The Theory Of Evolution Explained

[Rlyeh]

Despite the fact that i don`t really like to go into this i`ll do just do it anyway

you may notice the following in your link:

Though strict prescriptive grammarians regard the singular they as a grammatical error,

and

Did you notice the rest?

"Though strict prescriptive grammarians regard the singular they as a grammatical error, it has been in widespread use for several centuries. Singular they appears in the writings of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Woolf, and many other major English authors."

I'm not sure the point of your pointless criticism.

Either way i posted this earlier and i shall post it again: If one judges that which he does not know, he only limits himself.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice? It seems someone made a thread that really has nothing to do with evolution. Edited June 15, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Kowalski]

I don't understand why everyone is getting so bent out of shape about my views and opinions. People are allowed to think differently, and have different opinions.....

If you don't like my views, then that's just too bad. I could care less, and I don't feel the need to defend them.

[The Lone Ranger]

Thanks for clarifying that. All good points and a lot of truth in there.

However, I don't think evolutionary theory can be used as the motivation behind these inequalities. One of the consequences of evolution is that the weaker members of a society will be disadvantaged and less likely to pass on their genes. But if what you say were true there would be no welfare, free healthcare or access to education (It's easy to criticise how these are delivered, but the principles are there). The inequalities we see in our modern societies are about greed. If you believe that this is inspired by evolution then you don't really understand evolution. It's the same mistake the CEO of Enron made. He read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and took this to mean that greed and exploitation of those he perceived as weaker was a virtuous pursuit. You can't do much if people don't have the will or capacity to understand properly.

You need to read up a bit about evolution. You'll find your mistaken in a lot of your beliefs.

First, Darwin published his theory in 1859. People had been annihilating natives long before this. What excuse did they use before that? He wrote a book called "The Origin of Species". Different human races are still the same species. And to criticise how he speaks of different races in "The Descent of Man" is a poor tactic. He used archaic language that would be offensive today (ie using the term 'savages' to describe non-European people). This was appropriate to the time and was commonplace amongst people of all scientific or religious persuasions. It's a favourite tactic of creationists to quote him out of context. It's probably worth noting that Darwin was a fierce critic of the practice of slavery, whilst many Christian used their Bibles to justify it.

The reality is that feeble minds can (and did) use evolutionary theory to justify racism and genocide.

The reality is that feeble minds can (and did) use the Bible to justify racism and genocide.

And this:

Can you find me examples of people espousing these theories and using evolution as their foundation (note present tense).

You are right in the kingdom of non human animals the evolved keep on passing on there genes while the less evolved are less likely. However it is also in that kingdom animals just live, ive never read (correct me if i`m wrong) that a more evolved lets say butterfly is out to kill less evolved butterfly and in humanity is seems to be that (at least definitely in history) that the more (technology) advanced race/society is out to kill less (technology) evolved race/society.

It would be as if a group of lions would evolve with horns on that head and travel across the world to kill lions who don`t have horns on their head. It just doesn`t make any sense.

You do have have a point with the fact that this practise was widespread before the theory of evolutions, however in modern history we see it is being used for the more killing (than i asume in the entire early modern human race) and not only that it even gained a lot of support from its citizens i mean lets take some examples: Nazi Germany, Aboriginals, Hindustan/ Indian, Sovjet Union, some of the most killings ever happend here and its still going on.

Native people (south america, africa, asia) all have to make way (leave their homes) so more plantages, mining etc. can happen. And things like education, healthcare only seem to be available to the lesser classes in the western world.

I just wonder all the billions that is being pumped in charity and govermental international help, where does it go? In earlies times it was more like this: the advanced society will "conquer" another land and came across " less evolved" people, but they would try to convert them, teach them etc. nowedays lands are being dominated for wealth and the native will just die and its getting support from the common people because they just don`t care about the people as long as they can stay at the top.

I mean look at all the child labor in asia, people don`t really care in the west cause these asian don`t know better and this way they can work and do something. When a person get shot (in europe that is) its gets so much media buzz but when 100`s- 1000`s die in the rest of the world it gets barely anyhing (unless it pushes the agenda) their just savages and thats how they life. Sure when a labor shop in asia breaks and people die it gets some attention, but after 2 weeks thats dissapears as well.

We`re just doing what we do best, enjoying the conforts of our wealth and not caring what cost is has. I mean look at some of these materials

Diamonds, gold (it widely know what price it has, blood diamonds, yet we still want a big rock and the music industry especially rap still promotes it).

Coltan (aka blood coltan) they put this in our electronics.

[media=]

[/media]

Rice and other foods all coming from countries where more people starve than most countries in europe have in citizens.

And perhaps evolutions theory doesn`t promote this (like you said

The reality is that feeble minds can (and did) use evolutionary theory to justify racism and genocide.) But it is surely used to gain support from the people.

Did you notice the rest?

"Though strict prescriptive grammarians regard the singular they as a grammatical error, it has been in widespread use for several centuries. Singular they appears in the writings of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Woolf, and many other major English authors."

