NationStates Jolt Archive

I disagree on the last few steps. There is no such thing as habilines or ergasts. Also you make a huge jump in your "ape-men" step, you just jumped a whole mess of genera.Otherwise all seems scientifically sound. :)

Very astute. I use habilines as a surname for a number of species, or at least proto-species. It is at this point that the specifics get a little unquantifiable. "Homo Habilis" is where "habiline" comes from, but "habiline" also takes into acount rudolfensis, kenyapithecus, the so-called "early homos" and etc. I use habilines as an anglicism for all of them.

As for Ergasts, that name is taken from homo ergaster, but usually is flag-shipped by homo-erectus. As both the predecessors and successors of homo erectus both stood erect, I feel it is a bit of a confusing way to denote the era. The Ergast group (which is more of a zoological term than a biological or anthropological term) also contains pithecanthropus and sinanthropus. As well as others.

As for the question of theory versus law, the scientific difference is not the same as the layman one. There are indeed laws in science, and there are theories, but one never becomes another as they govern different events. Laws describe behavior, theories explain behavior. So the law of gravity states (I'm being colloquial here) that what comes up must go down. Theories of gravitational pull explain why that might be. Even if one is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it still remains a theory.

So I've been told that the Catholic Church was not the first Christian church. What was then?

As a random note to anyone worrying about this one being locked, you're free to go ahead without yon troll.

From what I have seen so far, Evolution has little proof, and Religion has only blind faith. I am not convinced either way. I am a cynical Agnostic after all, and at the moment I do not believe either of them. I want to see clear proof, as this all just seems like an eternal argument between two sides with nothing but blind faith.

That's a good question, but one that doesn't necessarily have a solid answer.

True, The Catholic Church was not the first Christian church. But before that? You don't really have many solidly defined, let aloned named, groups. There were, of course, the gnostics. There was the temple arrangement of James The Just and Simon. And there were a number of other groups that fell somewhere between or around those three. But it was Paul (or Saul, if you prefer) who really got the ball rolling towards The Catholic Church, although it would be a far cry to say he actually started the thing.

The life and times of Paul are an endlessly fascinating subject. Paul's ideas on Jesus were so radically different than those of the people who had surrounded/known Jesus that many Biblical historians declare that Paul ushered in a time of "Jesus, the idea" as opposed to "Jesus, the man".

Of course, even in the early days of The Catholic Church it was not really known as that through denomination, "Catholic" merely means "Universal" (which does make Roman-Catholic and Irish-Catholic look a tad queer, if you ask me).

The early days of The Christian Church are very fascinating, much more so than Dan Brown gives them credit for, if you ask me. Populist schlock.

That's a good question, but one that doesn't necessarily have a solid answer.

True, The Catholic Church was not the first Christian church. But before that? You don't really have many solidly defined, let aloned named, groups. There were, of course, the gnostics. There was the temple arrangement of James The Just and Simon. And there were a number of other groups that fell somewhere between or around those three. But it was Paul (or Saul, if you prefer) who really got the ball rolling towards The Catholic Church, although it would be a far cry to say he actually started the thing.

The life and times of Paul are an endlessly fascinating subject. Paul's ideas on Jesus were so radically different than those of the people who had surrounded/known Jesus that many Biblical historians declare that Paul ushered in a time of "Jesus, the idea" as opposed to "Jesus, the man".

Of course, even in the early days of The Catholic Church it was not really known as that through denomination, "Catholic" merely means "Universal" (which does make Roman-Catholic and Irish-Catholic look a tad queer, if you ask me).

The early days of The Christian Church are very fascinating, much more so than Dan Brown gives them credit for, if you ask me. Populist schlock.

Thanks. That helps a bit. :fluffle:

From what I have seen so far, Evolution has little proof, and Religion has only blind faith. I am not convinced either way. I am a cynical Agnostic after all, and at the moment I do not believe either of them. I want to see clear proof, as this all just seems like an eternal argument between two sides with nothing but blind faith.

