Please Tell Me Karma Exists

[F1fanatic]

And it's not even just about fossil records. There are so many other things, such as DNA, that confirm evolution.

It's all here: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent Creationists can try to deny the evidence all they like but it wont make it go away. It's all there, whether they like it or not.

But anyway, it is a common approach for the creationist to attack opposing theories rather providing evidence to support their own theory. The thing is though that even if the theory of evolution was found to be false, we would still be no closer to confirming the creation theory.

So, where is the evidence in support of creation?

I have said numerous times that I believe we evolved from single celled organisms through to humans. But current thinking says that the survival of the fittest models is flawed because there are too many jumps.

For example, IQ scores are higher every decade. That is evolution but it is not down to survival of the fittest.

Are you sure? As far as I know the 'average' IQ has been 100 for many decades.

Edit - Plus, a high IQ has been a good survival tool for quite a while as it ensures a well-paid job!

Edited January 2, 2012 by F1fanatic

[Moonrakers]

I don't understand the IQ comment either.

Better education, better nutrition etc. It's hardly a surprise that people will become smarter and people in general would prefer to find a smarter partner. That's evolution at work so I don't understand the argument.

[geriatrickid]

From the mouth of Sir David Attenborough, who knows more than most.

"Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066. Indeed, more so, because all we have to tell us about William are a few bits of paper here or there - not very much at all. For evolution we have much more evidence: palaeontology, embryology, biology, geology".

he is a presenter reading what is on the autocue. he also told us that polar bears filmed in a zoo were filmed in the arctic. Not his fault, he is just a presenter. I am not questioning evolution, just that there is probably more to it than merely survival of the fittest.

Perhaps, because the concept of evolution doesn't say it is a product of the survival of the fittest. Rather it is about adaptation. Those that have the ability to adapt to their environment will survive in the longterm provided there are no catastrophic events. A catastrophic event can be a game changer as it can allow those organisms that possess some ability or characteristic to survive the catastrophic event while other more dominant organisms may perish. we see this on daily basis. The removal of wolves in the midwest of the USA caused there to be a large change in the population of species that had once been kept in check to the point that rodents, snakes and other critters all had eploding populations which put tremendous pressure on their own respective ecosystems allowing serious diseases to spread. we see it in Thailand with the annual plague of jellyfish. The destruction of the turtle population by the encroachment on nesting sites meant that the one critter that would devour the jellyfish was no longer around to keep the population in check.

[ludditeman]

Wow, how could something be so very misunderstood.

Firstly, just go to any decent museum and you will find thousands of fossils. Many of which can and do demonstrate evolution of one species into another. To say that there is no evidence is bizarre.

Look also at the Cheetah and the Gazelle, for example. Two species that are EVOLVING to become faster than each other through survival of the fittest (fastest)

"Theory". Another enormous misunderstanding. EVERYTHING in science is a theory. Just because it is called a theory DOES NOT make it false. That we even exist is a theory in science

Species HAVE been observed evolving into others through fossil records.

I could equally suggest cars are evolving, as the model T Ford in my local museum, looks similar to my Ford Ranger.

That is not evidence of evolution, but it could be a theory. Some could also suggest intelligent design

Any argument put forward supporting 'evolution' can also be used to support 'intelligent design'

Darwin's view of the world was fairly simplistic, something resembles something else, so one must be evolved from the other.

Why not read his book yourself, or would that be too much effort for you?

[ludditeman]

The removal of wolves in the midwest of the USA caused there to be a large change in the population of species that had once been kept in check to the point that rodents, snakes and other critters all had eploding populations which put tremendous pressure on their own respective ecosystems allowing serious diseases to spread.

But strangely, none of the surviving species has yet evolved into a new species.

Which it would need to be seen to do, before the 'theory of evolution' could be proven.

There is much more evidence to suggest the exact opposite of Darwin's theory of evolution is true.

Namely all modern species appeared in the pre-Cambrian era (God or aliens?) and have dwindled in number ever since, where logically only 1 species will eventually survive.

Edited January 2, 2012 by ludditeman

[Moonrakers]

I've read parts of the origin of species, cheers.

Model T-Ford? Cars? What on earth are you talking about? Of course they are made by intelligent design, I can't recall ever seeing 2 cars copulating with each other.

[Moonrakers]

The removal of wolves in the midwest of the USA caused there to be a large change in the population of species that had once been kept in check to the point that rodents, snakes and other critters all had eploding populations which put tremendous pressure on their own respective ecosystems allowing serious diseases to spread.

But strangely, none of the surviving species has yet evolved into a new species.

Which it would need to be seen to do, before the 'theory of evolution' could be proven.

There is much more evidence to suggest the exact opposite of Darwin's theory of evolution is true.

