Evolution is a fact?!

[YoursTrue]

I doubt it, but we are possibly going to alter our genes in the future for various reasons, and hence doing for ourselves what nature might not be able to do - and hence evolving. Couldn't predict how this might go though.

You doubt it. Why? Because humans you feel are not capable by virtue of nature to produce and by produce I mean in that parlance, evolve, wings? Thanks, but it's been interesting to see how the discussion goes. Have a nice day.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You doubt it. Why? Because humans you feel are not capable by virtue of nature to produce and by produce I mean in that parlance, evolve, wings? Thanks, but it's been interesting to see how the discussion goes. Have a nice day.

Nature (through evolution) has a way of providing for a need - we have no such need. Nice day to you too.

 

[ratiocinator]

No. The irrationality of determining that all life came about by evolution.

Asserting that a theory is irrational from your position of total ignorance of said theory (as evidenced by your posts here) is irrational.

 

[gnostic]

Didn't question it for years, was a scholarship winner, accepted it...

Scholarship for what? In what field? And did you ever work in that field?

If it wasn’t for biology or related fields, then the scholarship isn’t relevant.

Was in bible studies? Theology?

 

[gnostic]

Because it--the ToE-- has not 'proven' itself to me. Obviously many believe it. Just to say (again), I did accept it in the past.

And how is that in any way relevant.

Half of the time, when you question some of the alleged issues with Evolution, you don’t understand what you are challenging, and the other half of the time, your claims are FALSE because you are relying on creationist propaganda.

So what you believe or don’t believe only matter to you, personally, which have nothing to do with biologists in much larger scientific community.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nature (through evolution) has a way of providing for a need - we have no such need.

MT, yes, we do not have such a need today (although it would have been nice to have retained wings, we would not have had the fuel / transportation / traffic jam problems), but who knows about future. If there will ever be a need for humans to grow wings, evolution will do it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

MT, yes, we do not have such a need today (although it would have been nice to have retained wings, we would not have had the fuel / transportation / traffic jam problems), but who knows about future. If there will ever be a need for humans to grow wings, evolution will do it.

Quite so, and I can see that two opposable thumbs might be useful - doing many things one-handed - although I can't see that on the horizon.

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite so, and I can see that two opposable thumbs might be useful - doing many things one-handed - although I can't see that on the horizon.

C'mon...as been told by some, 'I' don't get to decide what is or isn't (true, in actuality) according to the theory. But like you, I decide for myself (not others) what makes sense (to me). So if something doesn't make sense (to me), I wait for more proof or evidence confirming beyond doubt what is or isn't. And now at this point in my life, I vote against the generally accepted idea of the Theory of Evolution. This again is not to say that I think God made mutant viruses or another example--children born with damaged brains as in the Zika virus problem.

 

[YoursTrue]

Asserting that a theory is irrational from your position of total ignorance of said theory (as evidenced by your posts here) is irrational.

Lol it's almost funny as to how you handle it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nature (through evolution) has a way of providing for a need - we have no such need. Nice day to you too.

No? No such "need"? ,,(smile)

 

[Mock Turtle]

C'mon...as been told by some, 'I' don't get to decide what is or isn't (true, in actuality) according to the theory. But like you, I decide for myself (not others) what makes sense (to me). So if something doesn't make sense (to me), I wait for more proof or evidence confirming beyond doubt what is or isn't. And now at this point in my life, I vote against the generally accepted idea of the Theory of Evolution. This again is not to say that I think God made mutant viruses or another example--children born with damaged brains as in the Zika virus problem.

Well perhaps I am more scientifically literate than yourself - being an ex-engineer, having to study in the general area of science, and also taking an interest in such as a hobby - so it does take rather more persuasion for me to dispute or disbelieve what those with a lot more intelligence, qualifications, and knowledge tell me (via their fields of knowledge), but then I don't have some religious text barking away in my ear.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well perhaps I am more scientifically literate than yourself - being an ex-engineer, having to study in the general area of science, and also taking an interest in such as a hobby - so it does take rather more persuasion for me to dispute or disbelieve what those with a lot more intelligence, qualifications, and knowledge tell me (via their fields of knowledge), but then I don't have some religious text barking away in my ear.