Imperial Navy, I assure you my knowledge of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with blind faith. If I were operating on faith I would likely still believe in creationism (and still be a Lutheran Pastor to boot. Neither of these things are the case)

The proof for evolution really is quite stunning. I'd direct you to my post on the former thread, but if you do not find that convincing I apologize. The thing is that evolution is science. And science is hard and complicated. On top of that, biological science is perhaps the most complicated of them all, as there is more complexity in a single cell than in the majority of solar systems.

But incredulity does not properly create doubt. That is a subjective reaction, and if we are looking for truth we must be weary of those. I can address ( as can, I am sure, many others here) specific questions of arguments about evolution, but I am not prepared to write on this board the hundreds of pages of missive necessary to explain what a sure-fire thing it is. If you are willing to take a reference, I would suggest "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which is an excellent book on evolution. It is both entertaining and informative and it is only the most concrete and nonporous of mind that could read it and not start to thinking.

I dunno about prrof, I have evolved many a speifi yeast strain for my home brewing out of one proto - adaptive Top fermenting yeast

I Brew Ales (top fermeted traditional brewing method type (proper beer :) )
I propogate my own yeast from previous brews, and so from starting off with a generic medium tolerance wide PH range multi purpose will brew almost anything type of ale yeast, I like most brewers have produced my own range of sub types,

I have pale ale yeasts that vastly outperform the stock yeasts in my 6.5 ABV IPA but hardly even ferment in a porter wort,

when produing a ew range I will mix yeasts from all types (unless tere is a caracteristic I specifically require (a gommy Hi Floc for example if bottling, r Hi tolerance for a Xmas Ale) and allow for the most suitable yeast strain to take hold in that enviroment, it normally only takes 4 fermetations to produce a yeast that has adapted (evolved) for survival in that enviroment.

just because my evolutionary experiments don't take thousands of years to perform (just thousands of Generations) doesn't make it ay less than evolution. It also makes for some incredibly enjoyable science

[snip]
just because my evolutionary experiments don't take thousands of years to perform (just thousands of Generations) doesn't make it ay less than evolution. It also makes for some incredibly enjoyable science

When you manage to transform a yeast into something other than a yeast, then you can call it evolution. Get back to me at that point.

Proper study of evolution would require thousands of generations to study, at the least, I would think.

The problem with studying evolution in humans is that we barely live through three or four generations, and those before us are not adequately documented to satisfy most questions one would have for study.

We are, in effect, too short-lived a species to study ourselves. Thankfully there are numerous shorter-lived species that we can study, and even play with.

From what I have seen so far, Evolution has little proof,

Some might suggest it has more than a little proof.

Some (like biologist and genetist types) might suggest it is the single most heavily evidentially supported scientific theory in the history of the scientific endeavour... with converging lines of evidence from geology, paleontology, biology, genetics, molecular biology, biogeography, etc... ALL cross correlating and indicating the exact same conclusion beyond pretty much any rational doubt.

And those some might have entire libraries of that evidence to stand on while they're saying it.

Imperial Navy, I assure you my knowledge of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with blind faith. If I were operating on faith I would likely still believe in creationism (and still be a Lutheran Pastor to boot. Neither of these things are the case)

The proof for evolution really is quite stunning. I'd direct you to my post on the former thread, but if you do not find that convincing I apologize. The thing is that evolution is science. And science is hard and complicated. On top of that, biological science is perhaps the most complicated of them all, as there is more complexity in a single cell than in the majority of solar systems.

But incredulity does not properly create doubt. That is a subjective reaction, and if we are looking for truth we must be weary of those. I can address ( as can, I am sure, many others here) specific questions of arguments about evolution, but I am not prepared to write on this board the hundreds of pages of missive necessary to explain what a sure-fire thing it is. If you are willing to take a reference, I would suggest "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which is an excellent book on evolution. It is both entertaining and informative and it is only the most concrete and nonporous of mind that could read it and not start to thinking.