Namely all modern species appeared in the pre-Cambrian era (God or aliens?) and have dwindled in number ever since, where logically only 1 species will eventually survive.

You do know that evolution takes place over a very, very long time?

[ludditeman]

And finally

Who says anyone is smarter now?

My great grandfather was an blacksmith, I'd be in trouble trying to make a sword or plow, and don't know anyone else who can either.

Knowing how to change channels on the Tv or turn on your Pc, doesn't make you smarter than your ancestors.

Edited January 2, 2012 by ludditeman

[ludditeman]

The removal of wolves in the midwest of the USA caused there to be a large change in the population of species that had once been kept in check to the point that rodents, snakes and other critters all had eploding populations which put tremendous pressure on their own respective ecosystems allowing serious diseases to spread.

But strangely, none of the surviving species has yet evolved into a new species.

Which it would need to be seen to do, before the 'theory of evolution' could be proven.

There is much more evidence to suggest the exact opposite of Darwin's theory of evolution is true.

Namely all modern species appeared in the pre-Cambrian era (God or aliens?) and have dwindled in number ever since, where logically only 1 species will eventually survive.

You do know that evolution takes place over a very, very long time?

We have fewer species now than we had 100 years ago, not fast at all, I rest my case for Darwin being 100% wrong

[travelmann]

And finally

Who says anyone is smarter now?

My great grandfather was an blacksmith, I'd be in trouble trying to make a sword or plow, and don't know anyone else who can either.

Knowing how to change channels on the Tv or turn on your Pc, doesn't make you smarter than your ancestors.

Ah yes but at least we had the ability to invent the TV and without it what would the Thais do?

[Moonrakers]

Who says anyone is smarter now?

My great grandfather was an blacksmith, I'd be in trouble trying to make a sword or plow, and don't know anyone else who can either.

How many people do you know that have been taught to make a sword or plow?

[bangkaew]

And it's not even just about fossil records. There are so many other things, such as DNA, that confirm evolution.

It's all here: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent Creationists can try to deny the evidence all they like but it wont make it go away. It's all there, whether they like it or not.

But anyway, it is a common approach for the creationist to attack opposing theories rather providing evidence to support their own theory. The thing is though that even if the theory of evolution was found to be false, we would still be no closer to confirming the creation theory.

So, where is the evidence in support of creation?

I have said numerous times that I believe we evolved from single celled organisms through to humans. But current thinking says that the survival of the fittest models is flawed because there are too many jumps.

For example, IQ scores are higher every decade. That is evolution but it is not down to survival of the fittest.

I am a little confused. Isn't higher IQ scores an example of evolution AND survival of the fittest at the same time? please explain!

here is a wiki article on rising iq scores

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#The_rise_in_IQ

I personally don't attribute it to survival of the fittest as infant mortality is very low and anyone can reproduce.

[Moonrakers]

The removal of wolves in the midwest of the USA caused there to be a large change in the population of species that had once been kept in check to the point that rodents, snakes and other critters all had eploding populations which put tremendous pressure on their own respective ecosystems allowing serious diseases to spread.

But strangely, none of the surviving species has yet evolved into a new species.

Which it would need to be seen to do, before the 'theory of evolution' could be proven.

There is much more evidence to suggest the exact opposite of Darwin's theory of evolution is true.

Namely all modern species appeared in the pre-Cambrian era (God or aliens?) and have dwindled in number ever since, where logically only 1 species will eventually survive.

You do know that evolution takes place over a very, very long time?

We have fewer species now than we had 100 years ago, not fast at all, I rest my case for Darwin being 100% wrong

You don't seem to understand what evolution is

[ludditeman]

And finally

Who says anyone is smarter now?

My great grandfather was an blacksmith, I'd be in trouble trying to make a sword or plow, and don't know anyone else who can either.

Knowing how to change channels on the Tv or turn on your Pc, doesn't make you smarter than your ancestors.

Ah yes but at least we had the ability to invent the TV and without it what would the Thais do?

What do you mean we?

Can you even build a Tv from a pile of components, let alone make the components.

Do you know anyone who can?

I know how to switch a Tv on and off, a little different than knowing how to make one.

[bangkaew]

Wow what did I start ? As to the creation theory. All 3 religions of the book in the story of the creation contain an almost identical line. "Let us create man in our image" As to my original post, my significant other is still struggling with the memoery of what she witnessed.

Yeah and all 3 are sexist tripe where does it say lets create woman in our own image, men always comes first.

man means human in that context. Or should it be huperson?

[Moonrakers]

And it's not even just about fossil records. There are so many other things, such as DNA, that confirm evolution.

It's all here: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent Creationists can try to deny the evidence all they like but it wont make it go away. It's all there, whether they like it or not.

But anyway, it is a common approach for the creationist to attack opposing theories rather providing evidence to support their own theory. The thing is though that even if the theory of evolution was found to be false, we would still be no closer to confirming the creation theory.

