Jump to content

Bill Nye Guy

Senior Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bill Nye Guy

  1. :D:D:D:D:D:D

     

    Wikipedia

    -In the history of science, the scientific revolution was the period that roughly began with the discoveries of Kepler, Galileo, and others at the dawn of the 17th century, and ended with the publication of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687 by Isaac Newton.-

     

     

    but yeah i like that selfish gene theory. I am sad to say that i have never heard of the author or his material until now. It does make alot of sense and i will probably recommend it to my friends.

     

    Thanks for presenting the material :rolleyes:

  2. in some cases i have to agree with you Mokele about pre-med and chemists not knowing enough about evolution. I went to a med. preparation session in Lead America where about 300-500 students were present. Out of that i could only find about 10 who were educated enough in evolution. Most doctors ( and there was a survey some where that supported this) are very religious people, which is not at all supprising from what they see in their field. Everyone in that session ( except me and the 10 mentioned) where extremely christian having come from christian prep schools.

     

    But then again there are some doctors and chemists who have known to believe in evolution. Most of my family are doctors but we all believe in evoution.

     

    Scientists who study Astronomy and Physics are also strong believers in evolution. It really just matters how much understanding they have in biology and wheather or not they were born creationists.

  3. Almost anyone who wants to become a biologist and works hard enough at it can become one. That means those people who are born creationists can also become biologists. It's not supprising that a few would move away, yet almost all of the scientists who actually enter the field with a open mind tend to stay evolutionists.

     

    Also i have to agree that evolution has continued to rise. I read a Time magazine that stated that almost all of the states are now teaching evolution ( though they may not want to ). Only a couple of states don't teach evolution now which is a huge change from 10 or so years ago when only 3/4 of the states tought evolution. The teaching of ID in classrooms however will probably NOT make much of a difference because those who actually understand the field will continue to support evolution and will probably have better ideas which they will have gained from argueing the point with creationists.

     

    This is why i think there should be a few people who move away from evolutionary biology. It will help those who do believe in evolution to be able to improve and make better ideas about the field. It will probably make evolution stronger then ever.

     

    Evolution in general has increased ( though conservative creationists would say other wise, but i repeat they LIE!!!! ) many scientists, that are not only biologists, believe in evolution. Also through genetics and other scienes evolution has continued to improve on its ideas. I know a couple of really ultra conservative kids who are SOOOOOOO extreme right, yet believe microevolution is correct and has to happen. They have only changed their view quite recentally ( with some help from yours sincerely :cool: ). Evolution has gotten stronger with the help of new sciene discoveries and will only continue to rise.

  4. hahah crazzzzy creationist people they make me laugh....ahahah....ahahaha.

     

    no but seriously they don't really seem to understand much about Genetics and microbiology, which is really funning because after reading what they said, i can't help laugh at how stupid they really are.

     

    But anyway mutation as they should learn isn't really for good or bad purposes, it just plain happens.

     

    Dak

    Mutations are generally crap. natural selection filters out the bad ones and propogates the good ones. thus, natural selection was not abandoned for mutations. they both operate at the same time.

     

    Yes this is exactly what i want to say. In microevolution ( look it up in Wikepida or many genetics books ) is that evolution in the micro level can happen in many ways.

     

    -Wikipedia-

    Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Biologists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may culminate in the evolution of new species).

     

    Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics. Because microevolution can be observed directly, both pro-evolution and some anti-evolution groups agree that it is a fact of life.

     

    -End-

     

    There that should explain what most of those crazzzzzy creationists were talking about. As for their trying to mutate species with chemicals and such i really don't think they knew at all what they were doing. Genetic mutation occurs differently. There has to be different causes that can cause a change in the genetic code. If they took a proper genetics class they would understand alot more about what they were talking about.

     

    On a last note its funny that they are trying to disprove genetic evolution/microevolution by the use of labs. In genetics, labs are used to PROVE evolution or mutation like changes, not disprove.

    Which Bring the point of at least you can prove evolution in a lab, unlike creation. Creation is very hard and i do not think ANYONE has proved any form of it in lab.

  5. ohh man i was just going to comment on the rest of the replys, but anyway good job on answering them. :rolleyes:

     

    I think for the most part, some parts of those replys really showed lack of knowedge from those people. I am only a junior in high school and have only taken one genetics class so far ( its all my school offers for gen.) but most of what they said seems to show they don't fully understand genetics and some parts of cell bio.

     

    (Quote:

    Also take note that this is somewhat contrading. Evolution tells us that humans and apes did not evolve from one another but evolved from a thirth species. As difrent branches in a tree rather then a strict line, while the added illustration chart of ERV distributions suggest a straigh lineage )

     

    humm from what i seem to understand about human evolution we didnt evolve from present day Apes but more or less their annestors. I was watching the history channel "From Ape to Man" and their description of human evolution is that present day apes and man came from the same "family line" and one of the first annestors for both was more ape and primative.

     

    A link with similar information can be found at http://www.biology-online.org/tutorials/9_evolution_origins.htm though i must say it is not as detailed as the actually documantary.

