Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Today at 01:35 PM

German nationalist party ...
Today at 01:15 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 01:08 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
Today at 11:01 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
Yesterday at 09:31 PM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 08, 2025, 01:38 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Evolution and Morality

 (Read 48552 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #120 - June 27, 2010, 11:00 AM

    Oh and this from your OP appears to be bullshit:

    According to wiki:8% is 1 in 12, and they say the spread of the gene could be due to social selection (ie: dynastic marriages).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan


    C'mon man i said i read 1 in 5 but I made a mistake. Only 1 in 12 carry his genes. I guess my point is completely invalid now  Roll Eyes

    We know all that already. You said evolution was "just a theory". It isn't. We were right. Tongue


    once i find an apporopriate .gif response i will post it.

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #121 - June 27, 2010, 11:05 AM

    No, we were right. Evolution is not "just a theory". It is an established fact, and it includes evolutionary theory which describes how the factual part works. Calling that "just a theory" is inaccurate and the sort of thing creationists do.

    You're missing the point about Genghis' genes too. They were not necessarily spread by wholesale rape. There is no evidence they were spread in that manner. Read it again: social selection. In other words, because he was seen as a prestigious ancestor people having his genes would be preferred partners.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #122 - June 27, 2010, 11:08 AM

    You're missing the point about Genghis' genes too. They were not necessarily spread by wholesale rape. There is no evidence they were spread in that manner. Read it again: social selection. In other words, because he was seen as a prestigious ancestor people having his genes would be preferred partners.


    Right but how did he acquire all those male heirs? flowers and candy?

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #123 - June 27, 2010, 11:18 AM

    Quote
    As previously arranged by his father, Temüjin married Börte of the Olkut'hun tribe when he was around 16 in order to cement alliances between their respective tribes. Börte had four sons, Jochi (1185–1226), Chagatai (1187—1241), Ögedei  (1189—1241), and Tolui (1190–1232). Genghis Khan also had many other children with his other wives, but they were excluded from the succession, and records of daughters are nonexistent. Soon after Börte's marriage to Temüjin, she was kidnapped by the Merkits, and reportedly given away as a wife. Temüjin rescued her with the help of his friend and future rival, Jamuka, and his protector, Ong Khan of the Kerait tribe. She gave birth to a son, Jochi, nine months later, clouding the issue of his parentage. Despite speculation over Jochi, Börte would be his only empress, though Temüjin did follow tradition by taking several morganatic wives.[11]


    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #124 - June 27, 2010, 11:20 AM

    yes he had wives. what is your point?

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #125 - June 27, 2010, 11:24 AM

    Are you serious?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #126 - June 27, 2010, 11:26 AM

    cliffs of thread

    - people that are short and have small pen0rs get mad at me

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #127 - June 27, 2010, 11:31 AM

    It's sexual selection.  Most women like taller men, but most men like to shorter women women (shorter than them).  The children are a bi-product of the DNA of both parents so have varying height, the shorter children neither die or find themselves unable to reproduce.



    Yes.  Firstly it's organisms which do the surviving, in doing so they may pass on genes which were crap (like genetic diseases).  Secondly it's easier to understand if you say "Least suitable organisms die".



    Not even.

    The best definition would be: the more suitable organisms have a higher chance of passing their genes.

    That does not imply that the fittest of all necessarily survives, nor that the least fit necessarily dies off.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #128 - June 27, 2010, 11:33 AM

    The best definition would be: the more suitable organisms have a higher chance of passing their genes.


    fuck man thank you. This is the point I have been trying to make all thread

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #129 - June 27, 2010, 11:41 AM

    Well, that is one of the "secrets" behind biological diversity.

    If natural selection forced organisms in only one "direction" at a time using some form of dichotomic fit vs unfit selection, there would be only one species for each type of environment.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #130 - June 27, 2010, 11:56 AM

    Yes, evolution is a fact.


    i think evolution may be a fact in terms that it is clear that species evolve via natural selection. however there are certainly many things that it has thus far failed to explain. i don't think any serious scientist would dispute this. in addition detailed molecular-level descriptions of how complex cellular pathways evolved have not been described in the level of detail required - in addition things like conciousness, morality etc. pose problems for the theory which have yet to be explained in any satisfactory detail. At present we are limited to very vague answers such as 'it happened over billions of years - can't you see how this would make it possible' and things like 'group survival'. Everyone knows the basics of evolutionary biology and the fact that it occured over billions of years etc. - but until we can explain things in detail at the molecular level, in my humble opinion, i don't think the theory should be considered 'complete'. The reason I say this is because, currently the thinking is that Evolution theory can COMPLETELY explain all that humans are - everything we are apparently was due to evolution. Therefore the theory shouldn't be considered complete until it can explain in detail how and why some of our most important traits/abilities evolved at the molecular level - the level at which the theory actually works.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #131 - June 27, 2010, 12:18 PM

