NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years? Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?
You're wrong.
What is "better" and what is not in an evolutionary sense depends on the environment you're in, and since we fashion our own, plenty of distinct features in different parts of humanity are irrelevant.

I'm lost for words.

I'm lost for words.

Likewise... I'm not sure where to start. :eek:

lol wut

1) check your spelling
2) nature isn't nice, fortunately currently it only shows in immunity to disease and such (sickle cell is a prime example)
3) we are all slowly becoming goo due to no pressure from natural selection :)

now your whole argument seems to have as much validity as electricity being nice, so I suggest you stay away from thunderstorms

Maybe you don't believe in evolution because you have no idea how it works?

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Well, you are actually the one who's rascist. You are assuming that there is a superior race, and that all humans would eventually become part of it. That's not really how it (evolution) works out.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
No. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with morals or ethical values.


The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today
Who says we aren't?

which means one part of humanity is better than another part?
Define "better". Evolution doesn't work in a straight line upwards.


Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,
...or know what it is?

but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?
You're very wrong. Now, gimme a penny.

Well, you are actually the one who's rascist. You are assuming that there is a superior race, and that all humans would eventually become part of it. That's not really how it (evolution) works out.
You've misinterpreted me.According to evoloution one part of humanity would be better than the other, But as I said before I DON'T BELIVE IN IT!

You're wrong.
What is "better" and what is not in an evolutionary sense depends on the environment you're in, and since we fashion our own, plenty of distinct features in different parts of humanity are irrelevant.

Pardon me, what I meant by better is stronger or smarter than every other part of humanity. Surely you belive we're smarter than deer, right? But of course, I don't belive theres a stronger or smarter race.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?
You're not making any sense.

You state that you "belive evoloution to be racist" whilst maintaining that you "don't belive in evoloution", which is a contradiction for starters.

You seem to believe that "The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years". I've not seen any plausible theories of evolutionary development that make any claims further than about 3-4 billion years - but that's a minor nitpick.

Evolutionary theories all hinge on natural selection of those members of a species that are best equipped to survive in the environment that they inhabit. Racial differences in humans are, in the main, piffling and inconsequential differences that have nothing whatsoever to do with membership of the species.


Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
You're wrong. Please stand corrected.

Have a nice day.

I'm lost for words.

you seem to have found four words though.

Evolution does not work in the way it is commonly believed to.

Essentially it is a process of random mutations and genetic anomelies combined with intentional adaptation by creatures to survive in their environment and prosper. That's it. It has nothing to do with making superior lifeforms so much as lifeforms best suited to their environment.

We evolved in the environment of Africa, and have since evolved only minor differing traits as we spread across the rest of the world. Technically if deprived of our technology certain ethnicities would do better in certain parts of the world due to traits like skin colour(which influences Vitamin D production as well as the protection from solar radiation) and the shape of the eyes(slanted eyes help against wind) along with hair colour(which helps with how one loses heat and so on and so forth.)

But with our technology those differences are essentially irrelevant and are more cosmetic than anything else.

Yes, it discriminates against christian fundamentalists.

You've misinterpreted me.According to evoloution one part of humanity would be better than the other, But as I said before I DON'T BELIVE IN IT!



Pardon me, what I meant by better is stronger or smarter than every other part of humanity. Surely you belive we're smarter than deer, right? But of course, I don't belive theres a stronger or smarter race.

1) There are many different types of intelligences. Even the most simplistic breakdown separates creative intelligence from encyclopedic, so your conception of "smarter" strikes me as fairly skewed.
2) As has been said, there is no "better" for evolution. It seems the people arguing against evolution have a hard time separating some sort of anthropomorphized intent from the a natural process. It is, more or less, a formula in nature. Adaptations do not necessitate some vague idea of what is better or worse.

You've misinterpreted me.According to evoloution one part of humanity would be better than the other, But as I said before I DON'T BELIVE IN IT!



Pardon me, what I meant by better is stronger or smarter than every other part of humanity. Surely you belive we're smarter than deer, right? But of course, I don't belive theres a stronger or smarter race.

I didn't misinterpret you at all. If you don't believe in a superior race, then why would evolution further something nonexistent?

You state that you "belive evoloution to be racist" whilst maintaining that you "don't belive in evoloution", which is a contradiction for starters.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that I belived that the THEORY of Evoloution was racist. But I don't belive that it is true. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear again, I can't find the words to explain:(

Pardon me, what I meant by better is stronger or smarter than every other part of humanity. Surely you belive we're smarter than deer, right? But of course, I don't belive theres a stronger or smarter race.Evolution hardly claims that anything will become stronger or smarter. Here, let Darwin say it for me:
It's not the strongest of the species that survive, but those more adaptive to change.

I have a feeling you don't understand the concept of evolution well enough to make a sound judgement on whether evolution is racist or not.

I didn't misinterpret you at all. If you don't believe in a superior race, then why would evolution further something nonexistent?
What I'm saying is that if evoloution WAS true then there would be a superior race. But there isn't a superior race because evoloution is fake. And to this day still unproven.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that I belived that the THEORY of Evoloution was racist.

am I right in assuming you don't think certain groups of people are taller than other then?

But I don't belive that it is true.

I honestly don't think I've met anyone irl life who thinks like this, tell me what science and logic mean to you?

It looks like we are evolving super fast right now
Every decade or so, the testing companies would generate new tests and re-normalize them so that the average score was 100. To make sure that the new exams were in sync with previous ones, they'd have a batch of students take both tests. They were simply trying to confirm that someone who tested above average on the new version would perform above average on the old, and in fact the results confirmed that correlation. But the data also brought to light another pattern, one that the testing companies ignored. "Every time kids took the new and the old tests, they did better on the old ones," Flynn says. "I thought: That's weird."

The testing companies had published the comparative data almost as an afterthought. "It didn't seem to strike them as interesting that the kids were always doing better on the earlier test," he says. "But I was new to the area." He sent his data to the Harvard Educational Review, which dismissed the paper for its small sample size. And so Flynn dug up every study that had ever been done in the US where the same subjects took a new and an old version of an IQ test. "And lo and behold, when you examined that huge collection of data, it revealed a 14-point gain between 1932 and 1978." According to Flynn's numbers, if someone testing in the top 18 percent the year FDR was elected were to time-travel to the middle of the Carter administration, he would score at the 50th percentile.

When Flynn finally published his work in 1984, Jensen objected that Flynn's numbers were drawing on tests that reflected educational background. He predicted that the Flynn effect would disappear if one were to look at tests - like the Raven Progressive Matrices - that give a closer approximation of g, by measuring abstract reasoning and pattern recognition and eliminating language altogether. And so Flynn dutifully collected IQ data from all over the world. All of it showed dramatic increases. "The biggest of all were on Ravens," Flynn reports with a hint of glee still in his voice.

The trend Flynn discovered in the mid-'80s has been investigated extensively, and there's little doubt he's right. In fact, the Flynn effect is accelerating. US test takers gained 17 IQ points between 1947 and 2001. The annual gain from 1947 through 1972 was 0.31 IQ point, but by the '90s it had crept up to 0.36. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn.html?pg=1&topic=flynn&topic_set=

Note:

Before somone calls me an idiot the comment I made above the quote was a joke

What I'm saying is that if evoloution WAS true then there would be a superior race. But there isn't a superior race because evoloution is fake. And to this day still unproven.

Laerod's comments are worth repeating. Read them a few more times.

Evolution hardly claims that anything will become stronger or smarter. Here, let Darwin say it for me:

"It's not the strongest of the species that survive, but those more adaptive to change."

I have a feeling you don't understand the concept of evolution well enough to make a sound judgement on whether evolution is racist or not.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

What I'm saying is that if evoloution WAS true then there would be a superior race. But there isn't a superior race because evoloution is fake. And to this day still unproven.

You are dividing humanity up by racial lines, that's not what evolution does. You're saying (as an example) that
"all black people are dumb, and all white people are smart. So if evolution's right, the white people will take over."

That's not how it works, one race doesn't have a monopoly on a certain trait. Unless you're actually saying something like "all asians are smart, all black people are good at sports", then there's no reason to think that evolution is rascist.

What I'm saying is that if evoloution WAS true then there would be a superior race. But there isn't a superior race because evoloution is fake. And to this day still unproven.Now I have the feeling that you're a liar: You never wanted us to correct you for being wrong, you're perfectly willing to live in your own dream world where evolution is supposedly racist.

Different populations of humans subject to evolutionary pressures resulted in black Africans having the lowest mean IQs (also a low standard deviation for whatever reason), white Europeans having higher mean IQs, East Asians somewhat higher still, and Ashkenazim Jews having the highest mean IQs.

Dude, what the #*&^^&*#$&*&^%$^&*&^% are you talking about?

Evolution is a theory developed to explain changes on the species level (I deffinatly know there's a better way to put it but i can't) of the kingdoms. Now, may you please explain to me how RACE is equivilant to SPECIES, por favor?

What Sirmomo1 said

That's not how it works, one race doesn't have a monopoly on a certain trait. Unless you're actually saying something like "all asians are smart, all black people are good at sports", then there's no reason to think that evolution is rascist.

And in this case it still wouldn't be evolution, but him that was racist.

The theory itself isn't, but some evolutionists unfortunately are. Darwin himself was incredibly racist.

Different populations of humans subject to evolutionary pressures resulted in black Africans having the lowest mean IQs (also a low standard deviation for whatever reason), white Europeans having higher mean IQs, East Asians somewhat higher still, and Ashkenazim Jews having the highest mean IQs.

Source? What samples where used and did they have the same economic status?

Different populations of humans subject to evolutionary pressures resulted in black Africans having the lowest mean IQs (also a low standard deviation for whatever reason), white Europeans having higher mean IQs, East Asians somewhat higher still, and Ashkenazim Jews having the highest mean IQs.

Explain the Flynn effect which I posted on a post above

http://www.hnn.us/comments/15975.html

Damn, it looks like I missed the opportunity to eviscerate the original post... everyone else beat me to it.

Different populations of humans subject to evolutionary pressures resulted in black Africans having the lowest mean IQs (also a low standard deviation for whatever reason), white Europeans having higher mean IQs, East Asians somewhat higher still, and Ashkenazim Jews having the highest mean IQs.

You can't attribute this just to evolution. Ashkenazim Jews, as well as many east Asians put a lot of emphasis on education and knowledge in their culture, and press it into the youth from a young age. Most Africans are far too poor to have access to education, or at least a good one.

Explain the Flynn effect which I posted on a post above

Flynn effect is the same for every race; racial differences in IQ remain unchanged. If black IQ goes from 75 to 85, white IQ goes from 95 to 105. That is what has been observed over the past century.

And in this case it still wouldn't be evolution, but him that was racist.

It's the way he understands evolution, so that's the best way to debate it.

The theory itself isn't, but some evolutionists unfortunately are. Darwin himself was incredibly racist.

Really? I've never heard that before, just that his cult was made up of racists.

You can't attribute this just to evolution. Ashkenazim Jews, as well as many east Asians put a lot of emphasis on education and knowledge in their culture, and press it into the youth from a young age. Most Africans are far too poor to have access to education, or at least a good one.

Environment plays a factor but biology seems to play a larger factor. In cross-racial adoption, the adopted child's IQ always regresses to the mean IQ of his or her own race, rather than the mean IQ of his or her adoptive parents' race.

Source? What samples where used and did they have the same economic status?

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

I'm sure people will criticize the link just because it is from wikipedia - for those people, check out some of the citations at the bottom that are useful.

Environment plays a factor but biology seems to play a larger factor. In cross-racial adoption, the adopted child's IQ always regresses to the mean IQ of his or her race, rather than the mean IQ of his or her adoptive parents.

Bullshit, why would an IQ always go to a mean? It's a mean not a rule, not everyone would follow it even if it was true (that biology played a larger factor). Also an adopted child probably came from a certain type of family where the morther may not have taken good care of herself, the mother or father may have had a lower IQ that doesn't nessecarily reflect the reality. Also, you haven't sourced.

Environment plays a factor but biology seems to play a larger factor. In cross-racial adoption, the adopted child's IQ always regresses to the mean IQ of his or her race, rather than the mean IQ of his or her adoptive parents.
That is amazing. Does this also happen in non-cross-racial adoptions? And have you got a link to a scholarly article, preferably peer-reviewed and supported by extensive research?

