Has Evolution Been Proven to be True ?

[IruleYcauseImSweet]

Originally Posted by Lumie

It takes intelligence to understand the world we live in, therefor it took intelligence to create the world we live in. It's pretty common sense actually.

Your statement makes no sense; let alone any common sense.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, my 666th post was a reply to Lumie!

[Lumie]

Aside from common sense you mean?

It's hillarious how some people think they are intelligent and then think matter can poof itself into existence from nothingness and that DNA can program itself through evolution without any intelligent guidance needed.

[MrSpitz]

but we poofed God into existence so....

and no, DNA is about as far from a computer program as you could possibly imagine

[Lumie]

Ummm...how? You realize that DNA simply stores the "recipes" for various protein combinations which are passed around by a bunch of other protein combinations, which were created in other structures that have nothing to do with DNA, don't you?

What do you think a computer program does genius? It reads off instructions that produce a desired result of effects just like DNA does. You even said it yourself that the proteins know which combinations to take based on the information received in DNA to produce a desired effect. However, there is no such thing as an organic structure that has nothing to do with DNA since DNA is a requirement for the building of ALL organic structures.

[Lumie]

but we poofed God into existence so...

Um, no we didn't? God existed before we did so how is that even possible? How can the creation preceed the creator?

and no, DNA is about as far from a computer program as you could possibly imagine

Is it? Or are they exactly the same? I'm gonna go with exactly the same due to common sense. They are both written with a language that form a set of highly complex instructions that produce a desired result. How DNA is as far from a computer program as you could possibly imagine, unless you're a total idiot talking out his ass about things he knows nothing about.

[Locithon]

Actually Lumie there's plenty of information on the evolution of DNA. It's a moot point anyways because it's more likely RNA emerged first since it is much simpler.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by A hairy, brown O

These questions trouble me, and I want answers to them. I need satisfying answers. As important to me as these are, I could never accept a wholly unsatisfying answer such as "Well god always existed and created it." To some people that may fill the void in their knowledge, but it doesn't work for me.

And that's the nice thing about science Aychamo. All the questions you asked there are answerable by science, eventually. Or at worst, most of them. The answers might raise more questions, as we've seen countless times over and over. That's fine too, at least we're making progress and not just stopping at a small obstacle and saying "fuck it, this shit is too hard. God did it. There. Much easier."

One comparison I would like to make with this whole evolutionary debate is with atomic theory and it's initial discoveries, about a hundred years ago by Niels Bohr and others. Based on his discoveries and others we entered the atomic age, with some fantastic and terrible results. His understanding of atomic structure and all the fancy stuff that comes along with it allowed us to harness chemistry and industrial processes in amazing ways. But at the end of it all, his work boiled down to a theory based on his understanding of the rules that dictate the atomic world. Turns out he was wrong about some things, most importantly that atoms weren't indivisible and as far as we know there's at least another level or three of divisibility to go from there.

Mendeleev gave us the modern periodic table but versions and work on them had been going on for centuries. With that table we could infer new elements that weren't yet discovered, but were in the following decades. As we've understood things more and gotten better instruments, we've tweaked numbers and values that were originally given to us by theory alone in very close approximation to better represent what they truly are.

Do any of you that question the validity of Darwin's original theories and work disagree with atomic theory? I mean, we can't actually see atoms, we're just inferring that they're there and that in some freaky way they're made up of quantum particles called quarks and gluons and that those are made up of other stuff, and that most likely those things are also made up of other stuff. But we've pretty much mastered atoms and it's becoming apparent that we'll get a handle on quantum funkiness as well. This shit exists and is being used by humans to do amazing things and most of it was inferred theoretically before ANY OF IT was harnessed by man.

So do you have a problem with atomic theory? I mean the reality is that it is wrong on numerous levels, but for a lot of purposes it's fantastic to make predictions about important things like our every existence and the make-up of all reality, but at the end of the day it's "just a theory". So is quantum mechanics. Maybe string theory or brane or M or whatever theory will eventually become accepted knowledge, or something else will instead. I don't know. What I do know is that eventually science WILL answer those questions. Will it ever answer all the questions? No, probably not. Maybe we keep finding more rabbit holes and keep going. Maybe we just get to a point where things are just so awesome that we get lazy and just live lives of luxury having harnessed so much of science that we are able to create some sort of utopia.