    i think evolution may be a fact in terms that it is clear that species evolve via natural selection. however there are certainly many things that it has thus far failed to explain. i don't think any serious scientist would dispute this. in addition detailed molecular-level descriptions of how complex cellular pathways evolved have not been described in the level of detail required - in addition things like conciousness, morality etc. pose problems for the theory which have yet to be explained in any satisfactory detail. At present we are limited to very vague answers such as 'it happened over billions of years - can't you see how this would make it possible' and things like 'group survival'. Everyone knows the basics of evolutionary biology and the fact that it occured over billions of years etc. - but until we can explain things in detail at the molecular level, in my humble opinion, i don't think the theory should be considered 'complete'. The reason I say this is because, currently the thinking is that Evolution theory can COMPLETELY explain all that humans are - everything we are apparently was due to evolution. Therefore the theory shouldn't be considered complete until it can explain in detail how and why some of our most important traits/abilities evolved at the molecular level - the level at which the theory actually works.


    what he said

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #132 - June 27, 2010, 12:28 PM

    i think evolution may be a fact in terms that it is clear that species evolve via natural selection. however there are certainly many things that it has thus far failed to explain. i don't think any serious scientist would dispute this. in addition detailed molecular-level descriptions of how complex cellular pathways evolved have not been described in the level of detail required - in addition things like conciousness, morality etc. pose problems for the theory which have yet to be explained in any satisfactory detail. At present we are limited to very vague answers such as 'it happened over billions of years - can't you see how this would make it possible' and things like 'group survival'. Everyone knows the basics of evolutionary biology and the fact that it occured over billions of years etc. - but until we can explain things in detail at the molecular level, in my humble opinion, i don't think the theory should be considered 'complete'. The reason I say this is because, currently the thinking is that Evolution theory can COMPLETELY explain all that humans are - everything we are apparently was due to evolution. Therefore the theory shouldn't be considered complete until it can explain in detail how and why some of our most important traits/abilities evolved at the molecular level - the level at which the theory actually works.

    Except, evolution cannot explain all those steps.
    Even if we admitted that all those things could be explained in terms of evolution, it's unreasonable to ask for the step-by-step details of how it all happened.

    And that is because of the very nature of evolution itself.

    If you studied evolutionary computation, you would know that you cannot reconstruct any clear step-by-step "backtrace" between two stages of a solution.
    You can only guess.

    So, you are asking for something that is logically equivalent to figuring out a way to replay the history of the whole biosphere of planet Earth.

    The best "way" to "prove" evolution is to successfully employ it to predict results that fall within its realm of application.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #133 - June 27, 2010, 12:31 PM

    It's vaguely like... saying that thermodynamics is not a fact unless it could figure out how the molecules in a gas have moved around.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #134 - June 27, 2010, 12:32 PM

    Except, evolution cannot explain all those steps.
    Even if we admitted that all those things could be explained in terms of evolution, it's unreasonable to ask for the step-by-step details of how it all happened.

    And that is because of the very nature of evolution itself.

    If you studied evolutionary computation, you would know that you cannot reconstruct any clear step-by-step "backtrace" between two stages of a solution.
    You can only guess.

    So, you are asking for something that is logically equivalent to figuring out a way to replay the history of the whole biosphere of planet Earth.

    The best "way" to "prove" evolution is to successfully employ it to predict results that fall within its realm of application.


    so are you saying that ultimately it is a theory and not proven fact?

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #135 - June 27, 2010, 12:34 PM

    DigDug do you want to learn about Evolution?

    Yes/No answer please.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #136 - June 27, 2010, 12:38 PM

    yes

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #137 - June 27, 2010, 12:47 PM

    Well I read two great books

    Why Evolution is true by Coyne

    And

    The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins

    those are good

    then there are loads of great videos on youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

    http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/0/KnJX68ELbAY

    http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2#p/c/019F146277A3EDFD/0/GpNeGuuuvTY

    http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2#p/c/0FB1F085BD950D0F/0/i1fGkFuHIu0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig

    I think we also have an evolution thread somewhere, with links not sure.

    I also found this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tom29twqCU
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #138 - June 27, 2010, 12:49 PM

    There is also these sites:

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

    http://www.talkorigins.org/

    It will take you some time to read all books, sites and watch all videos. But I promise you it will be worth it, it's mind-blowing.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #139 - June 27, 2010, 12:52 PM

    so are you saying that ultimately it is a theory and not proven fact?

    It surely is not a fact.
    Facts are data.
    Models such as evolution, mechanics, thermodynamics, etcetera are mathematical abstractions to explain such data or to predict future data. So they are not facts themselves.