What I'm saying is that if evoloution WAS true then there would be a superior race. But there isn't a superior race because evoloution is fake. And to this day still unproven.
And what we're saying is that that isn't how evolution by natural selection works. What the ToE predicts is that those members of a species who possess characteristics that favour survival in the environment that they inhabit are more likely to survive than those who do not possess the advantageous characteristics, and are therefore more likely to pass on their genetic peculiarities to future generations.

In short, it's got bugger all to do with race. If anything, the racial differences shown across the spectrum of humanity are a pretty powerful argument for the accuracy of some of our evolutionary theories, since they all involve some kind of adaptation to a specific environment.

Evolution, no matter how much you or anyone else might wish it to be so, is certainly not fake, and has been proven in countless examples. The particular theory of evolution - I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're banging on about Darwin's one - that you're moaning about isn't proven, no, but then no theory ever is.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Certainly a great many people have skewed evolution to make it racist. Arguing all sorts of things such as Africans are closer to chimps then to white Europeans (and justifying European hegemony at the same time), to there being "criminal genes" that make people want to break stuff and get tattoos.

Eugenics was the most obvious example of this, along with its logical conclusion, the holocaust.

However, Darwin was fairly liberal for his day. And was most certainly not racist at all. Any bastardisation of evolution isn't his fault. Some people will find any excuse to hate.

So, is the Theory of evolution racist? No
Has it been used incorrectly to justify racist world views? Yes


EDIT: I suppose it could be claimed that evolution is racist in the sense that only the 'superior' races, such as humans, survive and the 'inferior' ones, such as the dodo (say), become extinct. But that is enough sophistry

That is amazing. Does this also happen in non-cross-racial adoptions?

Well, yes. That is to be expected since environment and race are both correlated in a same-race adoption.

And have you got a link to a scholarly article, preferably peer-reviewed and supported by extensive research?

Check out the wikipedia link I provided. It has a list of scholarly articles at the bottom, which you can access at any university library, or maybe Google Scholar if your IP has a subscription to those scholarly journals.

There IS a superior race, known as Homo Sapiens. We rule the world.

As for individual sections of humanity evolving, there has been some evolution, but it involves adapting to local conditions. Eskimos have stocky bodies to minimize heat loss. Africans have dark skin to resist sunburn. Incas have big lungs to breathe thin air. None of these are truly "superior" - they are better for their own environments. A stocky body, for instance, would make less sense on the savannah, where speed is critical (and you are more concerned about overheating than heat loss).

Evolution is not racist. The best-adapted to a particular environment will survive. Humans, of course, evolved the ability to change our environment to fit our needs, which is why humans are the superior race.

Homo sapiens uber alles!

Flynn effect is the same for every race; racial differences in IQ remain unchanged. If black IQ goes from 75 to 85, white IQ goes from 95 to 105. That is what has been observed over the past century.

How about the ancient nile Civilization which predates any in Europe

No it's not Egypt, it's Nubia

http://www.hnn.us/comments/15975.html

The inscription details previously unknown important battles unprecedented "since the time of the god" -the beginning of time. Experts now believe that the humiliation of defeat was one that the Ancient Egyptians preferred to omit from their historical accounts.

Contemporary Egyptian descriptions had led historians to assume that the kingdom of Kush was a weak and barbaric neighbouring state for hundreds of years, although it boasted a complex society with vast resources of gold dominating the principal trade routes into the heart of Africa. It did eventually conquer Egypt, in the 8th century BC.

Mr Davies, who headed the joint British Museum and Egyptian archaeological team, said: "Now it is clear that Kush was a superpower which had the capacity to invade Egypt. It was a huge invasion, one that stirred up the entire region, a momentous event that is previously undocumented.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CmGKU4TGS70
Documentry on youtube, Nubia the forgotten kingdom

Do you think borderline retarded people built this great Civilization?

edit: Also my signature, 3 "races" that are supposedly intelectually inferior to "Caucasians"/"mongoloids"

Bullshit, why would an IQ always go to a mean?

"Regression to the mean" doesn't imply the IQ will become exactly the mean. It means (damn homonyms) the mean of the group in question (cross-racial adoptees) is equal the mean of their race.

It's a mean not a rule, not everyone would follow it even if it was true (that biology played a larger factor). Also an adopted child probably came from a certain type of family where the morther may not have taken good care of herself, the mother or father may have had a lower IQ that doesn't nessecarily reflect the reality. Also, you haven't sourced.
Yes I have.

Well, yes. That is to be expected since environment and race are both correlated in a same-race adoption.



Check out the wikipedia link I provided. It has a list of scholarly articles at the bottom, which you can access at any university library, or maybe Google Scholar if your IP has a subscription to those scholarly journals.

oops, didn't see that, very good, sorry.

How about the ancient nile Civilization which predates any in Europe

No it's not Egypt, it's Nubia

http://www.hnn.us/comments/15975.html



http://youtube.com/watch?v=CmGKU4TGS70
Documentry on youtube, Nubia the forgotten kingdom

Do you think borderline retarded people built this great Civilization?

The particular genetic changes that result in advances in group intelligence among whites (and particularly Jews) may have postdated the era of the Nile civilizations. Jewish intelligence increases most likely occurred during the last thousand years, when they were shut into ghettos and intermarried among themselves, a population that happend to select for high intelligence in their mating patterns.

That is to say, Jews 4,000 years ago weren't smarter or dumber than any other group. But East European Jews of the past 200 to 500 years are arguably more intelligent than many groups.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

That is by far one of the absolute stupidest things I've ever heard someone say. Honostly, c'mon. Humans are one species. Just because we have different skin pigments, etc. doesn't mean we are different species. LIke the common house dog we can interbreed. We look different but we are one speciesand can interbreed without our offspring being sterile and we will evolve as a whole.

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

I'm sure people will criticize the link just because it is from wikipedia - for those people, check out some of the citations at the bottom that are useful.

A pity they didn't do similar research with black parents.

Surely you belive we're smarter than deer, right?

Deers can eat grass. If a lion is near you and a deer, a deer can run faster than you leaving you to be eaten by the lion. Ergo, deers must be smarter.

A pity they didn't do similar research with black parents.

True, that would make their study far more complete. The other flaw is that Minnesota blacks are likely not representative of AMerican blacks in general. However, the rate of black parents adopting white children is exceedingly low so they also had difficulty gathering data on that particular demographic.

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

I'm sure people will criticize the link just because it is from wikipedia - for those people, check out some of the citations at the bottom that are useful.

I realise that I have a splitting headache and only skimmed it. But it doesn't seem conclusive at all :confused:

Especially since there seems to be considerable debate over the data, and the fact that there was no standardised testing used.

I realise that I have a splitting headache and only skimmed it. But it doesn't seem conclusive at all :confused:

Especially since there seems to be considerable debate over the data, and the fact that there was no standardised testing used.

Keep in mind there is also considerable debate over whether God created all species, or whether natural evolution shaped species.

In any cause, the data on IQ is out there. Also, the tests are standardized, I'm not sure where you find they aren't.

The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.


Life first began on Earth approximately 4 billion years ago. It would be strange for terrestrial life to be older than the Earth (~4.54 billion years) itself.


Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today


yes...


...which means one part of humanity is better than another part?


No. Every single person on the planet is a member of homo sapiens sapiens. What you describe may have been the case approximately 25,000 years ago, when homo neanderthalensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis) briefly coexisted with homo sapiens. But now, homo sapiens sapiens is all that's left.

And, at any rate, evolution addresses species not "race."

Indeed, check out Y-Chromosome Adam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome_Adam). Did you know that all Y chromosomes in all currently living human males can be traced back to a single African man who lived about 60,000 years ago? Then there is Mitochondrial Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve), whose Mitochondrial DNA is present in all currently living human beings. She lived about 140,000 years ago and also hails from Africa. If anything, the genetic analysis that found these patrilinear and matrilinear most recent common ancestors (providing support for evolution in the process) is probably the most damning evidence against racism there ever can be.

Life first began on Earth approximately 4 billion years ago. It would be strange for terrestrial life to be older than the Earth (~4.54 billion years) itself.



yes...



No. Every single person on the planet is a member of homo sapiens sapiens. What you describe may have been the case approximately 25,000 years ago, when homo neanderthalensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis) briefly coexisted with homo sapiens. But now, homo sapiens sapiens is all that's left.

And, at any rate, evolution addresses species not "race."

Actually, evolution addresses any population of organisms, whether "species" or "race," or even a single mating pair - one male and one female.

How old where the kids when they where adopted?
What where the races and IQs of the ones who dropped out of the study.

Thoughts anyone?

You first. :D

How old where the kids when they where adopted?
What where the races and IQs of the ones who dropped out of the study.

They were adopted at various ages starting from shortly after birth. The striking thing is that no matter when a kid was adopted, the outcome was the same.

Furthermore, it actually doesn't matter how old the kids are when they were adopted, because studies demonstrate that teenage IQ and adult IQ are both dominated by biological factors, while early childhood IQ is dominated by environmental factors.

I think the answer to your question is no answer. Some racists may use the THEORY of evolution to their advantage whilst some non-racists might not. It's not the theory that's racist, its the people who are racist. It's not directly a racist theory, but it could indirectly be used as a racist supporting argument. Regardless I'm not sure if I believe in evolution anymore. I've recently converted and am now a devoted Catholic so 1. I believe God made everything whether or not it was through evoltuion. More importantly however I did some reading on Darwin's reports. I was intruiged to find that he said that if we didn't find a living cross species between two(aka cavemen, birdfish, etc.) within the next 100 years that the theory of evolution should be discredited. It's been 100 years and scientists have not yet found any cavemen and birdfish swimming/flying around. Therefor I think I don't believe in evolution anymore.

However something that Darwin was right about was minor evolution. Minor evolution is something quite evident in society and proven aswell(unlike major evolution). You can see it in viruses like the flu and cold that continually mutate. But in terms of natural selection working to create new species over time without creating any cross-species, that doesn't make sense. Maybe natural selection will leave the smarter and stronger animals(and their descendents) alive, but it still doesn't make sense for you to get strong or smart enough to change species.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that I belived that the THEORY of Evoloution was racist. But I don't belive that it is true. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear again, I can't find the words to explain:(

I figured you out here. You do not believe that evolution has taken place. You also believe that the theory itself is racist.

Idiocy but I get you.

You first. :DYou truly enjoy inflicting pain on others, don't you? :p

What I'm saying is that if evoloution WAS true then there would be a superior race.

If evolution where true, one might expect the emergence of a "superior" species. One can make a rather strong argument that exactly that has happened on Earth: homo sapiens sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens).

racism
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

racist
adjective
1. based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
2. discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
noun
1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others


Nope.

You truly enjoy inflicting pain on others, don't you? :p

I consider it a public service. :)

Actually, evolution addresses any population of organisms, whether "species" or "race," or even a single mating pair - one male and one female.

"Race" is, at best, a political construct.

I can see how someone could misconstrue evolution to be racist, but that depends heavily on the individual's perception of what makes one superior. This perception is a product of the particular niche one finds themself in. For example, a shark would not think the turtle's hard shell to be a large advantage because it would not suit the endeavors of the shark, just as the turtle would not see the shark's sharp teeth as an advantage.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Of course, here's one thing I recently thought of: If Adam and Eve were the only two humans of their time, what race were they? And, given that, where did all the other various races come from?

If evolution where true, one might expect the emergence of a "superior" species. One can make a rather strong argument that exactly that has happened on Earth: homo sapiens sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens).

Yeah, but all this talk of "superior" versus inferior is silly. One can be superior at doing something, or with a superior height, but just plain unqualified "superior" doesn't have meaning.

"Race" is, at best, a political construct.

Chihuahuas and Border Collies belong to different ____________?

Hmmm. If one race was to come out on top of evolution, this doesn't mean thar evolution is racist. Rather, this is what racism postulates, so if it was that way, it would rather be correct to say that facts about evolution justify racism, not that evolution is racist.

