Evolution

[LordKathen]

I could really get into a debate here about this. I am admitedly laymen in my vocabulary about evolution, so I may post some links to information I agree with, and maybe some I dont. I hope this is not a copout to some of you more articulate members. I have a fair knowledge of both sides of the argument, just not a very good vocabulary. I dont want to get to the point with you that I have before with my defensivness and sensitivity to this topic. Members that read these threads I think will know who I am refering to.

Anyway,I will start by asking what extent of knowledge everyone truly has about evolution. Not just what you catch here and there, but self read knowledge. There is quite a few opinions expressed about the scientific theory of Darwin here that really have no merit to evolution.

You may enjoy this documentory I found. It is quite informative.
http://www.becominghuman.org/

[arion windrider]

im joking here.. im still an ape and nobody can tell me otherwise [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Okay, without derailing this thread, can someone please point me to a cite where it discusses how carbon dating was disproved. I'd think such a landmark scientific event would get a bit of press coverage.

This is a point I planned to address after reading your response to me, Timber. Carbon dating has not been "disproved", per se, but it is not infallible either. I don't have specific links, only an amalgam of examples used to illustrate this point in past discussions of this nature.

Tests have been conducted to challenge the accuracy of carbon dating. The results of some of these tests were astounding, to say the least. In one, a hat purchased from a department store was "dated" to be over 200 YEARS OLD! There were other examples given...and appropriate rebuttals offered. The bottom line is that carbon dating may be a valid scientific methodology, but it is by no means "foolproof" - it can be "tricked".

Does that invalidate the dating of fossil bones? Not necessarily...but it does introduce an element of uncertainty.

BTW, just because I accept the Bible as the literal Word of God does not mean I believe the Earth is only 6,000 yrs old. That is just one interpretation by one group....and one I consider to be inaccurate. I believe 6,000 years is too low to be an accurate "age" of Earth. Likewise, I believe "billions of years" to be too long. I believe it falls somewhere in the middle (probably much closer to "thousands" rather than "billions" - but this is my personal opinion only).

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Carbon dating has been accurately calibrated back to at least 43,000 years: See this very hard-to-read web page:
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/...arbon0220.html

On this issue, I didn't realize the "calibration" problem existed, so I thank you for encouraging me to learn something today.

But, even with the potential inaccuracies of the Carbon-14 measuring system, its evidenced 90%+ accuracy to date still means that the Mesozoic era occurred millions and millions of years ago (whether the 65-248 Million year number is exact). See: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/mesozoic.html

This means that we certainly have surpassed the 6-7000 years of age Biblical dating would provide us with, and the on-topic substance of my points still stand.

[cormack]

Just look at older 18th century house's for instance. The furniture to the doorways were just small compared to today. Weapons, clothes, means of living seem to point to this aspect. Are we evolving- yes.

Just saying Lord K. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Lord Kathen, here's your site:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html

I don't know if all folks here realize how intergral evolution is to biological teachings. I know that all of my biology included footnotes that "this came from this" etc. For instance, the evolution of the heart and cardio-vascular system as can be noted from various phyla and orders; the evolution of the notochord as can be found by looking at embryonic development (Lancelets = big found "missing" link here); the evolution of digestive systems from the simplest multi-cell models (one entrance one exit - planaria) to the relatively complex tube-within-a-tube design of the human body (whereby, for all intents and purposes, food never really leaves the "external" environment until nutrients are absorbed by duodenum villa); the similar skeletal structures of all mammals (including the whale's ulna and radius and the horses modified metacarpals and metatarsals).

Other examples exist, but the point is the scientific evidence of evolution is right before our very eyes, with or without the fossil record. And it is incredibly accepted by the scientific community.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Melusine: I misremembered. The two fears that you are born with are fear of loud noises and fear of heights. Those are NOT taught to children Hugh. We are BORN with them, and may learn at a later time to overcome them. But they ARE instinctive - babies will initially have them regardless of what they experience or are taught.

Fear of loud noises is something one would learn in the womb. Babies can hear while in-utero. They hear a disturbing noise and then associate it with the shock or tension from the mother.

Or, if a baby cries at sudden load noise, it's the shock, rather than the loudness. I personally know babies who are daughters of musicians who have no problem at all with loud noise.

One girl is nearly six months old, and I've never seen her cry at sudden loud horns in New York, nor loud music in our church. Neither with the other girl.

If loud noise is so loud it hurts, then that could set something off, but I think here you'd be confusing "defense mechanism" with "instinctive behaviour". Crying at the sound of a scarey loud noise is a defense, not a detailed task such as building a nest. Birds are born into the nest. They don't watch their parents build it. Our ability to feel physical pain on the other hand, is not an instinct, it's a defense mechanism.

Regarding heights, it's again something I'd challenge. I know babies that get gently tossed in the air by fathers. While trusting there is no fear. Unaware of danger? No fear. Babies are born without depth perception Mel. Without the realisation of objects being separate from them. As such, they learn these things - hence a baby "experimenting" by dropping things on the floor, or throwing everything they are given.

I also know the seven year old brother of the New York City baby. He crawled off a balcony when he was a baby. So too did another friend of mine who's now a journalist. Both are o.k. thank God, but both suffered injuries. Both just walzed off the edge unaware that they would even fall. No fear of heights or awareness of what height is.

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Lord Kathen, here's your site: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html I don't know if all folks here realize how intergral evolution is to biological teachings. I know that all of my biology included footnotes that "this came from this" etc. For instance, the evolution of the heart and cardio-vascular system as can be noted from various phyla and orders; the evolution of the notochord as can be found by looking at embryonic development (Lancelets = big found "missing" link here); the evolution of digestive systems from the simplest multi-cell models (one entrance one exit - planaria) to the relatively complex tube-within-a-tube design of the human body (whereby, for all intents and purposes, food never really leaves the "external" environment until nutrients are absorbed by duodenum villa); the similar skeletal structures of all mammals (including the whale's ulna and radius and the horses modified metacarpals and metatarsals). Other examples exist, but the point is the scientific evidence of evolution is right before our very eyes, with or without the fossil record. And it is incredibly accepted by the scientific community.

Why is that my site TL. [img]smile.gif[/img] I was asking what you guys truly know.

BTW. That is a great site. Did you look at the one I posted?

[Chamberlain]

Tis true...
In ninth grade I remember my bio teacher saying that he didnt want to insult anyone, but evolution is accepted by the scientific community.
He said to a certain extent, evolution is not theory, but fact.
There is significant evidence to show that it occurs.
But of course many people ignorant of the fact may think that this only happens within a species.
But if it is proven that this does in fact happen...then who's to say that over the course of many many millions of years, that species can't branch out towards other species?
In evolution, there are many many paths that can be taken, depending on the conditions in which a animal/monera/plant/protist/whatever lives in.

[ 02-24-2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Chamberlain ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by cormack: Just look at older 18th century house's for instance. The furniture to the doorways were just small compared to today. Weapons, clothes, means of living seem to point to this aspect. Are we evolving- yes. Just saying Lord K. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And is that evolution or diet/lifestyle?

Compare the photo of a huge American marine alongside the small starved-as-a-kid Somalian of the same "race".

Consider the 'tiny chinese' and then their relative in America who's six ft 3 because of the growth hormones put in chicken for example.