[Pusscrook]

(11-04-2011 04:48 PM)5K2D Wrote:  

Continuing . . .

It's not a scientific fact that humans evolved from apes - humans are apes. Second, the correct terminology is that humans and other apes share common ancestors and split into different species in the recent past (geologically speaking).

Bottom line - do you have any idea how crazy it is that we know what we know?

We could have a long conversation about that, time permitting. "Time" ,being still a mystery.

[Chad Daring]

I am a huge advocate of science, I believe that it is the one and only truth, but I keep Clarke's Laws in mind when it comes to all things far out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

[Giovonny]

5K2D,

Thanks for the detailed post. You are the perfect man for this debate. You guys really have me thinking about this stuff. My views have already changed a little because of our dialogue. To be honest, I love science, without the scientific method we would still be explaining the world through superstitions and fairy tales. But, I do like to point out the mysteries of science. There is so much that we don't know, so much that science can't explain.

When I was growing up we had a planet named Pluto. Then one day a few years ago I read that Pluto is not actually a planet.
Well fuck, my 6th grade science project was wrong and all the science books in my high school were wrong. I wondered what else science got wrong.

It is amazing that we know what we know. We need the scientific method. I wish more people were into it. I wanted to point out the limitations of science so that people don't worship science like a religion. Science is often wrong. But, at least it corrects itself, unlike most religions that hold on to the same dogma for thousands of years.

Right now, I just wanna know if we evolved from apes or not?

(11-04-2011 04:42 PM)5K2D Wrote:  

Missing links - we have plenty of "missing links". The problem is, every time we discover a "missing link" between fossil A and fossil B, there are two new spots to find a link - in between fossil A and the "missing link" and between the "missing link" and fossil B. Evolution is sound - to disprove it, we'd need to find fossilized rabbits from the Precambrian era, as the common example states. Each new fossil we've discovered just strengthens the theory (and "theory" doesn't mean there's scientific dispute, a scientific theory is an explanation of experimental findings that makes further predictions which can be tested. Thus, theories can be strengthened or discredited, and "proved" just means strengthened to a certain high confidence level).

It sounds like we probably did.

[Gmac]

Science didn't really so much "get it wrong" with pluto as they corrected their own classification of it. Most of these corrections or changes never make the news. This sort of thing actually happens all the time in the scientific community, just not usually with such well-known topics like our solar system's planets.

Quote:

"From its discovery in 1930 until 2006, Pluto was counted as the Solar System's ninth planet. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, however, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered in the outer solar system, notably the scattered disc object Eris, which is 27% more massive than Pluto. On August 24, 2006 the IAU defined the term "planet" for the first time. This definition excluded Pluto, which the IAU reclassified as a member of the new category of dwarf planets along with Eris and Ceres. After the reclassification, Pluto was added to the list of minor planets and given the number 134340."

Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Quote:

Right now, I just wanna know if we evolved from apes or not?

Look at it like this. There were plenty of off-shoots of pre-ape/human/monkey species, millions of years ago. Most of the other ape-like species died off. We share a common ancestor, that's why scientists say we are distant cousins/relatives of apes. We didn't evolve from them, rather we both evolved along separate paths which diverged at one point (humans developed intelligence and other unique traits we see today, apes similar unique traits of their own). Two species were created that were probably very similar, one continued to evolve into apes, the other, humans. Go far enough back, and every mammal shares a common ancestor. Go further back, and every living being shares a common ancestor. We're talking a LONG period of time here, even the smallest of changes take millions upon millions of years.

[Pusscrook]

Gio, before you change your mind, know that the process of evolving does not mean we are not related/interrelated, nor does it mean that the evolutionary theory cannot shed much light on human nature. Conversely, moral theories are yet to be debunked, or explained, and are validated by moral judgments.

The proponents of creationism have deep roots in written and oral records, combined with numerous archeological remains from sumer, akkad, and the fertile crescent in general .This combination, is by far, the most accurate account we have as far as the beginning of man as you know it today. Does that negate scientific evidence for billions of years of existence ? No, . The jury is still out in terms of dates , times , processes, and certainly the accuracy of dating which they hold steadfast to. Information is changing daily with such a concept as evolution, even its very definition. The job of "science" is to explain the unexplained nature of the universe itself. One should expect many trials and errors, and remain open to information .

[Screwston]

(10-31-2011 07:16 PM)rakishness Wrote:  

I believe that reality is stranger than fiction.

cool video..