I'm not sure the point of your pointless criticism.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice? It seems someone made a thread that really has nothing to do with evolution.

You may also noticed i said i live in a different country and therefore we don`t read that stuff.

If you read the discussion all the posts have to do with evolution (except the one where we are wining about correct language on a mysteries forum)

Edited June 15, 2013 by The Lone Ranger

[Frank Merton]

"The accountant and the lawyer is coming" tells me, with the singular verb, that the accountant and the lawyer are the same person. The same thing with a "they" and a singular verb.

I have no doubt English literature is full of other uses, but I also think it behooves us to generally but not rigidly follow the rules. Not doing so can interfere with understanding and can cause at least some people to judge us as not worth listening to, and after all that's the only reasonable reason for posting.

[Frank Merton]

I think it is fairly obvious that evolution shows us that nature is uncaring and that it achieves progress only through suffering and death.

There is sometimes a tendency among biologists to downplay this and point out that evolution sometimes leads to cooperation and maybe even altruism. This is to me a surrender to the creationist who criticizes the theory because it is harsh. Well, it is harsh. The cheetah does not get lunch without the death of the gazelle.

[Arbenol]

I don't understand why everyone is getting so bent out of shape about my views and opinions. People are allowed to think differently, and have different opinions.....

If you don't like my views, then that's just too bad. I could care less, and I don't feel the need to defend them.

Disagreeing with you is not getting "bent out of shape". Feel free to not defend your opinion. That's your right. But there's no need to get annoyed when someone counters it.

That's kinda what these boards are all about.

[Rlyeh]

If you read the discussion all the posts have to do with evolution (except the one where we are wining about correct language on a mysteries forum)

Which is a sure sign you don't know what evolution is. I'll give you a hint, your video in the OP isn't evolution. So like I said, take heed of your own damn advice.

[SHaYap]

hiya sweeties ... come a little closer ...

~

[Rlyeh]

I don't understand why everyone is getting so bent out of shape about my views and opinions. People are allowed to think differently, and have different opinions.....

If you don't like my views, then that's just too bad. I could care less, and I don't feel the need to defend them.

I don't understand why people complain when corrected, but then I don't give a ****. Edited June 15, 2013 by Rlyeh

[The Lone Ranger]

"The accountant and the lawyer is coming" tells me, with the singular verb, that the accountant and the lawyer are the same person. The same thing with a "they" and a singular verb.

I have no doubt English literature is full of other uses, but I also think it behooves us to generally but not rigidly follow the rules. Not doing so can interfere with understanding and can cause at least some people to judge us as not worth listening to, and after all that's the only reasonable reason for posting.

I guess you are right.

The main focus here is the message, i don`t think we should be negative toward faulty grammar but rather give advice and be kind. especially when i only ask a question for the reason of that usage of language

Which is a sure sign you don't know what evolution is. I'll give you a hint, your video in the OP isn't evolution. So like I said, take heed of your own damn advice.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.^[

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

I understand what it means. perhaps you can enlighten me with what you think it is, as you seem to be confident to know what it is and i`m wrong.

Preview

http://youtu.be/xGCxbhGaVfE

Full documentary

http://youtu.be/t0DTVpPiADE

[Rlyeh]

I understand what it means. perhaps you can enlighten me with what you think it is, as you seem to be confident to know what it is and i`m wrong.

Quoting the Wiki doesn't mean you understand it. I've explained why you're wrong, your video in OP is not evolution.

Have you got that? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall.

That idiot Stein doesn't know what evolution is either (apparently it is meant to explain the origin of gravity), so I'm not sure why you're posting his video.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Rlyeh

[The Lone Ranger]

Quoting the Wiki doesn't mean you understand it. I've explained why you're wrong, your video in OP is not evolution.

Have you got that? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall.

That idiot Stein doesn't know what evolution is either (apparently it is meant to explain the origin of gravity), so I'm not sure why you're posting his video.

I don`t see how saying im wrong explains why im wrong.

Please teach us what evolution is according to you.

[Rlyeh]

I don`t see how saying im wrong explains why im wrong.

Please teach us what evolution is according to you.

By us you mean you and Kowalski? You seem to be the only two posting ignorant videos.

Biological evolution is genetic change in population of organisms.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

[The Lone Ranger]

By us you mean you and Kowalski? You seem to be the only two posting ignorant videos.

Biological evolution is genetic change in population of organisms.

http://evolution.ber...le/0_0_0/evo_02

Thank you, however it seems that is exactly the text i quoted from wikipedia. It seems like my understanding was correct. Thank you for posting the link

[Arbenol]

I don`t see how saying im wrong explains why im wrong.

Please teach us what evolution is according to you.

Hi LR,

There are no end of resources available to learn about evolution. But seeing as you brought up Ben Stein, this is a good site that exposes his disingenuous tactics and outright dishonesty:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

And it's probably more relevant to some of the things you were saying.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Arbenol68

[Kowalski]

Disagreeing with you is not getting "bent out of shape". Feel free to not defend your opinion. That's your right. But there's no need to get annoyed when someone counters it.

That's kinda what these boards are all about.

