Che NJ]

Newton's laws, at least, seem to be doing fine.
Newton's laws have been revised and practically replaced by einstein's theory of general relativity. But many of the same principals remain. Gravity has just been better explained by einstein.
But i still think evolution should be a law. I can't imagine any scientific discoveries replacing it.

[Jesus Christ!]

I completely agree with it. I can't believe anything else because the evolutionary pattern and theory seem to old the most hard facts while other ideas are based mostly on faith. I would also like to see it explained that if we didn't evolve from apes why are we almost genetically identical?

[DownWithCapitalists]

What option is there but the theory of Evolution? You show me a diferent, even remotely possible theory, and I will go into further discussion of Creation. But until then, I have no other belief.

[Severian]

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm)


Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
....
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation.
....
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Excerpts. Emphasis added.

[Bannockburn]

You know the term theory is outdated. Most scientist considered Evolution a fact.

And yes, I certainly believe in evolution.

[KC]

Laws have been rejected? What laws? Newton's laws, at least, seem to be doing fine. The law of gravity doesn't 'always happen' in the 'conditions' we've 'theorized'? Huh? Didn't Newton prove that any mass exerts a gravitational force, and this force is dependent upon the size of the mass as well as the distance between it and the object upon which it is exerting the force? It has proven true for every mass in our solar system! Not giving it the title of 'law' seems a bit nitpicky ("you can't prve, that in the far reaches of the universe, gravity works like it does here).

Newtonian physics doesn't work with extremely small objects and quantum physics doesn't work for extremely large objects. This is the only problem with the two; there is a race to unify the two theories. Grand unification theory. Interesting stuff.

[Quantum Flea]

You know a better method of searching for truth? One with a better track record of success?




It is HIGHLY probable that the scientific theory has a better base then say....................................... blind faith.

As Black Dagger pointed out, you have both missed my point.

Some Creationist arguments can be SCIENTIFIC. They also happen to be FALSE.

For example, their hypothesis:

"If the world has a creator according to the bible, then we should see evidence that things on earth are approximately six thousand years old."

That is a SCIENTIFIC statement because it has the possibility of being TESTED.

In this case, the evidence just happens to show, without doubt, that the earth is much older than six thousand years old. And this error margin is not explainable - it is five orders of magnitude wrong.




Im gonna correct you on this one commrade but its the law of gravity the Theory of evolution is a theory because it still has many gaps that science has yet to discover.

Which gaps are those again?




Thou I do sometimes wish heaven is real

Why on earth would you want to believe a thing like that? So you can be rewarded for living up to someone elses standards? Keep your nose clean and everything will be fine.




Well, scientific "laws" are not really "around" anymore. The scientific community has pretty much rejected the idea as nothing can be infinitely proven.

Well lots of things can't be proven. But that doesn't mean that they are on par with really good ideas like physical laws.

You can't prove to me that there is not a china teapot in close orbit around the sun. But I don't really care.

Science is the most rational exercise that we as humans can engage in that does not exist solely in our heads or on paper (as mathematics and deductive logic do). And as a result it is fundamental to progressive thought and class struggle as a whole. Nitpicking about proof is counter productive for us and the revolution.

[Commie-Pinko]

Well, I think that the scientific term theory does apply well when discussing evolution, or any other conception in science. A theory does not mean that something is bogus, wrong, or a wild guess. A theory is simply another term for an explanation of a phenomenon supported by empirical evidence/data and then logically organized to make sense.

Evolution is both theory and fact. We know it occurs due to the overwhelming plethora of evidences strew about, and we know it's a theory as well because it's a viable explanation.

The scientific method, in general, moves from observation of phenomena to an explanatory hypothesis, to testing, and then later on, to the developmen of theories, more hypotheses, and then they go on to more testing and theory development.

Even though evolution is not 100% perfect, that doesn't really matter. It's the best viable explanation for the descent of man and other species and how they interact with the environment over time.

Pepole can claim that Creationism is real or that Intelligent Design is good science, but that's not true. They aren't even theories, as no one has ever put them into any scientific review journal, nor has anyone ever brought the "theories" before any Peer Review panel. They would be laughed out of academia.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:04 PM

Laws have been rejected? What laws? Newton's laws, at least, seem to be doing fine. The law of gravity doesn't 'always happen' in the 'conditions' we've 'theorized'? Huh? Didn't Newton prove that any mass exerts a gravitational force, and this force is dependent upon the size of the mass as well as the distance between it and the object upon which it is exerting the force? It has proven true for every mass in our solar system! Not giving it the title of 'law' seems a bit nitpicky ("you can't prve, that in the far reaches of the universe, gravity works like it does here).