I've never been replied to in such a polite manner. Thanks, just for that. And yes, I have been looking into evolution for many years. And i have discovered that when i present evolution evidence to a creationist believer, they simply refuse to accept my evidence, not even viewing it. A real shame that they have to be so rude. I sucked even more that I went to a christian school, where I was forced to learn those ways, and I kept getting into trouble for questioning my teachings. I kept asking questions such as where did christianity spawn from? If jesus was jewish why is there now christianity? If Jesus was jewish shouldn't we still also celebrate jewish festivals? and so on.

When I left school, I was an Agnostic. And I always have been. Even to this day I listen to both sides of the argument and voice my opinion. But still I have not herd any clear proof. I'm currently the leader of a little debate group, due to the fact I'm agnostic. That means my opinion of the two sides is not biased. Recently though things have really escalated... two of my members are now at each others throats.

Some might suggest it has more than a little proof.

Some (like biologist and genetist types) might suggest it is the single most heavily evidentially supported scientific theory in the history of the scientific endeavour... with converging lines of evidence from geology, paleontology, biology, genetics, molecular biology, biogeography, etc... ALL cross correlating and indicating the exact same conclusion beyond pretty much any rational doubt.

And those some might have entire libraries of that evidence to stand on while they're saying it.

I have to say, this is exactly right. No on refutes gravity--there are no fundamentalists I know of that deny it--yet gravity and, yes, pretty much every other scientific discovery ever made--has less evidence than evolution. There are a venerable menagerie of scientific and anthropological schools that all would have come to the exact same conclusion had they been isolated from each other.

To be only slightly hyperbolic, there is more proof for evolution than there is for a round earth. And you wouldn't moderate rational debate on that subject would you?

[snip]
To be only slightly hyperbolic, there is more proof for evolution than there is for a round earth. And you wouldn't moderate rational debate on that subject would you?

How do you figure? We've seen the shape of the Earth with our own eyes.

How do you figure? We've seen the shape of the Earth with our own eyes.

We've seen evolution with our own eyes too. What else have you got?

TIN: Just curious, were you by any chance an onlooker during the recent Creo/Evo closed discussion that happened a little while back? I discussed most of the ground I would normally cover on this subject in the 7 main topical posts I made in that thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178

He's right, of course. Many people have seen the effects of evolution. And no other scientific idea has more supporting evidence, both anecdotal and objective.

The roundness of the earth, on the other hand, is something we really take for granted. When did you last see it round? Photo-editing is getting better every day. After all, did you hear what they did to Lindsay Lohan's breasts?

How do you figure? We've seen the shape of the Earth with our own eyes.
Hasn't stopped a number of people claiming that it was all faked.

When you manage to transform a yeast into something other than a yeast, then you can call it evolution. Get back to me at that point.

Ok so at what point does specialisation become evolution, does it have to be a completely different species or is a sub species ok or a branch at what level do we say ok from now on it is no longer adapted yeast but evolved. (I think that sounds bitchy, it isn't meant to)

unfortunately not having acess to a genetic database and a good analytic lab capable of genetic study, I will have to list my failures from the first protos as types that have not adapt and survive

2nd trial fermation of med Dark (5kgpale .8kg crystal Bitter) with Pale IIxI yeast taken from previous semi successful fermentation, tasted like crap, hi autolysis of the yeast so nice high -S and -H3 smells very poor post anaerobic tolerance (leading to the early death rate)

3 rd trial of above (repeat of first brew) semi successful with similar fermentation characters,

4th trial same wort with resultant propogation with yeast taken from th 3rd trial (Pale IIxIb) same results as second,

Result, whatever had been produced was still genetically similar to the original yeast but the changes induced by enviromental change during initial fermentaion resulted in a piss poor specimen and so would die a very quick death when placed in same enviroment with another stronger/adaptable type (even if I didn't throw the samples out) and also resulted in a couple of lost months brewing time for me...

