Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Biology Human Evolution

views
     
asuk
post Jun 22 2009, 12:22 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
189 posts

Joined: Apr 2005
From: Silent Hill Prefecture


judging from the replies here, i think evolution should be taught in schools to clear misconceptions and baseless accusations against the evolutionary theory.

but then again, it would meet so much resistance from certain parties that would make its implementation near impossible. and here they're still haggling over the use of english in science and maths.

is the theory of evolution being taught in any form in our schools or universities at present? during my time, it was hardly mentioned except when learning about classification of organisms during pre-u.

do you think evolution should be incorporated into our syllabus? Please give your thoughts in a civil manner. Thank you
corad
post Jun 22 2009, 12:51 PM

Hard to see, the dark side is.
*******
Senior Member
2,403 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Sarawak / United Kingdom

from the replies of this thread, it would seem monkeys evolved from humans instead tongue.gif

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was from observing different species around the world. He also collected bones, feathers etc on his round the world trip on the HMS Beagle before bringing them back to London. From there, he came to the conclusion that identical living organisms can actually change their features to adpat to a new environment.

He however, never said anything about how a single species came to be. Did fishies evolve from bacteria? or did the hibiscus come from a mango tree?

If humans really did evolve from monkeys, why can't we share body parts (transplants). Tasteless thought, but something to ponder about.
frags
post Jun 22 2009, 01:03 PM

The Wizard
Group Icon
VIP
1,640 posts

Joined: Oct 2006


QUOTE(corad @ Jun 22 2009, 12:51 PM)
from the replies of this thread, it would seem monkeys evolved from humans instead  tongue.gif

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was from observing different species around the world. He also collected bones, feathers etc on his round the world trip on the HMS Beagle before bringing them back to London. From there, he came to the conclusion that identical living organisms can actually change their features to adpat to a new environment.

He however, never said anything about how a single species came to be.  Did fishies evolve from bacteria? or did the hibiscus come from a mango tree?

If humans really did evolve from monkeys, why can't we share body parts (transplants). Tasteless thought, but something to ponder about.
*
Well his theory basically describes how life all share a common ancestry. His theory puts forward the idea of natural selection of a species over a very long time period that over time may lead to a new organism.

He never conceded man's origins.
styrwr91
post Jun 22 2009, 01:08 PM

~ON THE WAY~
****
Senior Member
696 posts

Joined: Aug 2008
QUOTE(lin00b @ Jun 22 2009, 01:36 AM)
excuse me, but science (based on logic, numbers, deduction, experimentation, observation and most importantly required some soft of PROOF) most definitely do not play nice with religion (based on faith - meaning without proof)
*
People have their reasons to believe in their religion. You have your reasons to believe in science.
And to criticize religious people, you have to know how to point their mistakes out.

You can screaming "religion is a fake/lie", and you will still get "God is almighty" kind of replies.

Why don't you point out in what way does religion fake itself?

and if you do not have religious knowledge, please keep youself away from criticizing religious replies. It just makes you look like a child in their eyes and vice versa for religious people as well.

icon_rolleyes.gif


Added on June 22, 2009, 1:10 pm
QUOTE(asuk @ Jun 22 2009, 12:22 PM)
judging from the replies here, i think evolution should be taught in schools to clear misconceptions and baseless accusations against the evolutionary theory.

but then again, it would meet so much resistance from certain parties that would make its implementation near impossible. and here they're still haggling over the use of english in science and maths.

is the theory of evolution being taught in any form in our schools or universities at present? during my time, it was hardly mentioned except when learning about classification of organisms during pre-u. 

do you think evolution should be incorporated into our syllabus? Please give your thoughts in a civil manner. Thank you
*
im sorry but i don't think it will be appropriate, since the theory itself is not complete due to the 'missing link', majority of the population just can't accept it. Btw, Malaysia is a Islamic country, you get what i mean

This post has been edited by styrwr91: Jun 22 2009, 01:10 PM
SUSch0c0l@tie
post Jun 22 2009, 01:12 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
121 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
Organisms are what they are because of their genetic code.. How can something grow a tail after 1 million years just because they need to swim??