  6. ahh you are right that does make alot of sense. I should have thought of it that way.

     

    however are "hollow bones and a bony ruffle on its skull" common to Pteranodons? Because from what i read, it sounded like those 2 qualities were unique to the pteranodons and not found in its ancestors.

     

    By the way the link for the site is here, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0508070365aug07,1,474799.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true .

     

    Thanks for the help.

  7. though i didnt write any part of that long proof i would like to say something in respect to the reponse that the 2nd guy gave.

     

    First of all saying "simply designed by the same architect rather then formulating a theory of how one house had mutaded offsprings" when explaining the similarties between Chromosones and DNA isn't a very intelligent response. From what i know ( and correct me if i am wrong) Dna and chromosones show similarties in TRAITS and APPEARANCEs.

     

    DNA is kinda like a history of the family line, not only do you look like you parents and grandparents..etc, but you also hold an pass genetic information. This is were dominant and recessive traits come into place ( like the 6 finger dominant trait, that is passed via DNA more specifically family).

     

    What has this to do with what that guy said? Well think about it, if there are that many similarties not only in DNA and genetic appearance but also lifestyles, ( i heard a debate by a previous harvard proffesor at Lead America talking about how monkey family styles in general are strikly similar to that of humans. In some species like spiders you have the mother killing and eating the father, in monkey family style you had the female eventually learn to keep the father monkey with the family through Jealously...which in many cases is very much similar to human family lifestyles) then it is hard to say that a creator created humans and apes very similarly. The much more logical and quite frankly obvious right answer has to be that of the evolution of apes to man.

     

    The similarties are just to accurate and similar, period. If they were that similar why would a creator creat beings who was so closely similar to other created beings, that they would start questioning that they were created by that creator, and not evole instead, from the the other beings? A god would not want his creations to think that they evolved from something else rather then be created by him when he actually created them. Thats like someone inventing something but not getting credit for it.....Whats the point?

     

    Another interesting fact ( and which i have heard about ) is that in the bible God made humans in IMAGE of himself. They were to be like him in many ways inculding appearance. They were to be unique and far superior to the animals. They were supposed to be above those who were not human. They in a way were supposed to control those who were not human 100% ( aka animals ). If their is that much similarties then it would question the fact of humans being the supperior and highest beings on earth. It flat out wouldn't make sense if their was that much similarties between them and yet God says they are UNIQUE and far above all other beings on earth.

     

    Plus on a humors note to what i said in the last par. if humans were made and had similar apperances to God and apes are similar to human then that would mean that god looks kinda like an ape :D ( just kidding by the way people ).

     

    Basically what i am trying to say is that the STRIKING similarties between apes and man in so many ways can BEST (doesn't mean its the only answer) be described by evolution.

     

    Well i hope you enjoed reading that :cool: and i hope i didn't offend anyone by calling god a monkey. Peace out all.

  8. alright i was reading from the Chicago Tribune how a museum in EUREKA SPRINGS, Ark was putting up creationist explainations on some fossils that were being exhibited. They gave a example of a dinosaur, Pteranodons, saying that it was ""a pointy-headed flying reptile with a 33-foot wingspan, hollow bones and a bony ruffle on its skull. Visitors are told: "Each of these unique design features indicate that Pteranodons were created to fly, not that they slowly evolved into flying creatures."""

     

    I am currently trying to come up with a evolutionist based response to explain the appearance of the dinosaur ( be warned i didn't have a good picture of the beast or the time period when i thought of this ), I thought that the dino might have appeared if there was a rapid change in the environment that could possible in some way have mutated the dna of the larva or oppsring, thus changing its appearance.

     

    I think this idea is not really explicate nor very reasonable and probably did not occur. Can any of you guys help me out with this explanation. Thanks alot.

  9. what i find interesting about ID and the whole issue with Bush is that while many ID believers say that you dont have to believe in god to believe in ID most or even all of them seem to be God believers ( in particular christians)

     

    I also would really hate it if they started teaching any form of creation in classrooms because they would probably ONLY mention the bible's version of creation not other religions. I am Hindu/buddist and even if they taught only ID its still a form of creation.

     

    However if they DID start teaching ID i wouldnt think it would change anything. Most of the intelligent or curious students wont JUST listen to whats taught in class, they will explore and research both sides of the arguement. What i did find interesting was in the most recent TIME mag. ID people were saying how they were not yet ready to start teaching the material in classrooms because they didnt have enough evidence.

     

    I also found interesting how many of the pepole interviewed on the mag. were saying you can NOT prove ID in the lab area, were else in Evolution's case you can find it much more of a presense.

     

    To me all ID is, is really a form of creation against Evolution. It doesn't have much evidence or data to prove anything they say. Their only focus seems to just shoot down evolution, and not to prove any form of evidence.

     

    Evolution in my opion is the best explanation for many occurrences. It has been able to keep up with many new discorveries and still keep a strong presense in the scientific community.

     

     

    I also found an interesting note in Time saying how many ID members did accept SOME FORM or Role of evolution.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.