OK, I appreciate your background. I worked for a science/engineering publication years ago. Without going into too much detail, I enjoyed it, even though I was not a science major. And, I was thinking of some scientists who were despised by other scientists, yet continued their research, even when looked down upon by their peers and who sequestered themselves because of their great curiosity. However -- <g> -- and I say this with the great respect -- this does not mean that God Himself did not give the means and ability to harness certain powerful forces, or elements. Or that God did not make these elements.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well perhaps I am more scientifically literate than yourself - being an ex-engineer, having to study in the general area of science, and also taking an interest in such as a hobby - so it does take rather more persuasion for me to dispute or disbelieve what those with a lot more intelligence, qualifications, and knowledge tell me (via their fields of knowledge), but then I don't have some religious text barking away in my ear.

Furthermore, or as they say in NYC circles, "foithuhmore.." I personally wouldn't/couldn't dispute certain things that are above my level of knowledge. But this does not mean I (or anyone) have to believe without question what they are putting forth as theory, teaching it as truth, and that I have to believe they are not conjecturing the premise. (In other words, they really don't know but they imagine...it is that type of thing I question.) For instance, let's go back to the difference between chimpanzees and humans. Just a little difference of dna. But does this prove evolution? (you can probably guess what I think, but I'll tell you anyway -- no, the similarity of dna does not prove evolution. It proves that the two lifeforms have many genetic similarities.)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Furthermore, or as they say in NYC circles, "foithuhmore.." I personally wouldn't/couldn't dispute certain things that are above my level of knowledge. But this does not mean I (or anyone) have to believe without question what they are putting forth as theory, teaching it as truth, and that I have to believe they are not conjecturing the premise. (In other words, they really don't know but they imagine...it is that type of thing I question.) For instance, let's go back to the difference between chimpanzees and humans. Just a little difference of dna. But does this prove evolution? (you can probably guess what I think, but I'll tell you anyway -- no, the similarity of dna does not prove evolution. It proves that the two lifeforms have many genetic similarities.)

Well my gist was basically as to being honest as to hopefully knowing where I lie in the scheme of things, as to abilities and knowledge, hence having respect for those with greater abilities and/or knowledge and what they produce, in the way of further knowledge. Much of life is a game of probabilities in my view, given that we often don't have conclusive evidence for deciding things and often have to rely on others as to expertise. Science for me has never been seen as something with which to beat religions, and if any religion does come into conflict with science then it will have to come up with good evidence or explanations, otherwise such just comes across as bad-natured bickering because said science conflicts with what was written long ago - but perhaps not meant literally.

The similarities between humans and other primates (and not just Chimpanzees), apart from the DNA and which manifests so much also in our shared biology, can also be seen in other areas, such as behaviour and how we respond to events and experiences. And this spreads to other species too, in that we have similarities with those depending upon how close our DNA is to theirs. I think the theory of evolution doesn't depend upon one strand but many such so as to support the overall theory, but which no doubt could be amended in the future when more knowledge becomes available. The fact that very few scientists would disagree with the conclusion that overall the theory is the best explanation we have for describing the evolution of different species is good enough for me. I don't have the ability to say otherwise.

 

[Mock Turtle]

OK, I appreciate your background. I worked for a science/engineering publication years ago. Without going into too much detail, I enjoyed it, even though I was not a science major. And, I was thinking of some scientists who were despised by other scientists, yet continued their research, even when looked down upon by their peers and who sequestered themselves because of their great curiosity. However -- <g> -- and I say this with the great respect -- this does not mean that God Himself did not give the means and ability to harness certain powerful forces, or elements. Or that God did not make these elements.

Well I don't know if it is true but perhaps those more inclined towards such areas are also less inclined towards religions, especially if they feel no need for such - which is my tendency.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well I don't know if it is true but perhaps those more inclined towards such areas are also less inclined towards religions, especially if they feel no need for such - which is my tendency.