If you're talking about mutation then its different. The gap in evolution theory is too big
chezzball
post Jun 22 2009, 01:13 PM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


tl;dr

Religion kills science

The theory of human shares the same ancestor as ape could be true as there are some facts but not 100% truth. (darwin theory)

The idea of Adam & Hawa were the first man created by gods has no fact but we cannot say it is 100% untrue.

So let's just have an open mind and discuss properly. keep this thread clean of war ok.

Anyway, religion shouldnt really be here.... coz religion kills science... this is a science lab and ppl discussing here most likely have more logical & rational sense than unproven theories.


Added on June 22, 2009, 1:19 pm
QUOTE(asuk @ Jun 22 2009, 12:22 PM)
judging from the replies here, i think evolution should be taught in schools to clear misconceptions and baseless accusations against the evolutionary theory.

but then again, it would meet so much resistance from certain parties that would make its implementation near impossible. and here they're still haggling over the use of english in science and maths.

is the theory of evolution being taught in any form in our schools or universities at present? during my time, it was hardly mentioned except when learning about classification of organisms during pre-u. 

do you think evolution should be incorporated into our syllabus? Please give your thoughts in a civil manner. Thank you
*
don't think so lah... u have said it in ur first few sentence... it's impossible esp with facts that opposes the belief of <insert religion here>

Anyway i dont remember much learning evolution from school... Since young My dad bought encyclopedia and MS encarta... I spent almost 7-8 hours on it everyday after back from primary school then secondary school .. but getting lesser coz of computer games.. So to the parents out there, get some extra-reading materials for kid.. no nit rely on current study syllabus... all for exam purposes saja..



This post has been edited by chezzball: Jun 22 2009, 01:19 PM
Thinkingfox
post Jun 22 2009, 01:19 PM

Le Renard Brun Rapide
****
Senior Member
617 posts

Joined: Jun 2008
I think everybody should be given the opportunity to discuss their ideas or beliefs as long as they also discuss the authenticity of the text that they are referring to. Isn't this the nature of science? It should involve any idea or discussion, including religion. However, since a great deal of criticism of the theory of evolution comes from religions, I suggest that the discussion be made at RWI instead of Science Lab.
chezzball
post Jun 22 2009, 01:24 PM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


QUOTE(Thinkingfox @ Jun 22 2009, 01:19 PM)
I think everybody should be given the opportunity to discuss their ideas or beliefs as long as they also discuss the authenticity of the text that they are referring to. Isn't this the nature of science? It should involve any idea or discussion, including religion. However, since a great deal of criticism of the theory of evolution comes from religions, I suggest that the discussion be made at RWI instead of Science Lab.
*
hmm sorry but i have to disagree with your suggestion.(in my understanding u are saying this thread be moved to RWI, if its not wat u meant.. my apologies)

TS created this evolution thread is to talk about genetic changes of human or organism on earth which has nothing to do with religion. Religion can only be related to the early or beginning stage of evolution/creation of human (which is not a proven fact). The evolution we discuss is more on how genes and DNA evolve from generation to generation which has nothing to do with religion.. so this thread should stay wink.gif

edit : typo

This post has been edited by chezzball: Jun 22 2009, 01:25 PM
styrwr91
post Jun 22 2009, 01:32 PM

~ON THE WAY~
****
Senior Member
696 posts

Joined: Aug 2008
QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 22 2009, 01:24 PM)
hmm sorry but i have to disagree with your suggestion.(in my understanding u are saying this thread be moved to RWI, if its not wat u meant.. my apologies)

TS created this evolution thread is to talk about genetic changes of human or organism on earth which has nothing to do with religion. Religion can only be related to the early or beginning stage of evolution/creation of human (which is not a proven fact). The evolution we discuss is more on how genes and DNA evolve from generation to generation which has nothing to do with religion.. so this thread should stay wink.gif

edit : typo
*
And it will stay, so long as no more insults or flame/trolls.