Newtonian physics doesn't work with extremely small objects and quantum physics doesn't work for extremely large objects. This is the only problem with the two; there is a race to unify the two theories. Grand unification theory. Interesting stuff.
String theory??

[Ultra-Violence]

My bad on the whole theory-law mix up..... its all my science books fault!

Dam public schools mis-informing me!
:lol:

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 10 2005, 06:00 AM
I'm just curious about people who don't accept evolution (using the word "believe" makes it seem like a huge leap of faith- which is the domain of religion, not science); what do they actually think happened? Where did we come from?

Evolution obviously isn't a complete theory in the sense that we don't know exactly what evolutionary pathways happened, but I don't see how anyone can deny that natural selection acts on species. It always pisses me ff when people ignorantly refute evolution. But then ignorant people in general piss me off.
Just because creationism isn't true doesn't mean evolution is. Would you trust 18th century medicine? Or 18th century physics? Or 18th century electrical engineering? I wouldn't trust those, or 18th century socio-political theory for that matter(just kidding :P ).

Evolution and Creation aren't the only possible explanations of humans. Maybe we were created by aliens. Or maybe in the future they invent a time machine, go back, and begin life. But then we have a cycle where we don't know the beginning was.

[Commie-Pinko]

You are right. Evolution and God creation aren't the only possible explanations, but Evolution is the only plausible explanation.

And Yes. I would trust 18th century physics to an extent, since many of our modern laws come from it.

[Quantum Flea]

Evolution and Creation aren't the only possible explanations of humans. Maybe we were created by aliens. Or maybe in the future they invent a time machine, go back, and begin life. But then we have a cycle where we don't know the beginning was.

Maybe this, maybe that, but no one cares. Why? Because ideas about aliens and time travel have zero evidence, and they are highly impractical. Those ideas do nothing for anybody. Evolution, on the other hand, has real applications to biology and genetics, ranging from bioinformatics, interferomics, conservation, genetic engineering, and on and on.

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." - Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)

[guerillablack]

Going to the moon was impractical too.

[LSD]

Going to the moon was impractical too.

:lol:

That's what's called the fallacy of equivocation.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Quantum [email protected] 15 2005, 10:24 AM

Evolution and Creation aren't the only possible explanations of humans. Maybe we were created by aliens. Or maybe in the future they invent a time machine, go back, and begin life. But then we have a cycle where we don't know the beginning was.

Maybe this, maybe that, but no one cares. Why? Because ideas about aliens and time travel have zero evidence, and they are highly impractical. Those ideas do nothing for anybody. Evolution, on the other hand, has real applications to biology and genetics, ranging from bioinformatics, interferomics, conservation, genetic engineering, and on and on.

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." - Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)
To quote Dawkins, "We should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out." :D

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Quantum [email protected] 15 2005, 10:24 AM

Evolution and Creation aren't the only possible explanations of humans. Maybe we were created by aliens. Or maybe in the future they invent a time machine, go back, and begin life. But then we have a cycle where we don't know the beginning was.

Maybe this, maybe that, but no one cares. Why? Because ideas about aliens and time travel have zero evidence, and they are highly impractical. Those ideas do nothing for anybody. Evolution, on the other hand, has real applications to biology and genetics, ranging from bioinformatics, interferomics, conservation, genetic engineering, and on and on.

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." - Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)
I just believe these things:

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science and should not be taught as science. Even in fucking Kansas.

That Evolution should be taught as the generally accepted theory but should still be analyzed critcally. The proof for it and against it, as long as it is completely scientific, should be taught.

Also, what caused the big bang.

[Leif]

Living in fucking Kansas, it's embarrassing to have so many drones of the system, living happily as a wage slave and yearning to be fucked by the system a little bit more, with cheeks open a little wider every day.

It's not even (most) science teachers who want to teach creationism, it's the bourgeoisie conservatives who want to taint the already pseudo-authoritarian public schools with their religous teachings.

[Ultra-Violence]

Living in fucking Kansas, it's embarrassing to have so many drones of the system, living happily as a wage slave and yearning to be fucked by the system a little bit more, with cheeks open a little wider every day.

It's not even (most) science teachers who want to teach creationism, it's the bourgeoisie conservatives who want to taint the already pseudo-authoritarian public schools with their religous teachings.


truly sad commrade i was watching a program on this and actualy wanna teach creationism in SCIENCE CLASS!Hope fully commrade some day they'll lift the scales from thier eyes.

:hammer:

[Enragé]

i simply dont care...why should we?

What practical use do we have for knowing for a fact that evolution does exist? The only things i can think of are undesirable to say the least (wiping out the weak to create a better human race for example)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What practical use do we have for knowing for a fact that evolution does exist? The only things i can think of are undesirable to say the least (wiping out the weak to create a better human race for example)

1: Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).