So, where is the evidence in support of creation?

I have said numerous times that I believe we evolved from single celled organisms through to humans. But current thinking says that the survival of the fittest models is flawed because there are too many jumps.

For example, IQ scores are higher every decade. That is evolution but it is not down to survival of the fittest.

I am a little confused. Isn't higher IQ scores an example of evolution AND survival of the fittest at the same time? please explain!

here is a wiki article on rising iq scores

http://en.wikipedia....#The_rise_in_IQ

I personally don't attribute it to survival of the fittest as infant mortality is very low and anyone can reproduce.

I'm struggling to see your point.

What does a rise in IQ have to do with 'jumps' in evolution? We are still just as human as we were x thousand years ago.

[ludditeman]

You don't seem to understand what evolution is

And you don't seem to understand what a THEORY is. Not to worry, most other people don't understand either.

[Moonrakers]

And finally

Who says anyone is smarter now?

My great grandfather was an blacksmith, I'd be in trouble trying to make a sword or plow, and don't know anyone else who can either.

Knowing how to change channels on the Tv or turn on your Pc, doesn't make you smarter than your ancestors.

Ah yes but at least we had the ability to invent the TV and without it what would the Thais do?

What do you mean we?

Can you even build a Tv from a pile of components, let alone make the components.

Do you know anyone who can?

I know how to switch a Tv on and off, a little different than knowing how to make one.

Are you serious?

[bangkaew]

here is an extract from wiki, not proving jumps, only evolution. But how can intelligence rise over 40 years when survival of the fittest takes 1000s?

The rise in IQ

IQ tests are updated periodically. For example, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), originally developed in 1949, was updated in 1974, in 1991, and again in 2003. The revised versions are standardized to 100 using new standardization samples. In ordinary use IQ tests are scored with respect to those standardization samples. The only way to compare the difficulty of two versions of a test is to conduct a study in which the same subjects take both versions. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time. The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the US on tests such as the WISC. The increasing raw scores appear on every major test, in every age range and in every modern industrialized country although not necessarily at the same rate as in the US using the WISC. The increase has been continuous and roughly linear from the earliest days of testing to the present.^[9] Though the effect is most associated with IQ increases, a similar effect has been found with increases of semantic and episodic memory.^[3]

[Moonrakers]

Education has improved drastically over the last 40 years or so. As has standard of living and diet.

Intelligent people still lived 2,000 years ago, only there were fewer of them. The world was a poorer place so fewer people had access to what would help them to raise intelligent children. Take those people from 2,000 years ago and put them in today's society and they'll likely be just as smart.

It is not some great jump in evolution at all, it is simply us living healthier lives than before. We've always has that capability of intelligence but have not always has the resources to take advantage. In much the same way the N. Koreans are getting shorter because of low nutrition, they are getting smaller because their children have less to eat and therefore do not grow as much.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Moonrakers

[ludditeman]

Education has improved drastically over the last 40 years or so. As has standard of living and diet.

Intelligent people still lived 2,000 years ago, only there were fewer of them. The world was a poorer place so fewer people had access to what would help them to raise intelligent children. Take those people from 2,000 years ago and put them in today's society and they'll likely be just as smart.

It is not some great jump in evolution at all, it is simply us living healthier lives than before. In much the same way the N. Koreans are getting shorter because of low nutrition.

On this we can agree.

Also to add in modern times there is more time available for education.

[F1fanatic]

And it's not even just about fossil records. There are so many other things, such as DNA, that confirm evolution.

It's all here: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent Creationists can try to deny the evidence all they like but it wont make it go away. It's all there, whether they like it or not.

But anyway, it is a common approach for the creationist to attack opposing theories rather providing evidence to support their own theory. The thing is though that even if the theory of evolution was found to be false, we would still be no closer to confirming the creation theory.

So, where is the evidence in support of creation?

I have said numerous times that I believe we evolved from single celled organisms through to humans. But current thinking says that the survival of the fittest models is flawed because there are too many jumps.

For example, IQ scores are higher every decade. That is evolution but it is not down to survival of the fittest.

I am a little confused. Isn't higher IQ scores an example of evolution AND survival of the fittest at the same time? please explain!

here is a wiki article on rising iq scores

http://en.wikipedia....#The_rise_in_IQ

I personally don't attribute it to survival of the fittest as infant mortality is very low and anyone can reproduce.

If you read beyond the first paragraph, it becomes obvious that general IQ has not increased as far as most 'experts' are concerned. Rather, the poorest segment of Western society are 'showing' better, thanks to better nutrition etc.