Perhaps TS should include some regulations/rules in the first post??
kimtaei
post Jun 22 2009, 02:29 PM

New Member
*
Newbie
2 posts

Joined: Apr 2008


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 21 2009, 03:13 PM)
You're just another misinformed religious fanatic who don't even read up on things before you decide to cast it away due to believe on some ridiculous supreme being.

What pure arrogance you have i thinking human is most perfect. Far from it. Cockroaches are far more adept a species, they have been around for 100million of years and humans have only been around for less then 300000 years.

Fact my ass. Don't bring your religious rhetoric in this with the capital H in him.
*
why arguing for the past le...all this historical facts most r fake...all depends the ppl who found it...who has lived tat long to prove them... no la...if i'm an archeologist n when i found a bone n i can said it belong to 1 specie of dinosaur that hvent discover b4...it already 500mil yrs ago n ppl will believe lol. it just an one man illusion... like the big ben theory...scientist said how it happen but never mention who made it happen. our ancestors dont hv knowledge as of us but the knew someone who made all this happen...they call him the God. just asked if human is evo by a single cel then who created the single cel???

pls be ponder abit... where v come from is not important, most important is where v r going... smile.gif
TSSeaGates
post Jun 22 2009, 02:49 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


QUOTE(ch0c0l@tie @ Jun 22 2009, 01:12 PM)
Organisms are what they are because of their genetic code.. How can something grow a tail after 1 million years just because they need to swim??

If you're talking about mutation then its different. The gap in evolution theory is too big
*
Genetic mutation plays a big role in evolution. Theory of natural selection is that if these mutation serves as a factor of survival, it's more likely these 'mutants' survive longer than others pass the gene down and replace the previous variants. Mutation do not happen only because of pollution/radiation/man made factors. It does happen naturally(rare but it does happen), and mutation is not always something significant like growing a tail over a single gestation period.

The reason for a huge gap in evolution has been explained in previous posts. To condense everything into one sentence. It's hard to spot difference in short period when gradual evolution through millions of years. Just imagine you have a 300 liter water tank, and every day you take one DROP of water out of it, you won't notice any obvious change in the water level even if you observe it everyday but you realized how much difference there is when you extracted half the tank of water out(when you compare it to the FULL tank)

QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 22 2009, 01:24 PM)
hmm sorry but i have to disagree with your suggestion.(in my understanding u are saying this thread be moved to RWI, if its not wat u meant.. my apologies)

TS created this evolution thread is to talk about genetic changes of human or organism on earth which has nothing to do with religion. Religion can only be related to the early or beginning stage of evolution/creation of human (which is not a proven fact). The evolution we discuss is more on how genes and DNA evolve from generation to generation which has nothing to do with religion.. so this thread should stay wink.gif

edit : typo
*
QUOTE(styrwr91 @ Jun 22 2009, 01:32 PM)
And it will stay, so long as no more insults or flame/trolls.

Perhaps TS should include some regulations/rules in the first post??
*
Why do I have to cater the need of 'religious' comments here? I created this thread not in RWI, but in SCIENCE lab.
selenium
post Jun 22 2009, 04:50 PM

RipVanWinkle
******
Senior Member
1,032 posts

Joined: Nov 2005
From: kuala lumpur


dude. u got to seperate science and also pseudoscience.
science is something that is proven in peer reviewed journals where as pseudoscience is just something some whack scientist came up to milk money out off (eg. magnetic therapy)

neways in human evolution. nothing can be said. all of us humans will evolve and the evolution is very small and minute. like Caucasians have higher enzymes that can metabolize alcohol, or the shorter limbs and bigger torso mass of the eskimo's to retain body heat.