    Maybe you are trying to talk about how successful evolution could be at predicting future events.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #140 - June 27, 2010, 12:57 PM

    Well I read two great books

    Why Evolution is true by Coyne


    thanks man ill check this stuff out. if you dont believe in God (or i should say "creation theory" i guess) its hard not to believe in evolution. I'm not trying to say evolution isnt true im just trying to say we cant exactly say its a FACT and close the book.

    The only reason I said this was because I presented a scientific theory about the behaviours of prehistoric man and I was told this is only a theory and we can never prove what prehistoric man did ect... so I said would it be fair to say evolution was a proven rock solid fact? even that wiki article I presented didn't try and say that.

    It's like you don't believe in god right?

    Can you prove that God doesnt exist? Can you prove he does?

    it would be unfair to say its a fact god does or doesn't exist and call that a fact.

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #141 - June 27, 2010, 01:00 PM

    It surely is not a fact.
    Facts are data.
    Models such as evolution, mechanics, thermodynamics, etcetera are mathematical abstractions to explain such data or to predict future data. So they are not facts themselves.

    Maybe you are trying to talk about how successful evolution could be at predicting future events.


    no i agree 100% with what youre saying. Cheetah and osmanthus said it was a fact and then tried to mock me for disagreeing.

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #142 - June 27, 2010, 01:03 PM

    No bro it's not on the same level at all. There are plenty of people (including muslims) that believe in Evolution. Just don't ask me how they do. Debunker does. Abu Yunus does mostly. He disagrees with if maybe God directed some parts of it on a molecular level. But the evidence for evolution is pretty damned good, as far as I know better than anything else that is out there.

    But it's better if you read up on it. Trust me it will be worth it. Right now I can promise you discussing it won't get you anywhere.

    Read up on it. Read up on creationism even, or the counter-arguments made against creationism (i have those in the post I made for you) .

    I guess you can start with the Jerry Coyne video and then move on to the Thunderfoot video why people laugh at creationists.

    And then you can watch Foundational Falsehoods.

    Oh here is an excellent video as well, you can actually begin with this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHoxZF3ZgTo&feature=channel

  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #143 - June 27, 2010, 01:05 PM

    cliffs of thread

    - people that are short and have small pen0rs get mad at me


    I am short and have a small penis and I resent that.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #144 - June 27, 2010, 01:06 PM

    no i agree 100% with what youre saying. Cheetah and osmanthus said it was a fact and then tried to mock me for disagreeing.

    It depends on your level of skepticism and how anally you like to apply definitions ;P

    Some people like to call theories "facts", some do not.

    As long as you do not go around saying that mechanics or probability or electromagnetism are facts, you are also ok with saying that evolution is not a fact.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #145 - June 27, 2010, 01:07 PM

    I am short and have a small penis and I resent that.



    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #146 - June 27, 2010, 01:09 PM

    In the realm of abstractions (probabilities, mathematics, information science) evolution is easily verifiable.
    I would dare say that it's a bit more than verifiable: it's almost self-evident after you state its premises.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #147 - June 27, 2010, 01:12 PM

    It's been a while since I read up on the issue, but if I remember correctly the word 'theory' used in the context of evolution isn't the normal word that people use.

    In normal usage, a theory means you have some sort of hunch or educated guess about something.

    In science and mathematics, a theory is a set of principles which can be falsifiable but have not yet been proven wrong. The moment it can be proven to be wrong, the theory will be discarded.
    Only in the field of mathematics can a theory be 'proven'. In the real world, we just have to make do with observations and collecting information.

    Facts are usually hard evidence or data used to support a particular theory.

    A good thing about a valid theory is that you can use it to 'predict' future evidence. When such evidence is discovered, you have 'proven' that your theory is sound. There might be a better explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, but for now, evolution ticks all the right boxes and that makes it a fact Smiley

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #148 - June 27, 2010, 01:14 PM



    Nah I still get laid.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #149 - June 27, 2010, 01:19 PM

    It's been a while since I read up on the issue, but if I remember correctly the word 'theory' used in the context of evolution isn't the normal word that people use.

    In normal usage, a theory means you have some sort of hunch or educated guess about something.

    In science and mathematics, a theory is a set of principles which can be falsifiable but have not yet been proven wrong. The moment it can be proven to be wrong, the theory will be discarded.
    Only in the field of mathematics can a theory be 'proven'. In the real world, we just have to make do with observations and collecting information.

    Facts are usually hard evidence or data used to support a particular theory.

    A good thing about a valid theory is that you can use it to 'predict' future evidence. When such evidence is discovered, you have 'proven' that your theory is sound. There might be a better explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, but for now, evolution ticks all the right boxes and that makes it a fact Smiley

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact


    I may be dense regarding this issue but i actually posted that wiki article earlier and understood it to say the same thing tlaloc is saying. and was mocked for this.

    I'm an asshat.
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »