New "Missing link" for evolution!

[tyzzni]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

meaning no disrespect they can't exist together because Catholicism says humans came first and science has already proved that wrong. But evolution can't exist if humans and animals were all created at once. :/

 

[VZLANemesis]

Could somebody fucking define Creationism and ID then... :S

 

[Kinguendo]

Wow, as of writing there's 13 posts and it's already religious.

Anyway, good. I really hope it's legitimate because it'd be a huge plus for science.

(See, that was a more subtle dig at religion.)

Religion is subtle to me, they yell in the city centre about how I am going to hell... ME... ME! Dont go pointing your fingers at me and blaming my life style for all the things that are wrong with the world, bloody hate-mongers... and yes they do monger hate... my hatred of them for their bloody shenanigans.

 

[Thanatos34]

Err no. Now you just summed up creationism. ID is the idea that all things evolved, they just did so through an intelligent designer. An IDer believes the earth is billions of years old.

Actually this is a place where we bump into things. ID and Creationism used the be separated in the way you say, but during the whole Kansas thing the lobbyists for ID blurred to completely erased the line. Now real ID is just considered to be just a faction of ID which irritates me to no end.

True that. I was referring to the actual Intelligent Design movement, not the one that the extreme religious right has taken over. Ya know, the one who tries to use science, rather than the Bible to prove scientific points.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Neato! Well, evolution gets a boost that it drastically needed.

lol? drastically needed?

To my understanding, evolutionary theory was filled with holes, this being one of them. If stuff like this keeps being found, evolution might be accepted as law and not theory. That's what I meant.

I think you don't quite understand what is needed to differentiate law and theory. In this case "the theory of evolution" it is NOT that it isn't proven nor that it is that it doesn't exist. Instead it is that it is regarded as a process that takes A LOT OF YEARS and very specific conditions in order to happen and therefore cannot be recreated for a "scientific study" to prove it a fact... Do you understand the difference?
The thing would be a fact if it could be recreated. Which it cannot be. How can you recreate an "evolution experiment", selective mating over a couple of hundred years? who would fund that?

Wrong. Richard Lenski is doing such an experiment with E.Coli.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

*snip*

1: I never said I was a theist, the fact you jump to that conclusion and wrote that pointless and rather idiotic reply based on me pointing out how atheists like to feel superior just proves my point.

and

2: Theory:

?noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

I bolded the key parts so as not to confuse you.

Those last 2 can only apply has long has the theory is itself a guess, but giving that there is sufficient evidence for a theory, those last 2 parts don't apply.

Has for 2, it depends on which one has the most evidence. Even if that fact is well established if a theory comes along and is able to disprove that fact entirely then the fact will be replaced with that theory.

A theory has a very different definition when it comes to science tho, a theory will only become a theory if sufficient evidence is backing that particular hypothesis up. It's all about evidence. If you're saying that something supported by evidence is a guess, then you've got the wrong definition of what a theory in science means.

Has for felling superior? Nope. Just because you chose to go with which has more evidence then say "fuck you" to something that has is supported by no evidence does not mean you are felling superior in any way. Between two theories that try and explain the same things, the one with the most evidence will be accepted and the other one will be ignored. Simple has that.

 

[ShadowStar42]

meaning no disrespect they can't exist together because Catholicism says humans came first and science has already proved that wrong. But evolution can't exist if humans and animals were all created at once. :/

Sorry, no. The bible puts humans down last. In fact taken as a allegory the story of Genesis (well one of them and the more acknowledged one) the bible lays down in very simple terms the process of evolution fairly well. Vegetation -> Fish -> Lower animals -> Mammals -> Man.

 

[PirateKing]

I heard about this earlier today and I was just waiting for someone to start a thread.
This is definitely an interesting find. I guess we may have solved one of our great mysteries.

 

[londelen]

w00t! Go science! yaay!

 

[AutumnGold]

Hmm... seems a bit like a stretch.

exactly
its a load of shit and if you want to argue the whole creation evolution thing send me a message youll get your ass kicked.

 

[Thanatos34]

Could somebody fucking define Creationism and ID then... :S

My pleasure.

Creationism: The belief that an almighty God created the world and everything in it, in six days, less than 10,000 years ago, (the more strict ones say in 4004 BC, and the really loony ones say October 18th at 9 in the morning in 4004 BC), and that macroevolution did not occur at all, (this is the changing of one "kind" into another. Not really sure what they mean here, but I think they mean families as the closest scientific equivalent).

Intelligent Design: This movement believes in pretty much everything that modern-day scientists do, they simply believe that

A) Evolution could not have happened without God's influence, or
B) Evolution did not happen without God's influence.

In other words, that the driving force behind evolution was God. A less extreme way of saying it would be to say that God set up a series of natural laws, and then let those laws take their course. IDers do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis that is understood by the masses, (24-hour days of Creation).

 

[Thanatos34]

Could somebody fucking define Creationism and ID then... :S

Unfortunatley it differs as much as religious interprattion of the EXACT words of god does.

Simple definitions as far as I can make out are :-

Creatonism God made everything himself with a clay knife and a spinning wheel. Alot of work and elbow grease.

Int Design God bodged bits together in a happy coincidence that looked like evolution but was actually god changing things.

In reality both approaches are horribly flawed in that reality is flawed and by definition God is infallible. So God is a shoddy workman if he exists.

I believe the answer to this is that man's Fall caused reality's flaw.

Hey! Poetry!

 

[Bluebacon]

Mmm...flamey

 

[ShadowStar42]

I think he means dinosaurs.

And had I been trying to explain how the world works to a society that hadn't discovered that hygiene and still believe that there were monsters off the edge of the map I may have left out the giant lizards too.

 

[Fingerprint]

Wow, as of writing there's 13 posts and it's already religious.

Anyway, good. I really hope it's legitimate because it'd be a huge plus for science.

(See, that was a more subtle dig at religion.)

Religion is subtle to me, they yell in the city centre about how I am going to hell... ME... ME! Dont go pointing your fingers at me and blaming my life style for all the things that are wrong with the world, bloody hate-mongers... and yes they do monger hate... my hatred of them for their bloody shenanigans.

I can't stand religion - I see it as unnecessary and pointless. Others can take it how they want but I do object people trying to force their views on others - more specifically me.

I've never understood why they yell at me (us) about going to hell. For one I don't believe in it so its already ruled out. And two, by shouting at people are they going to get themselves into their heaven? Probably not. SO WHY DO IT?

 

[Thanatos34]

recently a new fossil was shown to the public, here is a photo
scientists are saying that they are very close to proving evolution

This disturbs me a bit. Scientists can never prove evolution, it's one of the key tenets of science. If something becomes "proven" then it's not science anymore. We should always be questioning, that's what makes a good scientist.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I dont think this proves evolution. If Lucy didn't how would this?

Also, Isnt evolution pretty much universally accepted, even by most Christians? Obiously not the pope or bishops, but common people?