to the lowered osteoporosis rates in the malay community which has a stronger javanese genes rather than an equal combination of java and oriental genes.

but what concerns me is that. weak genes that should not have survived is being passed on because of human selection and the feeling of Pity which leads to accumulation of faulty genes like the fragile X syndrome or down syndrome and hemophilia.

in nature these genes will die out giving way for better, healthier and stronger offsprings.
but because of human intervention these genes persist.

for example the hemophilia gene in the british royal family.
lin00b
post Jun 22 2009, 05:33 PM

nobody
*******
Senior Member
3,592 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(ch0c0l@tie @ Jun 22 2009, 11:47 AM)
I think evolution theory is crap. If it really is true, why dont we see monkeys turning into human anytime?

According to Darwin, humans evolve from apes then there must be some apes turning into human after so long right? The theory wont just stop after human exists
*
long? if history of life is a 2 hour long movie, humans will only appear in the 1st 2-3 frames. you cant even see it as it is just a fraction of a second.
lin00b
post Jun 22 2009, 05:48 PM

nobody
*******
Senior Member
3,592 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(styrwr91 @ Jun 22 2009, 01:08 PM)
People have their reasons to believe in their religion. You have your reasons to believe in science.
And to criticize religious people, you have to know how to point their mistakes out.

You can screaming "religion is a fake/lie", and you will still get "God is almighty" kind of replies.

Why don't you point out in what way does religion fake itself?

and if you do not have religious knowledge, please keep youself away from criticizing religious replies. It just makes you look like a child in their eyes and vice versa for religious people as well.

icon_rolleyes.gif


Added on June 22, 2009, 1:10 pm
im sorry but i don't think it will be appropriate, since the theory itself is not complete due to the 'missing link', majority of the population just can't accept it. Btw, Malaysia is a Islamic country, you get what i mean
*
never did i say religion is fake/lie. nor did i criticize religion in anyway. i just said you CANNOT compare/mix science and religion. science is science (logic, observation and all that); religion is religion (faith, higher power, etc). they are not compatible. its like comparing RAM with Graphics Card... sweat.gif or mixing water and oil thumbup.gif


Added on June 22, 2009, 5:51 pm
QUOTE(ch0c0l@tie @ Jun 22 2009, 01:12 PM)
Organisms are what they are because of their genetic code.. How can something grow a tail after 1 million years just because they need to swim??

If you're talking about mutation then its different. The gap in evolution theory is too big
*
how can viruses and bacteria and insects get immune from medicine/bug spray after 50 years? and many of those medicine/poison is artificial and not naturally occurring.


Added on June 22, 2009, 5:59 pm
QUOTE(salimbest83 @ Jun 22 2009, 03:51 PM)
i see..
now i get the point..
since im not really good in giving explanation, thing getting worse here..
im long time not into all these thing..so really forgot how to prove what i take from the verse.
i know there should be some explanation of how things work according to science.
like the solat.. all of the movement in solat have some benefit in our health and confirmed by some researcher.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


but im still believe in what i was told since the day i start understand my Way of Life..
and till the end of my breath..
no one can change that..
*
one of the main difference religion from science is that while in religion nearly everything the wise/authority says is the truth. (ie, if your imam/priest/bishop/etc says A, then it is A without doubt) whereas in science nearly everything the wise/authority says is questioned, examined, argued, dissected, debated to the death. so by saying professor so-and-so says something that support some religion doesnt mean that science support religion.

heck, even newton and einstein's theories and laws still get questioned and examined till this day.....


Added on June 22, 2009, 6:01 pmand science does not preclude religion. just like having RAM doesnt mean you dont need graphic card. science does not denounce god.