2: Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based.

From HERE (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html)

[Enragé]

interesting...didnt know that

err whats the difference between an evolutionist and a darwinian (it said that somewhere in one of the linked articles)

yea i dont really know that much about it

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:06 AM
i simply dont care...why should we?

What practical use do we have for knowing for a fact that evolution does exist? The only things i can think of are undesirable to say the least (wiping out the weak to create a better human race for example)
Knowing about evolution is also REALLY useful if you're into any form of biology, as it explains how different systems came into being and why they work the way they do. It's also useful when you're trying to debunk creationism, and their erroneous beliefs about evolution.

Random evolutionary fact: Theres a muscle in the forearm (I've forgotten the name..) that has become redundant and is no longer present in approximately 10% of individuals. Evolution in action. It's the same sort of thing with wisdom teeth. Having a mutation/allele that means you don't have them is no longer a survival disadvantage, so you pass on those genes. And then we have more wisdom-toothless people!

Sorry, I get a bit carried away sometimes... :P

[guerillablack]

Should edit that to random evolutionary useless fact.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:05 AM
Should edit that to random evolutionary useless fact.
Yeah, and you saying that was a great contribution to discussion. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:05 AM
Should edit that to random evolutionary useless fact.
Yes, and I think your sig makes you a candidate for restriction.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by NoXion+Aug 20 2005, 11:26 PM--> (NoXion @ Aug 20 2005, 11:26 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 10:05 AM
Should edit that to random evolutionary useless fact.
Yes, and I think your sig makes you a candidate for restriction. [/b]
i think not

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I hardly think covering up women and killing 'infidels' is marxist do you?

[Ultra-Violence]

Commrades i was wacthing larry king live yesterday and those dam christian facist wanna teach "Inteligent Desing" in science class in public schools! its the same crap as creationism only a different name.


your thoughts commrades?

:hammer:

[Axel1917]

I would say that evolution is correct, but not in the gradualist approach Darwin had; dialectics plays its role, and I believe that there is now an aspect of evolution, Punctuated Equilibriea (sp?) that has a dialectical aspect to it. I have not had time to research this aspect. I have heard that Stephen Jay Gould did some incredible work on evolution (I have his massive work, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, but I have not even had time to start on it due to the massive burdens of college and work).

Oh, and Ultra-Violence, the Religious Right have always tried to use semantic tricks my changing names to things like "creationary science" and such. We must not be fooled by their absurd nonsense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would say that evolution is correct, but not in the gradualist approach Darwin had; dialectics plays its role, and I believe that there is now an aspect of evolution, Punctuated Equilibriea (sp?) that has a dialectical aspect to it. I have not had time to research this aspect. I have heard that Stephen Jay Gould did some incredible work on evolution (I have his massive work, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, but I have not even had time to start on it due to the massive burdens of college and work).

Conventional scientific methods explain phenomena adequately, you need not muddy the waters with dialectical mysticism.

[Mujer Libre]

^^ What NoXion said.
It's all about cumulative mutation (which creationists can't seem to grasp- they seem to think we came from a molecule in the primordial soup to a human in one leap) and environmental pressures, which I think is what you were getting at?

(By "you" I don't mean NoXion, I mean Axel. )

[Gnosis]

so my qeustion to you commrades is this Do You believe in the thoery of evolution and if so why?

Beliefs are limitations.

"Evolution" is the transformation of energy, matter and conciousness from one stage of existence to another.
This could theoretically go on "forever" as there are, theoretically, infinite possible combinations of matter and energy which the universe could possibly observe itself becoming and unbecoming.

This universe could be but a transformation process because human conciousness does in one lifetime witness a transformative process taking place within itself and its "outside" reality.
This transformation process seems to involve everything in existence, the entire universe.
The human life and death process is but one expression of a universal transformation or, if you prefer, evolution.

The lable "evolution" is what Darwin used to express his ideas about the universal transformation process.

I've recently been thinking the word "digestion" might be more appropriate, but anything else would fit just as well.

Digestion:reproduction equalibirum.

Natural selection is random and depends on the will to survive of the species doing the selecting, and also environmental advantages and disadvantages that species is faced with.
Natural selection is not only mating, but also the cycle of the ice ages and the possible meteors which might wipe out a whole batch of matter and consciouness.
Natural selection also works through human war and the mass consumtion of certain foods which have been genetically altered through breeding and other methods.
There probably are other ways in which natural selection finds itself influencing the transformation process, especially if the entire universe is that transformation process and "natural selection" is a more detailed description of one part of that process.

Natural- of or relating to nature
Selection- Biology. A natural or artificial process that favors or induces survival and perpetuation of one kind of organism over others that die or fail to produce offspring.