I suppose I could start brewing with a generic non yeast plant or fungus to produce te ethanol, and see if I could produce another specialist organism for producing palettable alcohol but that might take a little time (as deep thought said to vroomfondle)

TIN: Just curious, were you by any chance an onlooker during the recent Creo/Evo closed discussion that happened a little while back? I discussed most of the ground I would normally cover on this subject in the 7 main topical posts I made in that thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178
No i'm afraid. i've been buried with work lately.

We've seen evolution with our own eyes too. What else have you got?


Where have you observed evolution?

How do you figure? We've seen the shape of the Earth with our own eyes.


I, for one, have yet to make it into space and physically gaze upon Terra to study its shape for myself. As is, I've merely scene pictures of the Earth portrayed as round. On the other hand, I've also seen pictures of foot-long, bio-mechanical non-Terrestials bursting out of the chests of humans.

;)

Where have you observed evolution?

For starters:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

For starters:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

On a web site?!

Puddytat, your experiments sound absolutely dilectable. I was poised to run out to the liquor store for a good double stout as I read them. Until, glancing at the clock, I realized that it is six in the morning and most (all) liquor stores keep that time closed up.

I should have saved some of that Grolsch.

On a web site?!

Oh, I'm sorry... where have you observed the spherical shape of the earth? Spent much time in orbit lately have we?

Oh, I'm sorry... where have you observed the spherical shape of the earth? Spent much time in orbit lately have we?

It has been recorded in a variety of media, and I happen to have intimate knowledge of the space program (ie. personally know people who have been there and people involved in getting people there).

Funny, there's plenty of media on evolution. And I'm fairly well aquinated with that. Does this not count because I am not you? If so, I think even with evolution being as it is, I will likely be unable to qualify.

It has been recorded in a variety of media,

So you observed the spherical shape of the whole great big earth in a little tiny picture box or on a peice of PAPER!?

Care to continue with the silliness?

and I happen to have intimate knowledge of the space program.

I'm sure. And guess what the people at that website have... being PhD Biologists, Geneticists, Geologists, etc...

Funny, there's plenty of media on evolution. And I'm fairly well aquinated with that. Does this not count because I am not you? If so, I think even with evolution being as it is, I will likely be unable to qualify.

By media I mean film, streaming media, photography, etc. There is no such media capturing how something evolves. Or would you like to point me to where I can find such? The fact is no one has observed evolution, many people have observed the shape of the Earth.

By media I mean film, streaming media, photography, etc. There is no such media capturing how something evolves. Or would you like to point me to where I can find such? The fact is no one has observed evolution,

You didn't even read that link did you?

Puddytat, your experiments sound absolutely dilectable. I was poised to run out to the liquor store for a good double stout as I read them. Until, glancing at the clock, I realized that it is six in the morning and most (all) liquor stores keep that time closed up.

I should have saved some of that Grolsch.

OT, who says science can't be fun, it was getting thing to blow up and fly electrocute first year students and making beer that encouraged me,

however it was the religious teachings I received in primary school and the constant questions that got answered with "because that's how God wanted it" type statements that got me into questioning religious reality in the first place. I do have a religion and it's primary prophets are Newton Bohr Chadwick Watt Faraday Gallileo Hawkins Hooke Boyle Tesla Einstein Heisenburg Copernicus Watson Crick Pauling Mendel et al

By media I mean film, streaming media, photography, etc. There is no such media capturing how something evolves. Or would you like to point me to where I can find such? The fact is no one has observed evolution, many people have observed the shape of the Earth.
No one has ever observed the continents move as well, yet few doubt that they do.

No one has ever observed the continents move as well, yet few doubt that they do.

So? What does that have to do with my refutation of the ridiculous statement that there is more proof of evolution than there is of the shape of the Earth?

So? What does that have to do with my refutation of the ridiculous statement that there is more proof of evolution than there is of the shape of the Earth?
No, your statement is dealing with rejecting evolution due to not having seen it, and then stating that as it cannot be captured on film or other media types it has not been proven. I was just replying to that.