Darwin's ideas are very similar to atomic theory. His theory turns out was correct about a lot of stuff. Turns out it was wrong on stuff too! But on the balance it was pretty damn good, and he also made a lot of predictions or gave support to previous theories by other scientists. Just think about genes and genetics. They were theorized by Mendel in the early 19th century before Darwin's voyages or book (I think, you might check the dates and find they were concurrent or something, I'm too lazy to actually check) by testing on plants. Combine the two and you get an explanation of what guides the process of evolution. Bang, discover DNA which happens to be a perfect mechanism for genes and evolution. Further understanding of gene theory and the nuances of it allows us to make great and wonderful predictions about the world and to develop many applications that make our lives better. Many scientists have come along since and further refined our understanding of these mechanisms, and many have gone out in to the world and continued to dig up more and more creatures that corroborates what we theorized.

And you guys want to just stop right there and say "no wait, not good enough. We don't know for sure that evolution through natural selection is the mechanism that explains the variety and totality of life on our planet. I mean you can't even prove to us how it all started yet. So no, not buying it. A magic man in the sky that hasn't been seen or heard from in any great fashion for a couple millenia, prior to which he pretty much smited (smote?) a country or people every other week, created all of life and designed a chemical mechanism to foster it all in an effort to trick us. Take your 'theories' and shove em. I'm going home."

Fuck you. Seriously. Just fuck you. Science and technology is the very reason that we are able to do everything we do. Otherwise, we'd be fucking chimps throwing shit at each other and tasting our own piss. We have in the past couple centuries largely perfected the process and results of science such that we can implicitly trust most things that are well supported amongst the scientific community. They might be wrong from time to time, but typically it's not about an entire theory but an aspect of it that's not quite correct or a prediction made that wasn't accurate without further tweaking of the theory. But overall, we haven't been overturning all that many huge, fundamental aspects of science in the past couple hundred years.

So please, if your defense is "science has been wrong before! What about everyone saying the world was flat!" please name me a single well supported and established scientific theory on the same level as evolution that has been completely and utterly wrong in the past two centuries. I'd be very curious to see any examples that you bring up. Genuinely curious. The fact is science is pretty reliable, and science has overwhelmingly told us for nearly two centuries now that evolution is most assuredly the mechanism that explains the "laws of nature" in terms of life.

I guess I just don't understand this inherent distrust of science and the things it tells us that some of you seem to have. Again, every single comfort and aspect of your life that is above living as a cave man is the result of technology and science. Why do you distrust or hate or fear this aspect of our civilization that has given us so much?

[Eomer]

You know what sucks? I started writing that post before Lumie showed up. I spent a good 30, 45 minutes writing that out and actually putting some effort in. And because that jackass showed up, it was a total waste. I hate you Lumie. I hope you die.

[Locithon]

Originally Posted by Lumie

How can the creation preceed the creator?

Lumie I think you just answered your own question as to why invoking a god is a lousy argument.

Oh and thanks for the new sig.

[MrSpitz]

Originally Posted by Lumie

Um, no we didn't? God existed before we did so how is that even possible? How can the creation preceed the creator?



Is it? Or are they exactly the same? I'm gonna go with exactly the same due to common sense. They are both written with a language that form a set of highly complex instructions that produce a desired result. How DNA is as far from a computer program as you could possibly imagine, unless you're a total idiot talking out his ass about things he knows nothing about.

We created God though, God didn't exist until we thought of the idea.

DNA is much more active in what it does and recognizes its need to change itself. It also is not the dictator, but in fact creates entities that in turn control it and change it. That's not at all like a program.

[aychamo_aycono]

Just put Lumie on ignore!

[MrSpitz]

I will fight the good fight.

Just looking at hotels/airfare for Boston now anyway. Such a pain.

[Yutnopash]

The world would be a better place if Lumie's mother had used a tool in the form of a coat hanger to abort his retarded ass once she realized that she went against the laws of nature by choosing to spread her whore legs for the genetic sinkhole known as Lumie's father.

Also, this seemed relevant to yalls interests if it hasnt been brought up already: Volcanoes may have provided sparks and chemistry for first life | Eureka! Science News

[Lumie]

We created God though, God didn't exist until we thought of the idea.

So then you're suggesting we created ourselves? And that we did this through self evolving DNA? And that this self evolving DNA also created itself?

Also, this seemed relevant to yalls interests if it hasnt been brought up already: Volcanoes may have provided sparks and chemistry for first life | Eureka! Science News

Ok now you just need to explain where volcanoes came from and then you're golden. Oh, let me guess.....they made themselves.

You know what sucks? I started writing that post before Lumie showed up. I spent a good 30, 45 minutes writing that out and actually putting some effort in. And because that jackass showed up, it was a total waste. I hate you Lumie. I hope you die.

You've got serious problems bro. As for me dying, I think that's inevitable so why would you hope for something that I couldn't avoid anyways?