You are completely free to disagree with me. No problems here with that.....

I just don't want to be called simple or feeble minded, because I have a different viewpoint is all. I like everyone having a different viewpoint, or opinion on matters. It makes life interesting! And helps me learn new things I couldn't have learned anywhere else...

Edited June 16, 2013 by Kowalski

[danielost]

You guys will fight over anything. As for the title, evolution cannot explain mammals. According to info posted by an evolutionist, the earliest mammals were producing milk. Not water to keep their eggs wet. Whih their eggs wouldn't need if they evoved from reptiles. As I have said, in order fo evolution to be true, in one generation the reptile young which ould take care of itself, to one that needed mom to feed it milk and be generally unable to take care of itself.

One other thing I am having problems with. Humans are supposed to have a large brain because our ancesters ate meat. If this is true why don'tsome of the carnivores have a large brain. They have a brain the size needed to be what they are.

[Frank Merton]

Humans evolved large brains because they ate meat. Now that's a new one to me. Which pre-humans ate meat? It sounds to me like something some creationist invented so they could refute it.

[Arbenol]

You are completely free to disagree with me. No problems here with that.....

I just don't want to be called simple or feeble minded, because I have a different viewpoint is all. I like everyone having a different viewpoint, or opinion on matters. It makes life interesting! And helps me learn new things I couldn't have learned anywhere else...

As far as I can see, I'm the only poster who has used the words "feeble minded". I hope you didn't think I was referring to you. Take a another look at my post. I was talking about people who would misuse religion or science to justify dangerous ideologies.

Hope that clears it up.

[Odin11]

You guys will fight over anything. As for the title, evolution cannot explain mammals. According to info posted by an evolutionist, the earliest mammals were producing milk. Not water to keep their eggs wet. Whih their eggs wouldn't need if they evoved from reptiles. As I have said, in order fo evolution to be true, in one generation the reptile young which ould take care of itself, to one that needed mom to feed it milk and be generally unable to take care of itself.

The change from reptiles to mammals happened over millions of years, not in one generation. Evolution does not say that a reptile gave birth to a mammal, nor do any evolutionist. Modern species don't evolve into other modern species, and I think this is where you keep getting stuck. You keep thinking of modern reptiles and mammals, not their ancestors.

In the evolutionary view there is a series of intermediate animals connecting reptiles to mammals, every one of them would have been placed in exactly the same species as its immediate neighbors on either side in the long sliding continuum. Every one of the series was the child of its neighbor on one side and the parent of its neighbor on the other.

If we lined up the generations from reptiles to mammals and walk back in time along the line we’ll eventually notice that the ancient mammals we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern mammals we are used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we would not notice the trend from generation to generation, just as we can’t see the motion of the hour hand of watches, and just as we can’t see a child growing, we can only see later that they have become a teenager, and later still an adult.

One other thing I am having problems with. Humans are supposed to have a large brain because our ancesters ate meat. If this is true why don'tsome of the carnivores have a large brain. They have a brain the size needed to be what they are.

Eating meat only helped us by adding another source of nutrients. Meat is not the only reason for larger brains; some recent studies suggest that sociality has played a key role in the evolution of larger brain size among dogs. Detailed analysis of the evolutionary history of carnivores documents at least six separate changes in brain sizes for the group, suggesting that the story of brain size increase is far more complex than previously assumed.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Odin11

[Emma_Acid]

Good Post, and glad you watched those documentaries.

I think it's pretty straightforward. Creationists believe we all descended from the same common ancestors, while evolutionists think people evolve (only the races deemed "fit" to do so) and only the "fittest" survive even at the horrendous cost of annihilating native peoples....I think for the most part, people don't realize by supporting Darwin and his theories, they are supporting these type of theories outlined above and in these documentaries that I posted above. I didn't know anything about any of this, until I watched these, and did some research...If you read Darwin's Descent of Man, it is so anti-Irish, and so racist, it really boggles your mind....

You really don't understand evolution. At all.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Emma Acid

1.According to you is there any sense of direction of evolution?

2.Darwin said that there are design laws with details left to chance.

Do you think that evolution is random because mutation is random... Can we detect deepest structure and enrineering in evolution?

3. What is your opinion on Stephen Jay Gould?

4. Do you think that if we rewind tape of evelutionary history entirly new creatures will emrged. Man wouldnt exist because of multidute of random changes that resulted in us will never been repeated in exactly the same way?

5. Do you think magnetic force have anything with mutations?

[danielost]

More advanced races want to wipe out less advanced races. So if the less advanced race wants to survive, it has to become the more advanced race. Other wise you end up with indian reservations.

[danielost]

You really don't understand evolution. At all.

Why is it if someone disagrees with the theory of evolution, it is because they don't understand it. I can tell you I understand it and disagree with parts of it.

Humans, are the same today as they were one hundred thousand years ago. According to evolution, we should have changed some how in that time.

[Frank Merton]

You prove that you don't understand evolution with the ignorant things you say.

How do you know humans are the same as 100,000 years ago, and even if they are have you ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?