I think the answer to your question is no answer. Some racists may use the THEORY of evolution to their advantage whilst some non-racists might not. It's not the theory that's racist, its the people who are racist. It's not directly a racist theory, but it could indirectly be used as a racist supporting argument. Regardless I'm not sure if I believe in evolution anymore. I've recently converted and am now a devoted Catholic so 1. I believe God made everything whether or not it was through evoltuion. More importantly however I did some reading on Darwin's reports. I was intruiged to find that he said that if we didn't find a living cross species between two(aka cavemen, birdfish, etc.) within the next 100 years that the theory of evolution should be discredited. It's been 100 years and scientists have not yet found any cavemen and birdfish swimming/flying around. Therefor I think I don't believe in evolution anymore.

However something that Darwin was right about was minor evolution. Minor evolution is something quite evident in society and proven aswell(unlike major evolution). You can see it in viruses like the flu and cold that continually mutate. But in terms of natural selection working to create new species over time without creating any cross-species, that doesn't make sense. Maybe natural selection will leave the smarter and stronger animals(and their descendents) alive, but it still doesn't make sense for you to get strong or smart enough to change species.

youre kidding about that, right?

darwin isnt the boss of evolutionary theory. he had a good idea but its been refined many many times in the 150ish years since it was written.

thats why its science and not religion.

I can see how someone could misconstrue evolution to be racist, but that depends heavily on the individual's perception of what makes one superior. This perception is a product of the particular niche one finds themself in. For example, a shark would not think the turtle's hard shell to be a large advantage because it would not suit the endeavors of the shark, just as the turtle would not see the shark's sharp teeth as an advantage.That's not perception, that's environment or niche.

But to take up your comparison:

Which is superior? The fennec (desert fox) or the arctic fox? By CM's definition of evolution, you would have to choose without the beneficial context of what environment we are talking about.

Chihuahuas and Border Collies belong to different ____________?Species and races are constructs. While they apply rather well to most animal species, they occasionally fail when it comes to differentiating between plant species.

That's not perception, that's environment or niche.

But to take up your comparison:

Which is superior? The fennec (desert fox) or the arctic fox? By CM's definition of evolution, you would have to choose without the beneficial context of what environment we are talking about.

The arctic fox because it lives by polar bears and bears eat beats. Beats, bears, Battlestar Galactica.

Evolution is about adaptation to being best suited to an environment... The common house roach is more advanced, evolutionarily speaking than mankind is; because it's more adapted to differing enviroments, capable of surviving in elevated radiation levels past humans, can breed faster, consequentially adapt faster, and has survived far longer than mankind in differing environments.

youre kidding about that, right?

darwin isnt the boss of evolutionary theory. he had a good idea but its been refined many many times in the 150ish years since it was written.

thats why its science and not religion.

it may have been refined and such but so long as the theory of evolution involves the crossing of species and so long as no cross-species have been found, i still find the theory of evolution null and void.

it may have been refined and such but so long as the theory of evolution involves the crossing of species and so long as no cross-species have been found, i still find the theory of evolution null and void.

Don't you mean the crucifixion of species? That is actually very common.

it may have been refined and such but so long as the theory of evolution involves the crossing of species and so long as no cross-species have been found, i still find the theory of evolution null and void.
It doesn't.

Why do some people seem to have such trouble comprehending this?

it may have been refined and such but so long as the theory of evolution involves the crossing of species and so long as no cross-species have been found, i still find the theory of evolution null and void.

what do you mean by the crossing of species?

it may have been refined and such but so long as the theory of evolution involves the crossing of species and so long as no cross-species have been found, i still find the theory of evolution null and void.

I...don't think you have a firm comprehension of the scale and method of evolution. It isn't like it goes fish-fishbird-bird. There aren't sudden morphological changes in a creatures anatomy, and the idea of some sudden break species divergence just betrays a faulty understanding and, perhaps, an incapacity to grasp the scale.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Is evolution racist? No. Is gravity sexist? No. You're just an under-educated idiot

It doesn't.

Why do some people seem to have such trouble comprehending this?

Well the major evolution part of the theory of evolution does believe that species evolve, over time into different species.

And when I say cross species I mean one species changing into another.

And to the other fellow who says evolution happens immediately and not like fish-fishbird-bird you're wrong, well according to the theory of evolution. For example the theory of evolution believes that there were a series of species of the genus "homo" that preceded us, homo-sapiens, and that were in between us and monkeys. My question, and Darwin's, was: Why don't any of the other homo-X species exist today, shouldn't they be out there if the really existed.

Well the major evolution part of the theory of evolution does believe that species evolve, over time into different species.

And when I say cross species I mean one species changing into another.

And to the other fellow who says evolution happens immediately and not like fish-fishbird-bird you're wrong, well according to the theory of evolution. For example the theory of evolution believes that there were a series of species of the genus "homo" that preceded us, homo-sapiens, and that were in between us and monkeys. My question, and Darwin's, was: Why don't any of the other homo-X species exist today, shouldn't they be out there if the really existed.
You must be having fun. :D

Well the major evolution part of the theory of evolution does believe that species evolve, over time into different species.

And when I say cross species I mean one species changing into another.

And to the other fellow who says evolution happens immediately and not like fish-fishbird-bird you're wrong, well according to the theory of evolution. For example the theory of evolution believes that there were a series of species of the genus "homo" that preceded us, homo-sapiens, and that were in between us and monkeys. My question, and Darwin's, was: Why don't any of the other homo-X species exist today, shouldn't they be out there if the really existed.

First off, either by typo or by misinterpretation, you got what I said wrong, but whatever. Second, macroevolution doesn't necessitate the continued existence of the previously evolved animals. I'm not super fresh with the original Darwinian theory so maybe this one of those myriad later tweaks to the theory. However, an animal losing its niche, or (and this is important) breeding into homo-sapiens, would result in the extinction of the original...genus? Is it genus? Dunno, I'm no evolutionary scientist but I like to think I have a somewhat rudimentary grasp of it and the underlaying logic.

Well the major evolution part of the theory of evolution does believe that species evolve, over time into different species

And when I say cross species I mean one species changing into another.
It does indeed. Where most people fail in their comprehension of this part of the theory is in their inability to grasp the sheer timescale, in terms of number of generations, that is involved. Many current theories about how speciation occurs also posit that some form of geographical isolation is required, so that the cumulative effect of natural genetic variations in the isolated population have the eventual effect of bringing about a variant of the original species sufficiently different from others elsewhere to preclude interbreeding. Again, this is a long-term change, not an overnight shift.

And to the other fellow who says evolution happens immediately and not like fish-fishbird-bird you're wrong, well according to the theory of evolution. For example the theory of evolution believes that there were a series of species of the genus "homo" that preceded us, homo-sapiens, and that were in between us and monkeys. My question, and Darwin's, was: Why don't any of the other homo-X species exist today, shouldn't they be out there if the really existed.
The other species generally don't co-exist with their evolutionary descendants because they have been outcompeted by them. This is the whole point in the 'natural selection' part of the theories.

Seriously, a part of me admires you sticking to your guns about this idea of yours, but has it never crossed your mind that these objections have been raised before? More than that, do you honestly think that the scientists and enthusiasts who, over the years, have formed and refined the evolutionary theories were blind to them?

Well the major evolution part of the theory of evolution does believe that species evolve, over time into different species.

And when I say cross species I mean one species changing into another.

And to the other fellow who says evolution happens immediately and not like fish-fishbird-bird you're wrong, well according to the theory of evolution. For example the theory of evolution believes that there were a series of species of the genus "homo" that preceded us, homo-sapiens, and that were in between us and monkeys. My question, and Darwin's, was: Why don't any of the other homo-X species exist today, shouldn't they be out there if the really existed.

So are you saying that dinosaurs never existed or are you saying that you can go out and fetch me a tricerotops?

No. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with morals or ethical values.


True. It functions-off reality. The strong will be able to slaughter the weak, and the results will be good....over-all. That doesn't mean Darwin went about shooting hobos.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Evolution has often been used to justify racism. In fact, Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was almost as influential as his relative in inventing the "science" of eugenics. But real evolution is not racist, just as real quantum mechanics does not support cultural relativism, and real economics does not hate poor people.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

No. You're completely wrong and have no idea how evolution works.

Evolution has nothing to do with getting better. There is no such thing as "reverse evolution." A cockroach is no better or worse than ant, a cat, or a human, in evolutionary terms.

Evolution has to do with being more likely to produce offspring that will in turn produce offspring. If you do this by being intelligent enough to accumulate resources to insure your offsprings' security or by having lots of children so that statistically some of them are likely to in turn produce a new generation you are both engaging in survival strategies. The only measure of how much "better" one is than another is in how long the lineage can keep it up before becoming extinct.

Since all humans are able to change their environments to suit themselves, this makes no particular trait much of a benefit or liability when it comes to survival.

In short, evolution doesn't really have anything to do with human survival anymore. And even if it did, it would have nothing to do with getting "better." For more on this, watch Idiocracy.

Yeah, but all this talk of "superior" versus inferior is silly. One can be superior at doing something, or with a superior height, but just plain unqualified "superior" doesn't have meaning.

This is what the "quotation marks" are for, of course.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Dictionaries are good. "Racism" is a word you may want to look up.

Just sayin'

Pardon me, what I meant by better is stronger or smarter than every other part of humanity. Surely you belive we're smarter than deer, right? But of course, I don't belive theres a stronger or smarter race.

Nor does evolution. Not among humans.

In nature, when a species completely exploits the preferred resources, there is a tendency for them to split into robust and gracile forms. The bigger ones will survive by their size, the smaller ones by their skill. Go too far in either direction, then life tends to get a bit hard. Giant wolves were very robust, but eventually, they got replaced by their more nimble cousins the Gray Wolf. Not because Grey Wolves were "better," but because giant wolves couldn't survive on rabbits and deer once the giant ground sloths and titanotheres went extinct.

Humans don't engage in that pattern. Yes, some people grow bigger and stronger than others, and others develop skills more than strength, but those varieties freely interbreed. Humans have always interbred with the most exotic humans available, even when our cultures tell us not to. Animals don't.

So when two pods of killer whales decide that one will focus on hunting seals and the other on hunting fish and neither pot will accept members of the other as mates, well then those pods are well on the way to species differentiation.

When one village decides to focus on farming grain, and the neighboring one on farming goats, they might not like each other much, but they will exchange meat, grain, pelts, and brides. In other words, evolution doesn't come into play.

Chihuahuas and Border Collies belong to different ____________?

"Breed" and "race" are obviously dissimilar concepts.

My poodle and bichon frisé look different, but their observable behavior is conducive to the conclusion that they pay no heed to their physical differences because they both recognize each other as members of canis lupus familiaris. Their behavior is as one species.

"Race" is an entirely behavioral/political construct whereby ignorant human individuals treat each other differently despite the fact that there is no meaningful difference or division between them at the genetic level.

it may have been refined and such but so long as the theory of evolution involves the crossing of species and so long as no cross-species have been found, i still find the theory of evolution null and void.

How does evolution involve the crossing of species?

It's about the complete opposite. It's about what is one species becoming another, or several others in a way that makes them unable to cross-breed.

Like these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

You base your thoughts on the incorrect assumption that different skin colors are evolving differently. Which is about as incorrect as different eye colors evolving differently. Humanity IS evolving, but racism or races have nothing to do with it.

Remember, the average african american in the US is 15% white;)

It doesn't.

Why do some people seem to have such trouble comprehending this?

Because as soon as they agree to how it works they must agree that it does, and as long as their fragile faith is based on evolution not working then their lives fall apart once they make that concession.

It's like how the other day I was explaining to someone why he owes the IRS money after being audited.

I don't see how I have to pay them back if they never gave me a refund.
They're not asking you to give back your refund. They're asking you to pay the taxes on the money you made.
But they never gave me nuthin'
But you earned money during the year, so you have to pay taxes on it.
Oh! So this is just my taxes?
Yes.
Oh. I get it now.
Ok.
But how come I owe if they never gave me nuthin?
:headbang:

Since the guy had the intelligence needed to operate a telephone, clearly he was not so stupid that he was unable to understand. But because understanding what I was telling him would have resulted in him admitting that he was several hundred dollars in debt, he didn't really want to understand.

My understanding of it is cells DNA adapts to compensate for changes in the environment.

It's fact that when the North Africans started migrating over Europe, their complexion became radically paler. Possibly to allow the skin to absorb vitamin D rich UV rays more efficiently in the colder temperatures.