OK, and I can understand that, because engineering is quite the technical road. So I can appreciate that. On the other hand, I had rejected belief in God for quite a while until I did feel a need to know if there is a God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well my gist was basically as to being honest as to hopefully knowing where I lie in the scheme of things, as to abilities and knowledge, hence having respect for those with greater abilities and/or knowledge and what they produce, in the way of further knowledge. Much of life is a game of probabilities in my view, given that we often don't have conclusive evidence for deciding things and often have to rely on others as to expertise. Science for me has never been seen as something with which to beat religions, and if any religion does come into conflict with science then it will have to come up with good evidence or explanations, otherwise such just comes across as bad-natured bickering because said science conflicts with what was written long ago - but perhaps not meant literally.

The similarities between humans and other primates (and not just Chimpanzees), apart from the DNA and which manifests so much also in our shared biology, can also be seen in other areas, such as behaviour and how we respond to events and experiences.

This does not mean that there is (was) no Creator.

And this spreads to other species too, in that we have similarities with those depending upon how close our DNA is to theirs. I think the theory of evolution doesn't depend upon one strand but many such so as to support the overall theory, but which no doubt could be amended in the future when more knowledge becomes available. The fact that very few scientists would disagree with the conclusion that overall the theory is the best explanation we have for describing the evolution of different species is good enough for me. I don't have the ability to say otherwise.

OK, I understand and respect that. It is, however, not good enough for me personally as I go through life, as I think about life and death. And again, I'm going to say that apparently, there is a vast difference between humans and other lifeforms regarding the idea of why we die. I'm somewhat kidding here -- but so far I haven't heard from or seen written by dogs, cats, chimpanzees, concepts of why they die.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This does not mean that there is (was) no Creator.



OK, I understand and respect that. It is, however, not good enough for me personally as I go through life, as I think about life and death. And again, I'm going to say that apparently, there is a vast difference between humans and other lifeforms regarding the idea of why we die. I'm somewhat kidding here -- but so far I haven't heard from or seen written by dogs, cats, chimpanzees, concepts of why they die.

Well you wouldn't have seen much from our ancestors either, more than perhaps 10,000 years ago, and where they were much more on the same footing as many other animals then. Isn't progress a wonderful thing.

 

[Mock Turtle]

OK, and I can understand that, because engineering is quite the technical road. So I can appreciate that. On the other hand, I had rejected belief in God for quite a while until I did feel a need to know if there is a God.

I suppose that is where I might differ from many - not being that bothered that I can't necessarily have all the answers, and also seeing too many issues with following a religious path, especially when I just don't have any trust in religious writings - as to having any origin in something divine.

 

[gnostic]

You doubt it. Why? Because humans you feel are not capable by virtue of nature to produce and by produce I mean in that parlance, evolve, wings? Thanks, but it's been interesting to see how the discussion goes.

Like Mock Turtle said...

Nature (through evolution) has a way of providing for a need - we have no such need.

...he is right, YoursTrue.

Natural Selection is what provide all animals what are needed, and humans don’t need grow wings to fly.

And there are lot more to bird’s anatomy and physiology that enabled flight for some birds (and not for some others) that humans don’t have.

For instances. A bird’s shoulders and limbs (wings) are anatomically built and biomechanically move differently to human’s shoulders and limbs (arms). Humans don’t have lightweight skeletons and don’t have cavities connected to the respiratory system. Humans also don’t grow feathers.

The only mammals that can fly are bats, and we are nowhere that closely related to bats.

And even with wings, not all birds can fly, for instances, emu, ostrich, penguin.

The 3 examples above, have more powerful legs through Natural Selection. With the emus and ostriches can fast to avoid natural predators, while penguins cannot run on land or on ice, but are superb swimmers.

But there are no needs for humans to have wings, because they are naturally inclined to fly.

Although winged humans or winged angels may be interesting fantasies, but in reality, they are merely pipe dream or worse, delusions.