[bangkaew]

DNA research suggests that all surviving humans are descended from one woman who lived perhaps 200,000 years ago. Research also shows that the story begins in Africa, home to the greatest variation in human DNA, and therefore the oldest location. Accordingly the woman was promptly dubbed "the African Eve".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/25/mitochondrial-dna-human-evolution

descended from one woman! I believe in evolution but that is confusing.

[Moonrakers]

DNA research suggests that all surviving humans are descended from one woman who lived perhaps 200,000 years ago. Research also shows that the story begins in Africa, home to the greatest variation in human DNA, and therefore the oldest location. Accordingly the woman was promptly dubbed "the African Eve".

http://www.guardian....human-evolution

descended from one woman! I believe in evolution but that is confusing.

Not really confusing

Somebody had to be the first human

Edited January 2, 2012 by Moonrakers

[F1fanatic]

DNA research suggests that all surviving humans are descended from one woman who lived perhaps 200,000 years ago. Research also shows that the story begins in Africa, home to the greatest variation in human DNA, and therefore the oldest location. Accordingly the woman was promptly dubbed "the African Eve".

http://www.guardian....human-evolution

descended from one woman! I believe in evolution but that is confusing.

Not really confusing

Somebody had to be the first human

Hardly. If evolution is right, then there were a number of pre-descendants who gradually became human. Where does 'one woman' come into this?

[bangkaew]

Education has improved drastically over the last 40 years or so. As has standard of living and diet.

Intelligent people still lived 2,000 years ago, only there were fewer of them. The world was a poorer place so fewer people had access to what would help them to raise intelligent children. Take those people from 2,000 years ago and put them in today's society and they'll likely be just as smart.

It is not some great jump in evolution at all, it is simply us living healthier lives than before. We've always has that capability of intelligence but have not always has the resources to take advantage. In much the same way the N. Koreans are getting shorter because of low nutrition, they are getting smaller because their children have less to eat and therefore do not grow as much.

agree that diet is the likely answer but the tests are meant to be independent of education. But is today's diet better? some say after ww2 we ate the healthiest. People can develop their brains... but more in 03 than 91?

[Moonrakers]

DNA research suggests that all surviving humans are descended from one woman who lived perhaps 200,000 years ago. Research also shows that the story begins in Africa, home to the greatest variation in human DNA, and therefore the oldest location. Accordingly the woman was promptly dubbed "the African Eve".

http://www.guardian....human-evolution

descended from one woman! I believe in evolution but that is confusing.

Not really confusing

Somebody had to be the first human

Hardly. If evolution is right, then there were a number of pre-descendants who gradually became human. Where does 'one woman' come into this?

If they were pre-descendants that gradually became human, then they were not yet human.

[F1fanatic]

Education has improved drastically over the last 40 years or so. As has standard of living and diet.

Intelligent people still lived 2,000 years ago, only there were fewer of them. The world was a poorer place so fewer people had access to what would help them to raise intelligent children. Take those people from 2,000 years ago and put them in today's society and they'll likely be just as smart.

It is not some great jump in evolution at all, it is simply us living healthier lives than before. We've always has that capability of intelligence but have not always has the resources to take advantage. In much the same way the N. Koreans are getting shorter because of low nutrition, they are getting smaller because their children have less to eat and therefore do not grow as much.

agree that diet is the likely answer but the tests are meant to be independent of education. But is today's diet better? some say after ww2 we ate the healthiest. People can develop their brains... but more in 03 than 91?

Read the article beyond the first paragraph.

[kerryk]

University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University College London,

University of Edinburgh, Imperial College London all teach evolution and not an alternative theory.

And? So what? They all recommended leaches at the time leaches were a cure all.

Paleontology - the earth science that studies fossil organisms and related remains. It is taught at 99% of the universities in the world and explains the changes in organisms through evolution. There is no debate about evolution. You can’t graduate from college taking a natural science course and debate evolution. You would flunk the course. It is like saying 2 plus 2 don’t equal 4 and expecting to pass 2nd grade arithmetic.

The boiling point of water is not debated anymore. It is not the theory of the boiling point of water. I’ll grant you that at some point in time someone probably debated the boiling point of water but not now. Maybe there are some tribes in the Amazon who are debating the boiling point of water today but to debate evolution falls in the same relative scientific level as relying on Amazon tribesmen for your scientific knowledge.

Maybe someday someplace a spaceship will discover an old guy with a perverse sense of humor who actually created the earth. Of course that is a possibility and that old guy may be also able to change the boiling point of water; who knows. Seems to me a bit silly to hold out hope at this point in time that he will be found. Universities are the repository of scientific knowledge and they have not debated evolution in my 65 years of life experience.

[F1fanatic]

So we're back to the 'missing link'...

Don't misunderstand me - until there is 'proof', I treat everything as a theory. I only draw the line at creationists unless (something I've vaguely wondered about), 'god' chose something like evolution as a way of creating us?