White Supremacists (Darwinist ones, ruling out traditional groups such as the KKK) would claim that along with the skin changing, the brain grew larger to compensate for the complexities of the European environment.

I'd say that all across the world the human brain was evolving due to human civilization continuing to develop, creating a need for smarter, more efficient and powerful thinkers.

I'd also say that in the early days, when humans had just started to move into Europe, the African brain would be developing a lot faster then their European counterparts.

They were still in the villages back home, developing the first human civilizations, whilst the first White people were wondering the fertile plains of Europe, with farm animals and water sources available to them.....there's not much need for the brain the evolve.

Of course, as rivalries in such a small landmass increased, they started to develop social skills and the likes...that's where the Africans, in their vast savanna, began to fall behind.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/128320993454987500dudewaitw.jpg

I'm lost for words.

Perhaps to use semaphore, then?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rockmore/semaphore.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rockmore/semaphore.html&h=1630&w=1186&sz=361&tbnid=aciFKA3HwKsgjM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsemaphore%26um%3D1&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Where you're wrong: 1. Life has not existed on Earth for 6 billion years. The Earth has not existed for 6 billion years. 2. Evolution is not an active process of creating better creatures, it is the result of the passive process of natural selection which favors animals suited to their local environment and challenges. Since there is not one universal set of conditions that all humans live under, there cannot be one individual or group who are better adapted than all others. 3. For the most part humans have stopped the effects of natural evolution on themselves as a result of the application of technology. Poor eyesight, congenital defects, many other hindrances are corrected by modern technology and prevent natural selection from weeding out weaker members of humanity.

And finally, evolution is not something to be "believe[d] in" like religious doctrines. Evolution is a simple fact, observable in any system over a period of time. You can choose to believe that humans today are a product of evolution due to natural selection or not, but whichever you believe, evolution will be just as much a part of the way the world works.

Actually, one more thing: Even if there was a group of people who were evolutionarily advantaged in modern life it would not be because evolution is racist, since as a passive effect does not have motives and did not choose one race as arbitrarily more effective than others. By definition evolution cannot be racists, though racists could attempt to use evolution and natural selection as justification for pursuing their own agendas.

it may have been refined and such but so long as the theory of evolution involves the crossing of species and so long as no cross-species have been found, i still find the theory of evolution null and void.

*sighs* Please don't tell me you read that crap put out by Hovind?

Ever hear of the Mule?

There are others.

Hmmm can you imagine the outcry if somebody tried to mix chimp and human?

*sighs* Please don't tell me you read that crap put out by Hovind?

Ever hear of the Mule?

There are others.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/south-park-evolution-p1.php

Hmmm can you imagine the outcry if somebody tried to mix chimp and human?What happens on the farm stays on the farm! :eek:

Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Maybe its because you are completely ignorant of the topic.

Hmmm can you imagine the outcry if somebody tried to mix chimp and human?

Yes, he's called George W. Bush.

If you laugh at this, you are hereby sentenced to be raped by Oprah

Yes, he's called George W. Bush.

If you laugh at this, you are hereby sentenced to be frech tickled by Fred Phelps
Oh come now, this is COMPLETELY called for.

Oh come now, this is COMPLETELY called for.

I'd still go for Oprah.

wow.

Epic fail.

I'd still go for Oprah.
You're putting on airs as if there is actually a choice in the matter!

wow.

Epic fail.

Dammit, where's that Price is Right fail sound effect?

Dammit, where's that Price is Right fail sound effect?

Sorry, all i got is the "Press Your Luck" sound effect, with The Whammy.
It's part of my Bedroom Noise Suite.

You're putting on airs as if there is actually a choice in the matter!

True...:(

I'd still go for Oprah.

For your racist evolutionary reasons, no doubt! ;)

For your racist evolutionary reasons, no doubt! ;)

Winner of Thread.

As most people have noted, No evolution is not racist.

Genetic mutations occur.
These either help or hinder the individual.
If they help, the individual lives longer.
If not, the idividual dies sooner (or is hunted easier etc.)
If the individual lives longer, it has more opportunities for offspring, and the gene is passed on.
If not, the oppsoite applies.
Thus beneficial genes become more and more plentiful, and the less beneficial eventually disapear.

Now this implies that some humans are superior in a way. Some are faster, some are taller, some are smarter. To argue with this goes beyond evolution and is a disagreement with what many would call obvious fact.

The mistake however is to assume that some mutations are held by one 'race' and not another. In fact there is serious doubt that race even exists, but ignoring that, any advantage in a person of one race can be passed on to offspring of another 'race' without permeating the original 'race'.

Furthermore what is 'better' in Ethiopia is different to what is 'better' in Norway, as several have pointed out. In Ethiopia pale skin is 'worse' because it burns easier under the harsh sun, whilst in Norway the sun is less harsh. As a result pale skin is not only fine, but nescesary in order to gain enough sunlight to turn colesterol into Vitamin D. This is not a problem in Ethiopia because the sun is so intense that dark skinn filters out enough and the rest passes through to produce Vitamin D.

This is just one example.

Evolution may be elitist, but not racist. This will not end the debate, I know, but I have at least put my opinions forth.

[QUOTE=Conserative Morality;13276870]You've misinterpreted me.According I DON'T BELIVE IN IT! QUOTE]

what you belive is irelevent.

Dammit, where's that Price is Right fail sound effect?

http://ia311541.us.archive.org/0/items/That_Sound_You_Hear_When_You_Lose_On_The_Price_Is_Right/Price_Is_Right_loser_clip.wav

:)

http://ia311541.us.archive.org/0/items/That_Sound_You_Hear_When_You_Lose_On_The_Price_Is_Right/Price_Is_Right_loser_clip.wav

:)

Congradulations, An Winner is You!

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

I originally voted "no" but I now wish to change my answer to "yes", because evolution does indeed promote racism. This is because the theory is racist to anyone who is incapable of reproducing for any reason; because that's the only factor. The theory of evolution doesn't care for any physical characteristics other than those that prevent the continuation of the species- since that is the ultimate goal behind evolutionary development.

Keep in mind there is also considerable debate over whether God created all species, or whether natural evolution shaped species.

In any cause, the data on IQ is out there. Also, the tests are standardized, I'm not sure where you find they aren't.

The study at the very least showed that Black children had the capability to do well on IQ tests, so "race" is not a factor in intelligence.

You *could* argue that collectively Blacks or Latinos or Asians or whatever may be dumber than other "races" but that still doesn't indicate that individually people of those "races" are automatically incapable of acquiring intelligence (many minorities possess PhD's, for example). Environmental concerns play a huge role (if not the only one), so simply assuming "race" indicates one's intellectual capacity completely misses the point.

Furthermore, this goes into the question of "what is intelligence"? Is "intelligence" knowing the 20th digit of pi or is "intelligence" knowing how to build a raft out of logs and mud? Just because someone doesn't succeed on "conventional" methods of assessing intelligence doesn't mean that they're not smart- we all have different skillsets and to ignore that is to frankly ignore reality.

I think the answer to your question is no answer. Some racists may use the THEORY of evolution to their advantage whilst some non-racists might not. It's not the theory that's racist, its the people who are racist. It's not directly a racist theory, but it could indirectly be used as a racist supporting argument. Regardless I'm not sure if I believe in evolution anymore. I've recently converted and am now a devoted Catholic so 1. I believe God made everything whether or not it was through evoltuion. More importantly however I did some reading on Darwin's reports. I was intruiged to find that he said that if we didn't find a living cross species between two(aka cavemen, birdfish, etc.) within the next 100 years that the theory of evolution should be discredited. It's been 100 years and scientists have not yet found any cavemen and birdfish swimming/flying around. Therefor I think I don't believe in evolution anymore.

However something that Darwin was right about was minor evolution. Minor evolution is something quite evident in society and proven aswell(unlike major evolution). You can see it in viruses like the flu and cold that continually mutate. But in terms of natural selection working to create new species over time without creating any cross-species, that doesn't make sense. Maybe natural selection will leave the smarter and stronger animals(and their descendents) alive, but it still doesn't make sense for you to get strong or smart enough to change species.

First of all, Charles Darwin has no say whether or not the scientific community chooses to accept a partiuclar theory- the community as a whole (i.e., the millions of scientists worldwide) does and they still accept the theory so that point is irrelevant.

Second of all, if you have any religious objections to evolution, as a Catholic you are contradicting your own faith. The Vatican has accepted evolution for years, and Pope Benedict once wrote a book explaining how evolution and Catholicism coexist. Surely if the Pope can find no fault in evolution then you as a Catholic should not.

Thirdly, if your argument rests completely on the idea that our "evolutionary ancestors" do not exist today then clearly you haven't been to the zoo. Take a look at the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and tell me they're not similar to us as animals. Furthermore, the existence of nylon eating bacteria and macroevolutionary findings in fruit flies more than attests to documented evidence for evolution (as well as the fossil record). Regardless, though, even if these "evolutionary changes" don't take place quite as radically as you (or Darwin) thought they would it doesn't mean they're not taking place- while no human has yet developed a third arm or eyes in the back of their head, "positive" mutations have been known to develop- see the CCR5 mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5-%CE%9432#CCR5-.CE.9432) for example- in humans. Don't assess evolution based on the ideas of Darwin- a lot has changed since he published the theory in 1859.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

"Races" are artificial constructs. They do not correspond with actual genetically similar groups. There is more genetic variation just in Africa than in all of the rest of the world.

And no, to a large extent, we are no longer evolving, at least not in the same way, because we have separated ourselves from "survival of the fittest."

For us to continue evolving as per Darwin's law, the "less fit," mentally and physically, would have to die off before getting a chance to reproduce.

But today, almost everybody, regardless of their physical or mental prowess, has the chance to have kids. This is true at least here, and in third world countries where child mortality rates are higher, I doubt it very much correlates to who is "fit," or "unfit." More based on chance probably.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

I cannot conceive of how you could be more wrong. Not only do you fail to understand evolution, you fail to understand the term 'racist'.

Originally posted by A Complete Eejit

A really dumb question

Evolution does not really work at a group level but at the level of individual genes. Therefore it is not racist (even if there were more than one human race).

Evolution is about adaptation to being best suited to an environment... The common house roach is more advanced, evolutionarily speaking than mankind is; because it's more adapted to differing enviroments, capable of surviving in elevated radiation levels past humans, can breed faster, consequentially adapt faster, and has survived far longer than mankind in differing environments.Is it? I'm sure there'd be a massive loss in roach population once they can no longer depend on humans for food. Same with rats.

Is it? I'm sure there'd be a massive loss in roach population once they can no longer depend on humans for food. Same with rats.
Actually, I know at least one type of cockroach which can survive at full capacity for 2 weeks off nothing more than the grease from a human fingerprint. Many can live for a month without any food at all.

Hell, they can survive for about two weeks without a head. No joke.

They'll be fine if we all die out.

Yes, it discriminates against christian fundamentalists.

Yeah, but they don't count as people.

Actually, I know at least one type of cockroach which can survive at full capacity for 2 weeks off nothing more than the grease from a human fingerprint. Many can live for a month without any food at all.

Hell, they can survive for about two weeks without a head. No joke.

They'll be fine if we all die out.

Sounds like an ex-girlfriend of mine. :p

Actually, I know at least one type of cockroach which can survive at full capacity for 2 weeks off nothing more than the grease from a human fingerprint.

There has to be an episode of CSI in that.

Hmmm can you imagine the outcry if somebody tried to mix chimp and human?I don't have to, I just finished Crichtons "Next"...

Actually, I know at least one type of cockroach which can survive at full capacity for 2 weeks off nothing more than the grease from a human fingerprint. Many can live for a month without any food at all.

Hell, they can survive for about two weeks without a head. No joke.

They'll be fine if we all die out.
This is indeed true. What kills a roach when it's head is removed is the inability to eat, rather than the actual loss of the head.
There has to be an episode of CSI in that.

A roach ate the DNA evidence, and now we have to track it down and autopsy it.

Actually, I know at least one type of cockroach which can survive at full capacity for 2 weeks off nothing more than the grease from a human fingerprint. Many can live for a month without any food at all.

Hell, they can survive for about two weeks without a head. No joke.