This post has been edited by lin00b: Jun 22 2009, 06:01 PM
transhumanist92
post Jun 22 2009, 08:23 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
255 posts

Joined: Feb 2008
From: Prison Planet


I think religion is a product of evolution and It's also very easy to indoctrinate children into religion because they are already predisposed to the same kind of wish-thinking and magical thinking that most religions are based upon. Religion provides easy, simplistic, and child-like answers to the questions young children ask which would otherwise be difficult to explain to them (depending on their age/maturity).

Add this to the fact that children are already evolutionarily predisposed to believe anything that their parents tell them. This last observation is generally a good thing and has served our species well in the ancient past (don't go near that lion, Og!), but religion has piggybacked on this instinct like a virus and unfortunately doesn't serve us modern humans very well.
styrwr91
post Jun 22 2009, 10:29 PM

~ON THE WAY~
****
Senior Member
696 posts

Joined: Aug 2008
QUOTE(lin00b @ Jun 22 2009, 05:48 PM)
never did i say religion is fake/lie. nor did i criticize religion in anyway. i just said you CANNOT compare/mix science and religion. science is science (logic, observation and all that); religion is religion (faith, higher power, etc). they are not compatible. its like comparing RAM with Graphics Card...  sweat.gif or mixing water and oil  thumbup.gif
*
which is why i left a space after my first sentence doh.gif
it's for those who offend each other's idea(religious 'scream' at scientific and vice versa)

btw, ur ram and gc really make the lul out of me laugh.gif

This post has been edited by styrwr91: Jun 22 2009, 10:32 PM
slacker
post Jun 23 2009, 12:35 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
404 posts

Joined: May 2005
Guys, I have a video for sharing which is closely related to this topic. http://www.qualitypeoples.com/2009/04/the-...human-evolutis/

Are we really leaping out of evolution? I think we human really leap out from the "survival fo the fittest" game. Maybe it is not a good things afterall becoz we are stagnant in the bio-physical evo aspect. This 'branching' might spells the beginning of the end of homo perhaps?

IT'S TIME TO DECONSTRUCT THOSE VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS THAT SHAPE US WHO WE ARE TODAY!!!! THIS IS SPARTA!!!!

This post has been edited by slacker: Jun 23 2009, 12:36 AM
NicJolin
post Jun 23 2009, 01:18 AM

Stop monitoring =)
******
Senior Member
1,053 posts

Joined: Mar 2006
From: Stop monitoring =)
QUOTE(slacker @ Jun 23 2009, 12:35 AM)
Guys, I have a video for sharing which is closely related to this topic. http://www.qualitypeoples.com/2009/04/the-...human-evolutis/

Are we really leaping out of evolution? I think we human really leap out from the "survival fo the fittest" game. Maybe it is not a good things afterall becoz we are stagnant in the bio-physical evo aspect. This 'branching' might spells the beginning of the end of homo perhaps?

IT'S TIME TO DECONSTRUCT THOSE VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS THAT SHAPE US WHO WE ARE TODAY!!!! THIS IS SPARTA!!!!
*
Hey really interesting video and really nice speech from Juan Enriquez

Might be true for what he said, technology is going to shape us instead of the environment that do.
St.Fu
post Jun 23 2009, 03:02 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
16 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
i have always been amused by the idea of comparing the two separate belief systems that locates itself on the either opposite side of the spectrum. one is self-correcting, finding faults within its own constitution and thus opening up a new horizon for better and effective way of seeing things. while the other accentuates on preserving the historical past regardless of the ever-changing environment.

oh and please hop to the next sub-forum for this discussion. this is about human evolution. not belief system's revolution.
Pr1me_Minister
post Jun 23 2009, 04:13 AM

Casual
Group Icon
Staff
314 posts

Joined: Feb 2006
I would like to ask everyone to refrain from posting opinions or views unrelated to the thread topic. If you want to discuss evolution (or science in general) in religious context please head to the Believers vs Non-Believers Version 011.

16 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > » Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0254sec    0.09    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 24th December 2025 - 02:22 AM