[Vagrant]

	Its a shot in the dark. I came up with the idea because i have heard you can create amino acids or something with base elements and electricity. Or something like that

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[OrangeLeland]

	Originally Posted by carettatoxdoc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My main questions were 1) I wonder if there is any possible alternative to evolution (I think probably not), and 2) if so, what would that do to the field of biology.

1. It's not inconceivable that there could be. People once thought that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that electricity was a form of magnetism--both things that we know to be wrong today. We once thought that time was strictly linear, but there have been experiments (albeit on a very small level) that disprove that too.

2. Here's the great thing about science: I think most good scientists would say, "Holy cow, this changes everything...how can we explain what we know in this new context?" (assuming that the new context was something testable, reproducible, and provable, of course, and not something like "a miracle happens"). There would probably be people who would just call bullshit and grumpily hold on to what they thought before, but theories are disproven a lot. It just means you get to go back to the drawing board.

[think]

Darwin the 'father' of evolutionary theory came up with it prior to genetic discoveries about our DNA, the complexities of cells, and various other systems.

Charles Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Draw your own conclusions about it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Bunker Man]

I don't see that it would even matter. The observable mutations we've seen in bacteria are already a verifiable part of science, and things like that as a possibility would have to be worked in even if overarching macroevolution was declared impossible.

..And since macroevolution is something which obviously doesn't effect the advancement of practical science on day to day levels, it wouldn't be that big of a block.

[SonofAbraham]

3 words. Ancient Astronaut Theory

[ATCGs]

Uh, ok.


where did the ancient astronauts come from?

[BirdsOfAFeather]

Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves first, how do you think humans will evolve in the next 1000 years? Is there a optimal height that we are evolving towards? No wisdom teeth? Bigger brains? ESP?

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by BirdsOfAFeather To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves first, how do you think humans will evolve in the next 1000 years?

You are wholly uneducated to the process of natural selection.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is a place to start.

[Imperator]

Can a contender for evolution be found? Possibly. But it's going to come from the people actually looking for answers, not the people looking to make their own perceptions important. It's going to come from the people locked in labs, on digs, and in classes, putting in the work to advance human understanding.

It's not going to come from illiterate rednecks who barely passed high school.

	Originally Posted by think To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Darwin the 'father' of evolutionary theory came up with it prior to genetic discoveries about our DNA, the complexities of cells, and various other systems.

Which is why it was so brilliant. Those things fall in line with evolutionary theory.
See: evolution of chromosome #2 as an example.

	Charles Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Draw your own conclusions about it. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
does not demonstrate intellect, nor honesty.

I have a feeling this is the first time you've actually seen the sentence that directly follows what you've quoted, nor indeed the rest of the work.

I will indeed draw my own conclusions, having actually read beyond the first sentence of the chapter.

Maybe next week we can review Tale of Two Cities from this quote "Along the Paris streets, the death-carts rumble, hollow and harsh."

Obviously, the book is about killer machines in Paris (based on a true story).

	Originally Posted by SonofAbraham To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	3 words. Ancient Astronaut Theory

Likewise: Bull Fuck Shit.

This one's particularly aggravating because the AAT people tend to delve into my field to make their points.

[Shadizar]

	What if the theory of evolution was not correct?

But I hold it so dear to my heart; it means so much to me and wrapped up in every fiber of my being. I think I would be devastated, traumatized, my life would no longer have meaning. If evolution wasn't true, there would be nothing stopping me from sinning and doing awful things, and being just despicable; I think I'd kill myself.

How do god geeks say this shit and not choke???

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by BirdsOfAFeather To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves first, how do you think humans will evolve in the next 1000 years? Is there a optimal height that we are evolving towards? No wisdom teeth? Bigger brains? ESP?

That's not how it works...no species evolves towards anything.

Second, given the historical rate of evolution, human DNA will not change very much at all over the next 1000 years.

---------- Post added 04-18-2011 at 06:19 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by carettatoxdoc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I recently had a conversation that brought up the question of what would happen to biology if it was later discovered that evolution was not an accurate explanation, in fact, something else entirely explained the development of species.

Any hypothesis would have a far bigger problem...explaining why Darwinian evolution is observed in microorganisms but not in macro-organisms.

If an alternative theory explains the development of animals...why doesn't it also apply to bacteria? Both macro and microorganisms share the same DNA and cellular structure.

[Sailor]

What I don't get, is how 'nature' seems anthropomorphic in the basic tenets of the theory.

Natural selection implies there is a selector. How is a selection being made without a selector? The selector is nature, making natural selections! Ah ah. So it seems implied that there is a conscious 'Nature Deity' making decisions based on fitness. Selection implies decisions, a decider.

Or nature is a binary computer system? Boiled down to its most basic elements, Darwinism is survive (1) and not survive (0). Or the other way around if you prefer, haha.

	Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

---------- Post added 04-20-2011 at 01:28 AM ----------

You want a good laugh? Watch this:

	Carl Sagan explains Natural Selection To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In the video Sagan suggests, "it [the crab] was selected unconsciously by the fisherman". He is telling us that the crab therefore flourished because of unconscious, artificial selection, when otherwise it would have been eaten if it didn't have a 'samurai face'?

And, as opposed to what, the conscious natural selection?

---------- Post added 04-20-2011 at 01:46 AM ----------


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Vagrant]

	What I don't get, is how 'nature' seems anthropomorphic in the basic tenets of the theory.

Anthropomorphizing it is to help illustrate what goes on. It's to simplify the language so that others can understand. Other examples, that while not anthropomorphizing, use similar language:

Electricity flows. It has a current.
Cells originally meant little rooms.
Certain reactions don't want to work or are unfavorable (by whom?).

Science has many of these little simplifiers. Could we use other words? Sure, but that would obfuscate the language of science more than necessary.

	Natural selection implies there is a selector. How is a selection being made without a selector? The selector is nature, making natural selections! Ah ah. So it seems implied that there is a conscious 'Nature Deity' making decisions based on fitness. Selection implies decisions, a decider.

No. Natural selection does not imply a selector. If it did, the only selector would be death. The term "selection" seems a bit unfortunate, but it is apt to describe various things.

	And, as opposed to what, the conscious natural selection?

Conscious artificial selection (aka
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).

[Artsu Tharaz]

Evolution is a very old idea. The mechanisms commonly thought to drive evolutions may
well turn out to be false, but evolution itself is pretty well locked in lol. Unless you believe
in spontaneous generation or something. Or if you're looking at time from a totally different
perspective, in which case it's irrelevant since that's not the scientific viewpoint.

[Vagrant]

	The mechanisms commonly thought to drive evolutions may well turn out to be false, but evolution itself is pretty well locked in lol.

Actually, you have it reversed. The mechanisms are locked in (pretty astounding evidence for them), but the actual theory is not.