They'll be fine if we all die out.Sure, but the population will most likely decline due to the lack of human contributions. They'll survive, but I doubt they'll be able to thrive as they did when humans were still around.

"Races" are artificial constructs. They do not correspond with actual genetically similar groups. There is more genetic variation just in Africa than in all of the rest of the world.

And no, to a large extent, we are no longer evolving, at least not in the same way, because we have separated ourselves from "survival of the fittest."

For us to continue evolving as per Darwin's law, the "less fit," mentally and physically, would have to die off before getting a chance to reproduce.

But today, almost everybody, regardless of their physical or mental prowess, has the chance to have kids. This is true at least here, and in third world countries where child mortality rates are higher, I doubt it very much correlates to who is "fit," or "unfit." More based on chance probably.
Not to mention liposuction, plastic surgery, contact lenses, and hair dyes have pretty much destroyed the concept that "ugly" people will die out due to the lack of being able to find "mating partners". Many evolutionary rules no longer apply to humans.

Sure, but the population will most likely decline due to the lack of human contributions. They'll survive, but I doubt they'll be able to thrive as they did when humans were still around.
Honestly, I doubt it. It's not like humanity would actually vanish over night, after all. Roaches would be more than capable of adjusting in time to cope with any realistic "die out" of the human species.

Even if we assume some force DID kill all the humans in a given city (say, some sort of biological or chemical agent), the roaches would still have ample organic material to subsist upon.

Remember also that humans expend tremendous amounts of effort at killing and removing pests, and those efforts would disappear along with the humans. Even something as simple as turning on a light will cause most species of roach to flee, but with nobody around to flip that switch the roaches would be able to cover a lot more foraging territory.

Am I the only one who is finding this conversation far more entertaining than the OP's? I should probably stop with the hijack...

Likewise... I'm not sure where to start. :eek:

How about "ZOMGWTFBBQ"? :p

Honestly, I doubt it. It's not like humanity would actually vanish over night, after all. Roaches would be more than capable of adjusting in time to cope with any realistic "die out" of the human species.

Even if we assume some force DID kill all the humans in a given city (say, some sort of biological or chemical agent), the roaches would still have ample organic material to subsist upon.

Remember also that humans expend tremendous amounts of effort at killing and removing pests, and those efforts would disappear along with the humans. Even something as simple as turning on a light will cause most species of roach to flee, but with nobody around to flip that switch the roaches would be able to cover a lot more foraging territory.

Am I the only one who is finding this conversation far more entertaining than the OP's? I should probably stop with the hijack...

Screw that, we need to learn all we can about the roaches and their ways, so we can defeat them when the revolution comes. This is far more important topic than the OP's one.

Honestly, I doubt it. It's not like humanity would actually vanish over night, after all. Roaches would be more than capable of adjusting in time to cope with any realistic "die out" of the human species.

Even if we assume some force DID kill all the humans in a given city (say, some sort of biological or chemical agent), the roaches would still have ample organic material to subsist upon.

Remember also that humans expend tremendous amounts of effort at killing and removing pests, and those efforts would disappear along with the humans. Even something as simple as turning on a light will cause most species of roach to flee, but with nobody around to flip that switch the roaches would be able to cover a lot more foraging territory.

Am I the only one who is finding this conversation far more entertaining than the OP's? I should probably stop with the hijack...

No it's fun. There would also presumably be an increase in available food resources simply because they were not being consumed by humans.

"Races" are artificial constructs. They do not correspond with actual genetically similar groups. There is more genetic variation just in Africa than in all of the rest of the world.

Very true.


And no, to a large extent, we are no longer evolving, at least not in the same way, because we have separated ourselves from "survival of the fittest."

Not remotely true.

We have not, nor can we, separate ourselves from the forces of natural selection. What we can do is influence the criterion for selection.

The ability to run down a boar for food isn't necessarily prized by selection in many human environments these days. But that doesn't mean there's no selective process.


For us to continue evolving as per Darwin's law, the "less fit," mentally and physically, would have to die off before getting a chance to reproduce.

Absolutely incorrect. That doesn't even need to happen "in the wild" for evolution to occur. Selection does not require that the unfit or less fit be unable to reproduce at all.

You've kind of got it backwards. Natural selection is a description of what does happen, not a directive for what should happen.


But today, almost everybody, regardless of their physical or mental prowess, has the chance to have kids. This is true at least here, and in third world countries where child mortality rates are higher, I doubt it very much correlates to who is "fit," or "unfit." More based on chance probably.
But that's just the thing: according to selection, if you're able to reproduce and get your offspring to reach sexual maturity, then you've just established your individual "fitness." Whether or not the traits you possess are desirable to others is beside the point, because--evolutionarily speaking--you just passed the test of selection.

How about "ZOMGWTFBBQ"? :p

I got most of that but BBQ? WTF?

Gahhh the day is gonna come when the whole of humanity talks like this!

Honestly, I doubt it. It's not like humanity would actually vanish over night, after all. Roaches would be more than capable of adjusting in time to cope with any realistic "die out" of the human species.True. This is a hypothetical situation to determine how dependent roaches are on the urban environment for survival.

Even if we assume some force DID kill all the humans in a given city (say, some sort of biological or chemical agent), the roaches would still have ample organic material to subsist upon. Maybe we should look into this. The towns and villages around Chernobyl are probably a good place to determine how a sudden disappearance of the human population would affect species that rely on human waste for survival.

Remember also that humans expend tremendous amounts of effort at killing and removing pests, and those efforts would disappear along with the humans. Even something as simple as turning on a light will cause most species of roach to flee, but with nobody around to flip that switch the roaches would be able to cover a lot more foraging territory.True. But the organic material will eventually run out. In the long run, there probably won't be enough food to sustain the population of roaches.

Am I the only one who is finding this conversation far more entertaining than the OP's? I should probably stop with the hijack...The same thing over and over again gets tiring after a while. It's not much of a hijack, since we're discussing the effects of a dramatic change in the environment on a species.

It's not much of a hijack, since we're discussing the effects of a dramatic change in the environment on a species.



And whether or not that is racist?:D

True. This is a hypothetical situation to determine how dependent roaches are on the urban environment for survival.

Maybe we should look into this. The towns and villages around Chernobyl are probably a good place to determine how a sudden disappearance of the human population would affect species that rely on human waste for survival.

Hmm.

TO THE INTERNETS!


True. But the organic material will eventually run out. In the long run, there probably won't be enough food to sustain the population of roaches.

Well, all that needs to happen is for the roaches to be able to adapt before they run out of the existing organic material. My argument is that they're such good survivors that they'd have plenty of time for this, but I admit I've no experimental data to back me up on that.

And whether or not that is racist?:DMost of the posters here have progressed beyond that silly notion. Why should we be held up by those unwilling to evolve their opinions?

Most of the posters here have progressed beyond that silly notion. Why should we be held up by those unwilling to evolve their opinions?

Heheh now of course my instinct here is to say 'coz it's racist!' but I shall desist. Ohh damn too late!:p

Well, all that needs to happen is for the roaches to be able to adapt before they run out of the existing organic material. My argument is that they're such good survivors that they'd have plenty of time for this, but I admit I've no experimental data to back me up on that.I guess it mainly depends on how long it takes for them to run out of food (in a sense that there is enough to feed a large population of roaches). I'm a bit more pessimistic as to how much time they'd have before the human legacy runs out and how quickly they'd be able to adapt to new food sources.

But we both lack the experimental evidence to support our hypotheses. Curse you SCIENCE!!!

Heheh now of course my instinct here is to say 'coz it's racist!' but I shall desist. Ohh damn too late!:pI think the correct term would be 'opinionated.' ;)

I guess it mainly depends on how long it takes for them to run out of food (in a sense that there is enough to feed a large population of roaches). I'm a bit more pessimistic as to how much time they'd have before the human legacy runs out and how quickly they'd be able to adapt to new food sources.

But we both lack the experimental evidence to support our hypotheses. Curse you SCIENCE!!!

It's simply a matter of finding a few towns with decent roach populations that nobody would miss......

Curse you SCIENCE!!!

Heh come join us my brother, every curse on science is almost a whole point for religion!

I think the correct term would be 'opinionated.' ;)

:eek: *points* BIGOT!;)

Well there is a cockroach discussion forum for those that are interested (or bored with NSG)

http://blattodea.net/

Well there is a cockroach discussion forum for those that are interested (or bored with NSG)

http://blattodea.net/

Wow, the internet has EVERYTHING.

Reading this post triggered an acid flash back so I chose option 3.

Well there is a cockroach discussion forum for those that are interested (or bored with NSG)

http://blattodea.net/

Cockroach discussion forum? I assume that is for discussions about cockroaches. To discuss things with cockroaches, try stormfront.org

* I wish to apologise to any cockroaches reading this who may have been offended by that comment, and also apologise to their friends, parents and pupa. *

Anyway, getting back to the OP:

No.

Apart from anything else, 'more evolved' does not equate to 'better'. Sharks haven't measurably evolved since before the dinosaurs were around, but that doesn't mean humans are entirely superior. Try getting in the water with a mako - then you'll soon see who has the competitive edge and who doesn't.

Apart from anything else, 'more evolved' does not equate to 'better'. Sharks haven't measurably evolved since before the dinosaurs were around, but that doesn't mean humans are entirely superior. Try getting in the water with a mako - then you'll soon see who has the competitive edge and who doesn't.
Another very good point.

In a sense, Newton's Laws apply to life. Unless there's some selective force(s) driving a life form to change, it will tend to stay more or less "at rest" (in the evolutionary sense). Hence, sharks. Also crocodiles, turtles, and many insect species. They don't show much evolutionary change over a very long period of time, simply because there's no reason for them to change...they're succeeding just the way they are!

I still think we're on topic with the cockroach discussion- I mean, it's still about evolution, right?

Another very good point.

In a sense, Newton's Laws apply to life. Unless there's some selective force(s) driving a life form to change, it will tend to stay more or less "at rest" (in the evolutionary sense). Hence, sharks. Also crocodiles, turtles, and many insect species. They don't show much evolutionary change over a very long period of time, simply because there's no reason for them to change...they're succeeding just the way they are!

You might be on to something: that just might be why bugs develop resistance to insecticides so quickly- we keep killing them off!

I do think that crocodiles, sharks, etc. *do* evolve just as quickly but we don't notice it because the crocodiles who don't have a "beneficial" mutation can still survive (much how humans without the CCR5 mutation can live). Bugs killed by the sprays, however, obviously don't- unless they have that beneficial mutation, that is (which is why we notice their evolution more).

Cockroach discussion forum? I assume that is for discussions about cockroaches. To discuss things with cockroaches, try stormfront.org

* I wish to apologise to any cockroaches reading this who may have been offended by that comment, and also apologise to their friends, parents and pupa. *

My pet cockroach Charlie was deeply troubled by your remarks and implored me to tell you that cockroaches in no way promote white supremacy- those nasty spiders do. :p

On a more serious note, I'm surprised sites like Stormfront exist...I'm all for free speech and all but it's amazing we still have people that dumb...meh, if anything, those posts are good for a laugh. :D

Before coming up with crazy ideas about biological processes having bigoted opinions, perhaps OP should learn how to spell "evolution".

Another very good point.

In a sense, Newton's Laws apply to life. Unless there's some selective force(s) driving a life form to change, it will tend to stay more or less "at rest" (in the evolutionary sense). Hence, sharks. Also crocodiles, turtles, and many insect species. They don't show much evolutionary change over a very long period of time, simply because there's no reason for them to change...they're succeeding just the way they are!

Evolutionary inertia? Interesting idea.

Evolutionary inertia? Interesting idea.

That might actually be worth studying. Most changes to physical traits are destructive (the chances of mutation improving an organism are the same as the chances of shooting a car engine while it's running and having improved performance) or non-influential. Every so often, though, one comes along that's a bit beneficial, or beneficial in the right conditions.

As for the OP, it's simple really, and I still don't how people that endorse evolution forget this, but Evolution is about survival of the fittest, not the strongest. Fittest includes many different things. But for humans, let's examine the fact that it is mostly a result of environmental pressure. Europeans, especially those from northern Europe, have more extensive amounts of boy hair as a result of living with HUGE AMOUNTS OF SNOW!!!! If Africa experienced winters the way winter exists in Scandinavia, then I'm sure those in Nairobi would be physically more similar to those in Finland.

