Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (27154)	12/20/1998 3:39:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

LOL- the biggest exponent of the solar system revolving (I assume this is what you meant to say) around the earth- was the Catholic church. So much for the infallibility of the Pope. You need not be convinced of the theory of evolution, it is not a religion you need to believe it is just a theory and since you seem a bit confused I will define theory for you-1:the analysis of a set of facts 2:abstract thought: speculation- I will now skip to *6a: hypothesis assumed* for the sake of argument or investigation or b: an unproved assumption: conjecture.** The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, an assumption based on a given set of facts. Theories- unlike religions- are mutable, one of the great strengths of science- and the theory of evolution could change if the evidence changes. My guess is you have never taken an earth history class or an anthropology class- have you ever taken a college level biology class? If not, how could you think yourself capable to evaluate the fossil evidence that has been found? Have you ever seen the fossil record of the horse? From Eohippus to the present day? Remarkable- I remember seeing pictures of it as a child at the La Brea tar pits, of course I belive the record was less complete than it is now- what do you make of that? Once you have studied comparative anatomy (I think perhaps you have not?) you might be struck by the proliferation of organ systems as one tiptoes up the phylums. One might be struck by incidences of parallel evolution- as in the case of the squid/octopus eye and our own eye- very similar apparatuses but of completely different origin. One might see how every niche in nature is a void waiting to be filled, and one might marvel at the speed with which organisms adapt to fill these voids. Bacteria are the handiest examples of this- since their lifespans are so short. The antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of evolution at work- at least on a bacterial level. Does that prove it on a human scale? Absolutely not- but it is just that little extra bit of evidence to add to the evidentiary pile. Please be clear that the realization of science's errors is its STRENGTH. Science admits its errors and moves on. Religion has a much more difficult time doing this. After all for you Christ isn't a theorem, poor duck, you actually are invested in the belief which leaves you critically brain dead to explore the weaknesses of your position. You cannot explore them, it is too dangerous for you.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (27154)	12/31/1998 3:33:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<My point was that the scientists of the day thought the earth was flat and also at another time that the whole universe evolved around the earth. So what misconceptions do today's scientists have about the origins of man that are throwing them off the track to the truth. There is no reason to believe them, anthropology is not an exact science like mathematics and physics. It is full of holes. A skeleton of an extinct species does nothing to convince me of the viability of the theory of evolution. The last of a large species of apes that could walk erect was killed in south america in the last century. I've seen the pictures, it was almost as big as a man. So what! It's no proof of anything. There is no connection to man.> Bob, when you say that a skeleton of an extinct species does nothing to convince you of the viability of the theory of evolution, I have to wonder why. Could you explain logically what you mean? Incidentally, walking erect in itself does not make a species more human, and so whatever you are saying about those South American apes would seem to be irrelevant. It also involves the increasing use of tools, the development of larger brains, indications of forming more and more complex societies, general compassion and understanding of mortality, like burying your dead with flowers and taking care of older members of the group who are not able to survive on their own. If you take all of these developmental factors into account, I believe there is very strong evidence for evolution. I also think you have a big misunderstanding of the word "theory" as it is used scientifically, although I note that other posters have already addressed that. And not all early scientists believed that the earth was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe. These statements seem to be red herrings brought up to confuse the argument. Anthropologists and archaeologists are gradually building a whole body of knowledge about hominids. The "missing links" will be filled in as more early remains are found, but the earth is a vast place and finding them is much like finding a needle in a haystack. Can you cite any skeletal findings which do NOT support evolution? Also, why does the idea that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor threaten you so much? Do you really believe the earth was created by God only a few thousand years ago? If you are proved wrong on this, will it destroy your whole religious faith? Is it not possible that the creation stories are allegorical, and that the time line might be incorrect?