I'm just going to go with the fact its night time somewhere else right now, time difference when you fly, the curveture of the horizon (stand on a mountain at the edge of a range and tell me you can't see a curve) plus the fact there is a horizon and no where to fall off the edge of the world and that, for me, adds up as proof :D

Look, I'm sorry to have caused a stink by this one little line. I did state I was being a tad hyperbolic (i.e. exaggerating) but the thing is many people HAVE observed evolution. They've observed it in species of bacteria in the 20th century, they've observed it in closed experiments, they've observed it in fossil records, they've observed it in genetics, they've observed in it taxonomy, they've observed it in biology, they've observed it in paleontology, they've observed it in archaeology, they've observed it in philosophy, they've observed it in green eggs and ham, they have observed it, Sam I am.

No, your statement is dealing with rejecting evolution due to not having seen it, and then stating that as it cannot be captured on film or other media types it has not been proven. I was just replying to that.

No, it is not. I have not dealt with whether I believe in evolution or not. Go back and read my statements again. It was direct refutation of a careless bluff someone made, thats all. I have not stated my views on evolution nor have I attempted to debate against it.

It's really not a careless bluff.

The amount of evidence for evolution IS far greater than that for a round earth. At least insofar as volume and cross-collaboration/correlation goes.

That's not to say that the earth isn't obviously round. It is to state that, considering how much more has been found to support evolution than even the most obvious truth (such as a round earth), it is hardly logical to go about supposing it to be a thread-bare idea.

It's really not a careless bluff.

The amount of evidence for evolution IS far greater than that for a round earth. At least insofar as volume and cross-collaboration/correlation goes.

That's not to say that the earth isn't obviously round. It is to state that, considering how much more has been found to support evolution than even the most obvious truth (such as a round earth), it is hardly logical to go about supposing it to be a thread-bare idea.

Actually, with a tall pole and some basic geometry understanding, you can measure a tall pole's shadow at noon on both the solstice and winter solstice and determine not just that the earth is round, but how big it is (the closer to the equator you are the easier it is). There was an ancient Egyptian that used one of the monument's shadows to do exactly that, but it didn't seem overly important at the time. :D

So I've been told that the Catholic Church was not the first Christian church. What was then?
There were many Christian churches all throughout cities in the Middle East, Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc. Each was pretty much independent, although they kept in touch to discuss matters of faith. But, as with all other human works, politics intervened, and some churches started growing more than others, especially Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, and each tried to impose its own version of the faith. Finally they all broke with each other, made their alliances and drew their lines, and that's how we have the Roman Catholic, the Greek Orthodox, and the Coptic.

More divisions came later.

When you manage to transform a yeast into something other than a yeast, then you can call it evolution. Get back to me at that point.

Rather arbitrary, no?

If an evolution 'experiment' turned a dog into a cat, you'd accept evolution, wouldn't you?

Even though it would still be a mammal, and a very similar mammal, at that?

And yet, you can't accept that a similar diversity in yeasts could be representative?

Where have you observed evolution?
Imagine you're driving down the road and you see pieces of metal and glass here and there. Even though you didn't see it, and there are no crumpled cars on the road any more, you can deduct there was an accident. Furthermore, if you're a forensic investigator looking at the wreck, you can tell how fast the cars were going and how the accident happened. There are other things you won't be able to answer, for example the mental state of the drivers or whether a rabbit jumped on the road at a bad moment.

Evolution is like that, no one has seen it directly, but there are marks all over in our genetic code, the fossil record and even embrionic development. There are many questions that these observations will leave unanswered, but that evolution happened is a fact.

How do you figure? We've seen the shape of the Earth with our own eyes.

I haven't.

I have seen the apparent curvature at the horizon, and I have seen the apparent curvature from an aircraft window, and I have seen pictures alleged to be taken from space, that show the world to be round...

But, I think very few people can actually claim to have seen the 'round world' with their OWN eyes.