Absolutely incorrect. That doesn't even need to happen "in the wild" for evolution to occur. Selection does not require that the unfit or less fit be unable to reproduce at all.

You've kind of got it backwards. Natural selection is a description of what does happen, not a directive for what should happen.


But that's just the thing: according to selection, if you're able to reproduce and get your offspring to reach sexual maturity, then you've just established your individual "fitness." Whether or not the traits you possess are desirable to others is beside the point, because--evolutionarily speaking--you just passed the test of selection.

Then the ones most fit are the ones who prove it by reproducing the most. Either way, it doesn't seem to correlate to physical traits that closely anymore. You're not going to have fewer offspring because of being placed at a disadvantage due to, say, poor eyesight, as now you simply get glasses.

Sure, there is still genetic mutation of course, but in places where the entire population, or near enough reproduces, the change isn't in any real direction, just at random.

Traits that decide how much you reproduce now tend not to be the genetic kind as much as in our ancestors.

Though, this is a side issue.

We do agree that evolution isn't racist, as there is technically only one human race.

Evolutionary inertia? Interesting idea.

Yeah, and as old als the whole evolutionary theory field. The speed of evolution depends on a) the selective pressure, and b) on the amount of genetic variation present in the unit on which the selective pressure acts.

The reason natural selection functions so quickly in microbes (e.g. antibiotics resistance) is the huge amount of variation (due to very short reproduction times and population size) and the huge selective pressure humans apply by pumping any Westerner full of antibiotics.

Yeah, and as old als the whole evolutionary theory field. The speed of evolution depends on a) the selective pressure, and b) on the amount of genetic variation present in the unit on which the selective pressure acts.

The reason natural selection functions so quickly in microbes (e.g. antibiotics resistance) is the huge amount of variation (due to very short reproduction times and population size) and the huge selective pressure humans apply by pumping any Westerner full of antibiotics.

Indeed. Some organisms have very little pressure to change, as they are well adapted for their environment and their environment has remained stable for a long time. An example of this of course would be sharks through the ages.

Yeah, and as old als the whole evolutionary theory field. The speed of evolution depends on a) the selective pressure, and b) on the amount of genetic variation present in the unit on which the selective pressure acts.

The reason natural selection functions so quickly in microbes (e.g. antibiotics resistance) is the huge amount of variation (due to very short reproduction times and population size) and the huge selective pressure humans apply by pumping any Westerner full of antibiotics.

Heh, well there is a reason I never profess to know much about biology but the basics, and that would be that I'm a physicis major.

I do think that crocodiles, sharks, etc. *do* evolve just as quickly but we don't notice it because the crocodiles who don't have a "beneficial" mutation can still survive (much how humans without the CCR5 mutation can live).

Not sure what you're getting at here - the crocodiles, sharks, turtles, pearly nautiluses etc that we have today are pretty much the same as the ones in the fossil record. So modern day Jaws is a pretty much unevolved descendant of the pre-dinosaur era sharks. He may have some odd-looking cousins somewhere in the family tree, but that's another issue. He himself belongs to a species that has not evolved, but is still doing okay.


On a more serious note, I'm surprised sites like Stormfront exist...I'm all for free speech and all but it's amazing we still have people that dumb...meh, if anything, those posts are good for a laugh. :D

Yes, well the problem with free speech is that every silly sod is entitled to it. And there are a lot of silly sods out there.

If you don't believe in evolution, then there's no point in trying to explain it. The result would simply be a headache for anyone who tries.

I love this place so much sometimes it hurts me a little. In here. *points to chest. Then groin*

Not sure what you're getting at here - the crocodiles, sharks, turtles, pearly nautiluses etc that we have today are pretty much the same as the ones in the fossil record. So modern day Jaws is a pretty much unevolved descendant of the pre-dinosaur era sharks. He may have some odd-looking cousins somewhere in the family tree, but that's another issue. He himself belongs to a species that has not evolved, but is still doing okay.

What I mean is that I'm sure shark mutations are just as regular as bacterium mutations (relatively speaking, anyway) but the only reason why shark mutations are not as noticeable as bacterium mutations is because shark populations don't quite have the same amount of turnover as bacterium populations do. Sharks who do not possess a specific mutation aren't at quite a disadvantage simply because external forces have not had much of an effect on their populations, whereas bacetrium who do not possess a specific mutation most likely will not survive because external forces have had a huge effect on their populations. I'm positive that if sharks could be killed just as easily as bacterium are then we'd see mutations at a higher rate than we do now- in much the same way we see the high bacetrium mutation rates, because bacterium have been proven to be "easier" to kill than sharks.

Cockroaches are the ultimate in evolutionary theory - they are the most likely to survive Anything.

Cockroaches suck.

Evolutionary theory, therefore, is not racist.

Cockroaches are the ultimate in evolutionary theory - they are the most likely to survive Anything.

Cockroaches suck.

Evolutionary theory, therefore, is not racist.

Really? Cause in a fight between a cockroach and a shoe, the shoe never loses. Is the cockroach thus more evolved?

No, evolution is not racist. It does have a cruel sense of humour, however.

Well, you are actually the one who's rascist. You are assuming that there is a superior race, and that all humans would eventually become part of it. That's not really how it (evolution) works out.

What are you talking about?

Obviously the Brachiosaur race is superior to the human race. After all, we are much bigger than you guys. Human's don't even have tails.

What? Is this for real?

Evolution happens, it doesn't discriminate on Sex, Race, Colour, Nationallity, Religious belief or any crap like that. It only discriminates in your ability to survive. Racism is a choice, you choose to hate.

I'm not even remotely drunk enough to deal with this thread.

Dammit, where's that Price is Right fail sound effect?

It's called the whammy.

It's called the whammy.

Bo Bo Bobo Boooooooooooooooooooooooo (http://www.qwizx.com/gssfx/usa/tpirhorns.wav)...

:confused:I don't know what to say, like are you asking that its racist to assume evolution exists? This is a confusing matter:(

1. If I could be shown an ounce of evidence of the world being formed by a splitting of an atom/ etc., I would begin to consider it.

2. I would like to know how the laws of science were all evolved? If a few of them were left out at the start of it all, many(if not all) organisms would not evolve properly/ would not be able to form.

3. For all of you intellectuals out there, here is another flaw. When an object explodes, the energy outputted disperses at some point down the line. Now the problem is: The earth, and all planets are said to be created by such- but the destructive manner of any explosion prevents the formation of pretty much anything; let alone the whole freaking universe haha. (I hope that point gets across O_o)


But the thing is, we are all raised a different way. The majority of us are taught to believe evolution to be real, as I was taught creationism. So as the majority of the country is taught something, they will believe it. Now that argument goes both ways though. I am going to stop before I get carried away haha, so please if you have some time - I would like some answers :D

I'm not even remotely drunk enough to deal with this thread.

Well said.

Really? Cause in a fight between a cockroach and a shoe, the shoe never loses. Is the cockroach thus more evolved?

How long can you survive without your head?

1. If I could be shown an ounce of evidence of the world being formed by a splitting of an atom/ etc., I would begin to consider it.

2. I would like to know how the laws of science were all evolved? If a few of them were left out at the start of it all, many(if not all) organisms would not evolve properly/ would not be able to form.

3. For all of you intellectuals out there, here is another flaw. When an object explodes, the energy outputted disperses at some point down the line. Now the problem is: The earth, and all planets are said to be created by such- but the destructive manner of any explosion prevents the formation of pretty much anything; let alone the whole freaking universe haha. (I hope that point gets across O_o)


But the thing is, we are all raised a different way. The majority of us are taught to believe evolution to be real, as I was taught creationism. So as the majority of the country is taught something, they will believe it. Now that argument goes both ways though. I am going to stop before I get carried away haha, so please if you have some time - I would like some answers :D

What do any of these points have to do with whether species evolve into other species? You are arguing about the origin of the universe, not the origin of species.

Your first and third points are (I think) a gross misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. The answer is the Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only change form. When the Big Bang occurred, everything did go rushing out at unimaginable speeds. However, tiny inconsistencies in the expanding matter eventually allowed the matter to condense under the force of gravity. The energy didn't disappear when it dispersed, it just dispersed to other regions of the universe.

Your second point is called the Anthropic Principle, and it has been brought up many times. The answer is that we don't know what determined the laws of the universe, so we can only work with the ones we observe. A great book that covers all of these topics is "A Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawking. He answers the questions of the ages certainly much better than I could, indeed he does it as best as the human race currently can, and does it in a way that the average person can understand.

1. If I could be shown an ounce of evidence of the world being formed by a splitting of an atom/ etc., I would begin to consider it.

2. I would like to know how the laws of science were all evolved? If a few of them were left out at the start of it all, many(if not all) organisms would not evolve properly/ would not be able to form.

3. For all of you intellectuals out there, here is another flaw. When an object explodes, the energy outputted disperses at some point down the line. Now the problem is: The earth, and all planets are said to be created by such- but the destructive manner of any explosion prevents the formation of pretty much anything; let alone the whole freaking universe haha. (I hope that point gets across O_o)


And I'm certainly not drunk enough to deal with this post. So let's just take the tactful route.

Jesus Christ, what the hell? What the bloody fuck does any of that have even remotely to do with the Theory of Evolution, or for that matter, anything whatsoever?

And I'm certainly not drunk enough to deal with this post. So let's just take the tactful route.

Jesus Christ, what the hell? What the bloody fuck does any of that have even remotely to do with the Theory of Evolution, or for that matter, anything whatsoever?

People who adamantly refuse to acknowledge the validity of evolution have a tendency to conflate the specific Theory of Evolution as related to natural selection and speciation with the generalized word "evolution" used as a descriptor for various other scientific processes. Thus by attempting (again, in vain) to cast doubt on such a thing as stellar evolution, they feel they have made some progress casting doubt on the Theory of Evolution, none the wiser that those of us who are more informed are quietly laughing into our sleeves.

1. If I could be shown an ounce of evidence of the world being formed by a splitting of an atom/ etc., I would begin to consider it.

Nobody believes that the Earth was created by splitting an atom. Anyone who says that is either a complete moron or trying to trick you.

2. I would like to know how the laws of science were all evolved? If a few of them were left out at the start of it all, many(if not all) organisms would not evolve properly/ would not be able to form.

Science does not have laws. Science is a process for investigating and evaluation emperical data to draw conclusions about nature. The laws of nature, as best we understand them, did not evolve and do not evolve. Evolution is a process of change on the part of dynamic systems in competition. Since the laws of nature are neither dynamic nor in competition with each other it follows that they do not evolve.

Also, if you "left out" a few of the physical laws of nature the biggest problem wouldn't be the lack of organisms, it would be the lack of matter, or for instance the inability of atoms to overcome the electrostatic force to combine, leading to a universe full of single atoms with no molecules and no significant interaction of any kind.

3. For all of you intellectuals out there, here is another flaw. When an object explodes, the energy outputted disperses at some point down the line. Now the problem is: The earth, and all planets are said to be created by such- but the destructive manner of any explosion prevents the formation of pretty much anything; let alone the whole freaking universe haha. (I hope that point gets across O_o)

The explanation of the Big Bang as an explosion is to make it more clear to laymen, unfortunately it seems to fail here. If you take an object and cause it to explode you are breaking chemical bonds within it to release energy, the same is not true of the Big Bang. The Big Bang represents the spontaneous generation of the total mass/energy of the universe in an infinitesemally small point which would immediately expand like an explosion as a result of the forces acting on that much energy in such a small space.

But the thing is, we are all raised a different way. The majority of us are taught to believe evolution to be real, as I was taught creationism. So as the majority of the country is taught something, they will believe it. Now that argument goes both ways though. I am going to stop before I get carried away haha, so please if you have some time - I would like some answers :D

Science and observation are not affected by upbringing. Your acceptance of scientific findings might be affected, but the truth of those findings is independent of your particular view on it. Also, if you don't want to sound like a completely ignorant and backwards person you should say something like, "the majority of people are taught to believe that modern species diversity is the result of evolution by natural selection, while I was taught that it is the result of divine creation." Evolution is a process, it is neither real nor non-real, it's a concept. We can demonstrate evolution in systems of our own design, all you can argue is that evolution is not the source of species diversity.

How long can you survive without your head?

