Theory of evolution

Vaporeons_Rage · March 23, 2003, 01:15

I'm already into modern times and I havent been able to get it o_O

VJ · March 23, 2003, 04:03

Hey, some people still don't believe it in the US...

Sava · March 23, 2003, 18:12

Just look in the Civilpedia and research what you need to get it

mrboo123 · March 24, 2003, 08:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaporeons_Rage
I'm already into modern times and I havent been able to get it o_O

funny, I think you need the tech its on to get to modern age...

Jamski · March 24, 2003, 08:47

Then someone else has built it, perhaps? The tech (scientific method) cannot be skipped over to reach Modern Age.

-Jam

Sava · March 24, 2003, 12:00

Yeah, someone might have built it. It's easy to miss if you have wonder initiation turned off.

Spec · March 24, 2003, 12:04

It's not a necessary thec I think to get to the next age. But if you dont have it yet, just buy it, dont research it...it'll be a waste of time.

Spec.

Divvy · March 28, 2003, 09:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
Hey, some people still don't believe it in the US...

Nor do I believe in it. It's just a THEORY, there is no such thing as "law of evolution". Some parts of the theory are backed up with scientific evidence, such as species can evolve "within" a certain boundary of their specie, but not into other species. (a dog can evolve to another type of dog but not into a cat/bird or whatever)

There is no proof that apes could evolve into humans etc... such theories are just claimed to be true cause they can't find any real scientific evidence of how us humans ended up here. There are lots of arguments why this can impossibly be the case, some arguments against this theory are very convincing and can't be dismissed that easily.

Dida · March 28, 2003, 13:01

Being a theory doesn't mean it's factual. Those theories that we know to be true is called theorems or laws, etc.

Sava · March 28, 2003, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
Being a theory doesn't mean it's factual. Those theories that we know to be true is called theorems or laws, etc.

I think Tuomerehu's point was that people flat out reject evolution in its entirety in the face of the evidence that support it because of the a religious myth they were taught at a young age.

Dominae · March 28, 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
Being a theory doesn't mean it's factual.

True.

Quote:

Those theories that we know to be true is called theorems or laws, etc.

Sorry if this is off-topic:

It is not possible to prove any scientific theory "true" or "false". The word 'theorem' is reserved for mathematics, where results never start out as theories (and if they do, they either get proved, get disproved, or go into the "puzzle" category). The word "law" is horribly misleading and arrogant to apply to any scientific theory, since it implies knowledge of the true structure of things, which is not really available to us. The source of the implication is that laws cannot, by definition, be shown to be "incorrect". The "law" of gravitation, for example, is really a theory. The theory of evolution is aptly named.

Dominae

Divvy · March 30, 2003, 12:17

Well alot of people do consider the theory of evolution to be "factual", for some darwinism is their religion.

I read somewhere that at some university people who did not "believe" in the theory of evolution because of their religious convictions failed the course even if they understood the theory fully and othervice passed the course.

I donno if this is common practise or not.

From what I've gathered I believe there is no such thing as what is portrayed by those so common pictures of a fish jumping out of the sea, eventually turning into a human being.

I can't see how stuff could randomly evolve to all the species that exists today, there is no convincing proof of that either.

btw I do believe in the Bible. You say beliving in religious "myths" (God) is nonsense, but find it easily believable that this enormous universe with all it's complicated life forms could suddenly just randomly "evolve" to what it is today out of nothing?!

Fosse · March 30, 2003, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Divvy
I read somewhere that at some university people who did not "believe" in the theory of evolution because of their religious convictions failed the course even if they understood the theory fully and othervice passed the course.

A few weeks or months ago it was in the news that a biology professor at a university would not write letters of recommendation for students trying to get into Biology graduate programs if they didn't believe in evolution. His reasoning was that modern biology puts a lot of stock in evolution, and if you don't agree with that theory then you can't agree with a huge portion of the current thinking.

I think tha tthis is what you're refering to. (though we could be talking about two seperate things)

It's not all that common, I don't believe. Otherwise this guy wouldn't have gotten into the news.

David Murray · March 30, 2003, 14:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Divvy

btw I do believe in the Bible. You say beliving in religious "myths" (God) is nonsense, but find it easily believable that this enormous universe with all it's complicated life forms could suddenly just randomly "evolve" to what it is today out of nothing?!

You find it easier to believe that a big man in the sky waved his magic wand and made everything in a week than to believe that humans evolved from monkeys (who have something like 99 per cent of our DNA), and birds evolved from prehistoric winged dinosaurs (again, sharing much of the same traits)? And what of the evidence sicentists have that the earth is indeed millions of years old?

I've always thought of the Bible as a kind of allegory. It made such an impact on ancient peoples that it lingers even today, but one should never think it anything more than an ancient attempt to explain human existence, and it should not be considered more scientifically 'sound' than the theory of evolution and subsequent scientific discoveries which reinforce it.

As a matter of 'belief', rather than science, then of course any person can believe in their religion. We all need our spiritual and moral reassurances.