Not very long, but that's hardly the regular state of affairs and I can survive a lot longer than a cockroach when we both have our heads. So "living without your head" cockroaches 1 humans 0, but living the rest of the time human BIG NUMBER cockroaches small number.

Yes, but I wonder how long humans would be able to survive...or want to survive...in the cockroach's ecological niche. *nod*

1. If I could be shown an ounce of evidence of the world being formed by a splitting of an atom/ etc., I would begin to consider it.

What in the world does this have to do with anything?

2. I would like to know how the laws of science were all evolved? If a few of them were left out at the start of it all, many(if not all) organisms would not evolve properly/ would not be able to form.

Evolution is about life, not principles and concepts. Although, like with living things, the new arise out of combinations of the old in which that which does not serve a purpose withers from neglect and eventually ends up with something that bears little resemblance to the original and suits the current needs much better. But the analogy is a flawed and specious one because evolution doesn't apply to science any more than thermodynamics is cooked up in a pot.

3. For all of you intellectuals out there, here is another flaw. When an object explodes, the energy outputted disperses at some point down the line. Now the problem is: The earth, and all planets are said to be created by such- but the destructive manner of any explosion prevents the formation of pretty much anything; let alone the whole freaking universe haha. (I hope that point gets across O_o)

Lots of things are created in an explosion. Gasses are consumed, new ones are constructed. A volcanic explosion creates some of the most fertile soil in the world. Yes, explosions destroy the thing that explodes, but they create something new in the aftermath.


But the thing is, we are all raised a different way. The majority of us are taught to believe evolution to be real, as I was taught creationism. So as the majority of the country is taught something, they will believe it. Now that argument goes both ways though. I am going to stop before I get carried away haha, so please if you have some time - I would like some answers :D

How you are raised doesn't matter. Science isn't about preferences and beliefs. It's about reason and evidence. You've got no evidence for creationism. All you're saying here is "I like my ignorance and you can't learn me out of it."

The explanation of the Big Bang as an explosion is to make it more clear to laymen, unfortunately it seems to fail here. If you take an object and cause it to explode you are breaking chemical bonds within it to release energy, the same is not true of the Big Bang. The Big Bang represents the spontaneous generation of the total mass/energy of the universe in an infinitesemally small point which would immediately expand like an explosion as a result of the forces acting on that much energy in such a small space.

It should also be noted that the validity of the Big Bang (i.e., "what caused the Big Bang") has no bearing on the Theory of Evolution- or the Age of the Earth for that matter- because neither theory is concerned with the specific beginnings.

Just figured I'd clarify that.

What I mean is that I'm sure shark mutations are just as regular as bacterium mutations (relatively speaking, anyway) but the only reason why shark mutations are not as noticeable as bacterium mutations is because shark populations don't quite have the same amount of turnover as bacterium populations do. Sharks who do not possess a specific mutation aren't at quite a disadvantage simply because external forces have not had much of an effect on their populations, whereas bacetrium who do not possess a specific mutation most likely will not survive because external forces have had a huge effect on their populations. I'm positive that if sharks could be killed just as easily as bacterium are then we'd see mutations at a higher rate than we do now- in much the same way we see the high bacetrium mutation rates, because bacterium have been proven to be "easier" to kill than sharks.

Oh, shark mutations must be occuring, sure. But the factors which kill off the 'less fitted' individuals have not been there. Therefore, the various species remain fairly unevolved.

Getting back to cockroaches vs humans - who would do better in the aftermath of a nuclear war? Cockroaches would. The same applies to most other kinds of major disasters, especially those involving radioactivity.

I just stumbled on this article on the BBC website which suggests that human evolution is speeding up

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7132794.stm

seems like a bit of a speculative claim to me but then I am not an expert.

Humor Break:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Evolution.gif

:D

3. For all of you intellectuals out there, here is another flaw. When an object explodes, the energy outputted disperses at some point down the line. Now the problem is: The earth, and all planets are said to be created by such- but the destructive manner of any explosion prevents the formation of pretty much anything; let alone the whole freaking universe haha. (I hope that point gets across O_o)

If you're talking about how dispersing particles come together to form planets, that's gravity's fault.

If you're talking about how dispersing particles come together to form planets, that's gravity's fault.

It's kind of like how your rice crispies always float in clusters. But on a much larger scale. :)

If you're talking about how dispersing particles come together to form planets, that's gravity's fault.

No I think he means the destructive force of the big bang?

If you're talking about how dispersing particles come together to form planets, that's gravity's fault.

The "Big Bang" was an expansion of the universe, it should never be confused with an explosion as we know explosions, which occurs IN the universe. AN explosion has a center point, and creates movement, the big bang does not (not "did", it is technically still occurring). When the universe itself is expanding, there is no velocity imparted to the objects in it, only an apparent velocity. Ergo, it is a simple thing for gravity to overcome. As a cheap and crude analogy, put spots on a balloon and inflate the balloon. The spots are not moving across the balloon. They have no velocity relative to the balloon, and there is no kinetic energy in their apparent movement. You can blow your lungs out, you will never blow a spot from the front side of the balloon to the back. Relative to the balloon, they do not move at all. An ant standing on a spot on the balloon, however, will see all the other spots rapidly moving away from his spot. His ability to observe is limited, and so we can we understand his confusion between an inflation of the balloon, and an explosion causing the spots to move.

No I think he means the destructive force of the big bang?

Which didn't exist on account of it not being a damn explosion.

Which didn't exist on account of it not being a damn explosion.

Indeed!

Humor Break:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Evolution.gif

:D

Thank God for that.

Science does not have laws. Science is a process for investigating and evaluation emperical data to draw conclusions about nature.

Incidentally, science does have laws. But scientific laws aren't really rules(this will happen this way because this law says so), they're descriptions of natural phenomona(the law says that something happens this way because, as far as we can tell, that's the way it happens). Things like the Laws of Thermodynamics.

It's kind of like how your rice crispies always float in clusters. But on a much larger scale. :)

That's actually cohesion between the individual rice crispie pieces. Not gravity.

:D

That's actually cohesion between the individual rice crispie pieces. Not gravity.

:D


*pelts you with rice crispies* :p

*pelts you with rice crispies* :p

They're not suspended in a liquid, therefore they will not stick to me. Nyah, nyah.

*pelts you with rice crispies* :p

Hey! You can't do that!




You forgot the milk.

They're not suspended in a liquid, therefore they will not stick to me. Nyah, nyah.

You have some stuck in your hair. :D

Incidentally, science does have laws. But scientific laws aren't really rules(this will happen this way because this law says so), they're descriptions of natural phenomona(the law says that something happens this way because, as far as we can tell, that's the way it happens). Things like the Laws of Thermodynamics.

They're also all, on some level, totally wrong.

You have some stuck in your hair. :D

Crew cut. Fail. :D

They're also all, on some level, totally wrong.

Buh? How so?

Crew cut. Fail. :D

I see we're going to have to get creative...

*fetches a giant tesla coil*

They're also all, on some level, totally wrong.

The Laws of Thermodynamics in particular can be shown to be inaccurate, which is why they've been encapsulated in Statistical Mechanics. They can be shown to simply be a classical limit to "quantum Thermo."

I believe it was Leeky (sp?) who by the study of the new field "genetics" (at his time it was new) noted that in humans a child could be lighter skin toned than the lightest parent but no darker than the darkest parent, which led him to search Africa to sucsessfuly discover fossils of early humans that predated anything that had been discovered at his time. The genetic cue that led him there would tend to imply that the species is growing paler as the generations pass, is that racist? Personaly I dont see it as such, but I suppose one could.

-revscrj

I see we're going to have to get creative...

*fetches a giant tesla coil*

*throws a bucket of water on LG once he gets the Tesla coil started*

*throws a bucket of water on LG once he gets the Tesla coil started*

:eek:

*is shocked at your behavior*

:eek:

*is shocked at your behavior*

Damn right. Zzzzzing.

They're also all, on some level, totally wrong.


Moreover, even when correct, dont account for the slow evolution of those principle as the arc of universal expansion alters them.

The Laws of Thermodynamics in particular can be shown to be inaccurate, which is why they've been encapsulated in Statistical Mechanics. They can be shown to simply be a classical limit to "quantum Thermo."

Damned quantum physics! Ruining what little I know about regular physics!

*shakes fist in the general direction of quantum thingies in the room*

Damn right. Zzzzzing.

Ow!

*sizzles*

I'm okay. Fortunately, the bolt hit me in the crotch. :)

Damned quantum physics! Ruining what little I know about regular physics!

*shakes fist in the general direction of quantum thingies in the room*

You think that's bad? Try taking a course in it.

Ow!

*sizzles*

I'm okay. Fortunately, the bolt hit me in the crotch. :)

Advantage of having Balls of Steel: Your testicles will take the brunt of any lightning bolts that might hit you.

Disadvantage of having Balls of Steel: Your testicles will take the brunt of any lightning bolts that might hit you.

You think that's bad? Try taking a course in it.

As long as quantum computers remain a pipe dream/something that doesn't work if you look at them I'll never have to :)

1. If I could be shown an ounce of evidence of the world being formed by a splitting of an atom/ etc., I would begin to consider it.That makes no sense. Splittings of atoms and formation of worlds has nothing to do with evolution.

2. I would like to know how the laws of science were all evolved? If a few of them were left out at the start of it all, many(if not all) organisms would not evolve properly/ would not be able to form.What the?

3. For all of you intellectuals out there, here is another flaw. When an object explodes, the energy outputted disperses at some point down the line. Now the problem is: The earth, and all planets are said to be created by such- but the destructive manner of any explosion prevents the formation of pretty much anything; let alone the whole freaking universe haha. (I hope that point gets across O_o)It does, and its also irrelevant, since we're not discussing theories on how earth was created.

Buh? How so?

Basically, none of them work on the quantum level. The 2LoT comes closest to working, IIRC, but even it falls apart eventually, although you can blame causality for part of that.

Basically, none of them work on the quantum level. The 2LoT comes closest to working, IIRC, but even it falls apart eventually, although you can blame causality for part of that.

Not even the 0th Law? Awww, but that was my favourite.

3. For all of you intellectuals out there, here is another flaw. When an object explodes, the energy outputted disperses at some point down the line. Now the problem is: The earth, and all planets are said to be created by such- but the destructive manner of any explosion prevents the formation of pretty much anything; let alone the whole freaking universe haha. (I hope that point gets across O_o)


Actually the most "destructive" forces in the universe are creative. Look at a black hole: matter is pulled toward it so fast that when density finally starts slowing it the matter behind it slams into it w/ enough force to create atomic reactions which form higher elements that the (mostly) hydrogen being sucked in, would not. At the poles there are jets of mater being shot off at nearly the speed of light which eventually slow to form nebulae wherein stars will be born. Speaking of nebulae, as the gasses gather into super massive unstable stars which explode, the same effect occurs seeding the new systems with the complex elements that create the possibility for life to exist. One could in fact say that WITHOUT the "destructive" force of explosions life wouldnt be possible.

BTW: as an fyi I believe in a created universe that is evolving- in a nutshell: that the divine operates via physics makes it no less miraculous.
-revscrj

Incidentally, science does have laws. But scientific laws aren't really rules(this will happen this way because this law says so), they're descriptions of natural phenomona(the law says that something happens this way because, as far as we can tell, that's the way it happens). Things like the Laws of Thermodynamics.

What you're describing aren't laws of science, but rather laws from science. The difference may seem subtle but it is important. We arrive at our understanding of the way the universe works and the laws of nature by using scientific techniques, but these laws are not created by or for science, they are merely observed with science.

Your example proves my point quite nicely. The laws of thermodynamics provide a framework for predicting behavior and are the result of years of careful scientific research.

BTW: as an fyi I believe in a created universe that is evolving- in a nutshell: that the divine operates via physics makes it no less miraculous.
-revscrj

This seems to be a fairly popular idea among much of the scientific community now-a-days. I've also heard the idea that God (in whatever form) merely created the laws of the universe and that sat back to watch it grow. I really think that there is no major conflict between religion and scientific understanding if people are willing to accept that their understanding of religious truth is less than perfect.

Damned quantum physics! Ruining what little I know about regular physics!

*shakes fist in the general direction of quantum thingies in the room*

Newtonian physics unite.

What you're describing aren't laws of science, but rather laws from science. The difference may seem subtle but it is important. We arrive at our understanding of the way the universe works and the laws of nature by using scientific techniques, but these laws are not created by or for science, they are merely observed with science.

Your example proves my point quite nicely. The laws of thermodynamics provide a framework for predicting behavior and are the result of years of careful scientific research.


Dontcha just love semantics!

Dontcha just love semantics!

It's more an issue of the refinement of science and the scientific community over time. You rarely see any Laws introduced in the 20th century and beyond. Most of them are artifacts of physics work in the 17 and 1800s, and largely because many of them, i.e. Newton, were arrogant enough to believe they had the answer.

Dontcha just love semantics!

I do actually, and I think more people should spend time thinking about semantics rather that assuming that everyone knows exactly what they mean all the time. Messages are only as precise as the words we use to encode them and until people realize this and start using words more carefully, we will continue to struggle with misunderstanding and confusion.

I do actually, and I think more people should spend time thinking about semantics rather that assuming that everyone knows exactly what they mean all the time. Messages are only as precise as the words we use to encode them and until people realize this and start using words more carefully, we will continue to struggle with misunderstanding and confusion.

Heh so when you say 'encode' did you actually mean to say convey?

Heh so when you say 'encode' did you actually mean to say convey?

I'm far from perfect, but I did mean encode. I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about words as commonly understood code used to represent thoughts and objects. I think convey would have made the message clear as well, but which is better is difficult at best to determine. Unfortunately language is very personal and different people understand words differently, so even if a particular choice of words seems to encapsulate the speakers intended meaning perfectly that means is distorted by others who hear it simply because they understand the words to mean slightly different things.

I'm far from perfect, but I did mean encode. I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about words as commonly understood code used to represent thoughts and objects. I think convey would have made the message clear as well, but which is better is difficult at best to determine. Unfortunately language is very personal and different people understand words differently, so even if a particular choice of words seems to encapsulate the speakers intended meaning perfectly that means is distorted by others who hear it simply because they understand the words to mean slightly different things.

No I fully agree with you. Just as we can talk about the laws of science or the laws from science and each know what we mean!:p

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?
You are mistaken, but, to be fair, this is a common mistake, because frankly "evolution" is not a good name for the process in question. "Change" or "differentiation" would be much more accurate. The Theory of Evolution does not say that organisms get better - it only says that they change. Indeed, there is no such thing as an absolute "better" in nature. What is the "best" animal? The "best" plant? Which is "better" - a penguin or a butterfly?

Living beings change in order to adapt to their environment. A lion is adapted to the savannah, while a whale is adapted to the sea. Drop a lion in the ocean or bring up a whale on the savannah and they won't be doing so well. Neither of them can be said to be "better" - they are just different.

What I'm saying is that if evoloution WAS true then there would be a superior race. But there isn't a superior race because evoloution is fake. And to this day still unproven.

I consider myself and my race/species/whatever the hell you're arguing to be pretty damn superior to Neanderthals, thankyouverymuch.

Evolution is no more racist than gravity is sexist. Neither is a conscious entity, and can therefore have no intentions behind its workings.

Also, the laws of science are simply human constructs that provide a structured framework for discovering the laws of nature. More semantics here I know, but I think it is an important distinction.

Wow, the internet has EVERYTHING.

Hall-e-ju-jah.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Evolution is not racist.
We are still evolving; we're much taller than our ancestors were (check out the sizes of suits of armor in museums. I'm five foot tall, and the armor would not have fit me (I would have been tall for many of them) -- a man of six feet would have been considered a giant.

We had a use for the appendix once; it changed.

We had a use for the appendix once; it changed.

I still do! :(

Evolution is not racist.
We are still evolving; we're much taller than our ancestors were

i'm not sure i follow your argument. would 'evolutionary racism' (whatever the hell that is) necessitate that we stopped evolving?

also, we only just recently regained and started surpassing the heights of our ancestors - there doesn't seem to have been much selection on human height recently, just better nutrition and childhood medical care.

3) we are all slowly becoming goo due to no pressure from natural selection :)

Science would like to have a word with you.

http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/12/11/0428202.shtml

I voted NO, although I see the authors point. Racism is an often misused term. It means the inherent and often bigoted and hateful belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. Evolution doesn't establish that people with darker pigment are less or more advanced as a breed of the species, only that they are different.

At the risk of sounding "racist" I will add, it is scientifically conclusive that certain races have superior attributes over others, and certain races are inferior in some respects to others. This is just nature, and nature isn't racist.

From a 'Godly Believer' standpoint, there should be no such thing as race, because we were all descendants of the same two people. Of course, don't tell this to Jesse Jackson!

I voted NO, although I see the authors point. Racism is an often misused term. It means the inherent and often bigoted and hateful belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. Evolution doesn't establish that people with darker pigment are less or more advanced as a breed of the species, only that they are different.

At the risk of sounding "racist" I will add, it is scientifically conclusive that certain races have superior attributes over others, and certain races are inferior in some respects to others. This is just nature, and nature isn't racist.

Look kids the Spirit of the Confederacy lives On!

But, seriously, what "scientifically conclusive" evidence can you point to that certain races have superior or inferior attributes. (I would note that it is an active debate in many relative fields over whether there is such a thing as race to begin with.)

From a 'Godly Believer' standpoint, there should be no such thing as race, because we were all descendants of the same two people. Of course, don't tell this to Jesse Jackson!

Having spent his life seeking equality for people of all races and skin colors, I don't think Reverend Jackson would be upset by the viewpoint that we are all equal in God's eye.

I only bothered to read the first six pages before I got bored, did anyone bother to point out that evolution can't be racist, because models are incapable of belief?

Not even the 0th Law? Awww, but that was my favourite.

I always hated the zero law, because as I read it it essentially boils down to

If a = b, and b = c, a = c. I hate it when things like that get names that I have to remember, I'm looking at you Rolle's Theorem...

We are still evolving; we're much taller than our ancestors were (check out the sizes of suits of armor in museums.

It's not actually that simple and straightforward - average heights have varied over the course of human history, but there hasn't been any general trend.

Which reminds me...
People seem to imagine evolutionary change like the diagram on the right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
The diagram gives a misleading impression that there have been simple changes from A to B to C. A straightforward ladder-like progression, which I suspect encourages the mistaken belief that 'more evolved=better' and gives creationists plenty of material for dumb strawman arguments. Google 'horse evolution' and you'll see what I mean.

A diagram showing horse evolution should look more like this:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~natmus/lifeThroughTime/Cenoz_Horses/index.htm

What you're describing aren't laws of science, but rather laws from science. The difference may seem subtle but it is important. We arrive at our understanding of the way the universe works and the laws of nature by using scientific techniques, but these laws are not created by or for science, they are merely observed with science.
This is exactly what I said, except you're putting more emphasis of the laws being descriptions of the workings of the universe. The laws that govern the workings of the universe are distinct from scientific laws. Scientific laws are created in an attempt to match those universal laws, so that we might further understand the universe and use that understanding to our advantage.

Newtonian physics unite.
Only if an force of appropriate magnitude acts on us.
Hall-e-ju-jah.
Praise be to Al Gore!
I still do! :(
I keep gold in mine :)
I voted NO, although I see the authors point. Racism is an often misused term. It means the inherent and often bigoted and hateful belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. Evolution doesn't establish that people with darker pigment are less or more advanced as a breed of the species, only that they are different.

At the risk of sounding "racist" I will add, it is scientifically conclusive that certain races have superior attributes over others, and certain races are inferior in some respects to others. This is just nature, and nature isn't racist.

From a 'Godly Believer' standpoint, there should be no such thing as race, because we were all descendants of the same two people. Of course, don't tell this to Jesse Jackson!
Incidentally, didn't someone discover that mitochondrial DNA suggests we're all descended from one of 7 women?
I always hated the zero law, because as I read it it essentially boils down to

If a = b, and b = c, a = c. I hate it when things like that get names that I have to remember, I'm looking at you Rolle's Theorem...

I like it, because it reminds me that even the most simple of things need to have be taken into account. It's like taking about 300 pages of Principia Mathematica to prove addition.

the last 6000 years, we humans are less and less natural beings, and more artificial. we build houses, have elections, marry, have religions , drive cars and make space ships,and sacred the right that everyone can procreate with anyone . that is not natural, that is against evolution. if we were natural beings, I would fight my brother, because only the stronger of us can procreate with an other female. evolution is finished and done. thats a good thing, because i belive that every born human being has the right for a prosper life, no matter what his genetic predispositions are.

the last 6000 years, we humans are less and less natural beings, and more artificial. we build houses, have elections, marry, have religions , drive cars and make space ships,
And none of that has anything to do with evolution.
and sacred the right that everyone can procreate with anyone .
And that's true of other animals too
that is not natural
Then how did it happen?
that is against evolution.
No it isn't. It has nothing to do with evolution.
if we were natural beings, I would fight my brother, because only the stronger of us can procreate with an other female.
Wrong.
evolution is finished and done.
Wrong.
thats a good thing, because i belive that every born human being has the right for a prosper life, no matter what his genetic predispositions are.
You can't escape your genes, no matter what you believe. They've shaped you who are to a considerable extent, whether you like it or not.

Evolution is not racist.
We are still evolving; we're much taller than our ancestors were (check out the sizes of suits of armor in museums. I'm five foot tall, and the armor would not have fit me (I would have been tall for many of them) -- a man of six feet would have been considered a giant.

We had a use for the appendix once; it changed.

so what you are saying is that while not racist, evolution is sizeist?

I only bothered to read the first six pages before I got bored, did anyone bother to point out that evolution can't be racist, because models are incapable of belief?

Heheh yeah it is well known that a lack of thought as well as a stick thin body is conducive to getting a job as a model!

the last 6000 years, we humans are less and less natural beings, and more artificial. we build houses, have elections, marry, have religions , drive cars and make space ships,and sacred the right that everyone can procreate with anyone . that is not natural, that is against evolution. if we were natural beings, I would fight my brother, because only the stronger of us can procreate with an other female. evolution is finished and done. thats a good thing, because i belive that every born human being has the right for a prosper life, no matter what his genetic predispositions are.


All of which is natural behavior for our species!:D

And none of that has anything to do with evolution.

While the original poster was incorrect in his final assertion that evolution has in fact "ended" for the human race (which isn't an unreasonable thing to believe, but the point of this article is ultimately that it's apparently incorrect), the things he mentioned do play a role in human evolution.

All evolution is ultimately spurred on by the environment we live in, that includes the environment we create for ourselves.

While the original poster was incorrect in his final assertion that evolution has in fact "ended" for the human race (which isn't an unreasonable thing to believe, but the point of this article is ultimately that it's apparently incorrect), the things he mentioned do play a role in human evolution.

All evolution is ultimately spurred on by the environment we live in, that includes the environment we create for ourselves.

Evolution is spurred by genetic mutation, which may be the result of our environment, or a number of other things. Mutations will be spread or not depending on how they affect the organism's ability to survive and mate.

To suggest that the environment spurs evolution is equivalent to suggesting that birds have wings because they jumped out of trees and off cliffs, or that because humans use computers so much, we'll evolve some way of being better able to use computers.

This is exactly what I said, except you're putting more emphasis of the laws being descriptions of the workings of the universe. The laws that govern the workings of the universe are distinct from scientific laws. Scientific laws are created in an attempt to match those universal laws, so that we might further understand the universe and use that understanding to our advantage.

I was trying to emphasize the fact that science is a process seperate from the results it yields. Science is a framework for evaluating information, nothing more. When someone sees a consistent trend in the information they're observing scientifically they can propose a "law" that earns general acceptance if nobody can disprove it and if it provides accurate predictions of behavior. It would be nonsense of the highest order to suggest that we could observe and codify "laws" in the behavior of science since science does not behave at all. Laws of motion, on the other hand, are scientifically established (though admittedly limited) but they are not laws of science, they are laws of motion arrived at by the scientific method.

It all comes down to a question of what the information is and how we get it. Science gets us the information and once we have it we write the "laws" based on what the scientifically gathered information tells us about the world. It's all very convoluted, but let me assure you that there are no laws of science and that in fact there can be no laws written to describe the behavior of science in its current form.