Captain THC · March 31, 2003, 23:12

The Bible is full of crap.

badams52 · March 31, 2003, 23:19

*sniff sniff sniff sniff* Hmm, this thread reaks of DL/Troll. And shouldn't this thread be moved over to the OT thread now?

Ozymandias · April 1, 2003, 01:27

Epistemology -- the study of how we know anything -- long ago gave up trying to "prove" or "disprove" anything (part of the problem may be hinted at by Godel's theorem, that the elements of a set cannot, in themselves, fully define that set).

Generally -- simply -- the explanation ("theory") with the greatest heuristic power (i.e., that which explains the most phenomena under question) is taken to be "true". The only place "belief" enters in is whether or not a cogent argument can be made for or against data fitting within the given theoretical framework.

... Which means that evolution is "true". It is observed at work (famously, on micro-time levels -- years compared to eons) in the predominance of moth's wings' colors in polluted areas as well as the elongation and/or shortening of Gallapagos finchs' beaks.

Also, contrary to some common opinion, the geological record is chock-full of intermediary forms between "original" and "evolved" creatures. Sequence of these creatures' fossils is performed by carbon dating analysis etc. -- and (here I paraphrase) it's not as though there are two sets of the laws of physics. If you don't believe in carbon dating then you shouldn't believe that elevators work.

IIRC the state of Kansas recently -- and briefly -- made the teaching of the "theory" of evolution optional; early in the 20th century, the Kansas state legislature also legislated a finite number for pi.

-Oz

The Templar · April 1, 2003, 12:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandias
IIRC the state of Kansas recently -- and briefly -- made the teaching of the "theory" of evolution optional; early in the 20th century, the Kansas state legislature also legislated a finite number for pi.

-Oz

Old Soviet Joke:

Comissar: What is 2+2?
Mathematician: What does the party need 2+2 to be, comrade?

I knew Georgia was in the Soviet Union, but Kansas too?

As for Bible-man up there:

-Deception is immoral. God is perfectly moral. Ergo, God is not a deceiver

-The fossil record supports evolution, but disproves creationism. So if evolution were false, God would be a deceiver because God falsified the fossil record. But God is not a deceiver. Ergo, creationism is false and the case for evolution is at least as strong as the support from the fossil record

So suck it!

Azeem · April 1, 2003, 13:45

If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

Ozymandias · April 1, 2003, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Azeem
If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

... Because we aren't trying hard enough?

The Templar · April 1, 2003, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Azeem
If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

Evolution does not select for smart, it selects for survivability. And those two are sometimes at odds ...

Ozymandias · April 1, 2003, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

Evolution does not select for smart, it selects for survivability. And those two are sometimes at odds ...

That's what I meant by "not trying hard enough" -- frontal lobes seem to metaphorically be the fly in evolution's ointment. Our self-interest is rarely enlightened; then again, perhaps if it was, then we would no longer be human as we understand the term ...

Frontal lobes: blessing or curse?

-Oz

Kuciwalker · April 5, 2003, 19:12

Because we're incapable of being more than marginally self-aware hormone-driven apes.

Well, at least us guys

Jaguar · April 5, 2003, 21:51

Threadjack, plus

galore for all of those who know the meaning of that smiley.

MotownDennis · April 5, 2003, 23:53

Seems to me like everyone is assuming there are only two possiblities. Why do we have to pick one or the other? Is it so inconceivable that BOTH Creationism and Evolution could have happened?

Ozymandias · April 6, 2003, 01:31

Quote:

Originally posted by MotownDennis
Seems to me like everyone is assuming there are only two possiblities. Why do we have to pick one or the other? Is it so inconceivable that BOTH Creationism and Evolution could have happened?

As stated -- yes, impossible. HOWEVER, I've always assumed that a Divine Plan (being Divine, vast beyond our comprehension, etc.) could be enacted any way the hypothetical Divinity chose, including starting with a Big Bang and letting self-awareness come along but slowly. How can this posssibily then diminish either this hypothetical Divinity or its spark of manifestation in each of us?

Cosmologically, Epistemologically, & Thread-Jackingly Yours,

Oz

Sir Hawkeye · April 6, 2003, 02:01

Yep, stick me in the Evolution camp, with the supposition that someone had to come along to make it all go Bang.

It's hard to believe the Fundies, because after so many flawed pseudo-scientific arguments, you tend to write them off as just another boy who cried 'Ape!'

BlueWaldo · April 6, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandias If you don't believe in carbon dating then you shouldn't believe that elevators work.

Then tomorrow I start using the stairs.

David Murray · April 6, 2003, 10:35

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueWaldo

Then tomorrow I start using the stairs.

That's the spirit!

And whoever said that religion halts the advance of progress...?

Azeem · April 6, 2003, 11:13

And whoever said that religion halts the advance of progress...?

It really depends on what religion. Some religions are suspicious of scientific learning (such as Medieval Christianity) while some embrace it (like Islam during the Middle Ages). Then there are some that are neither suspicious nor interested...