do u believe that we evolved from monkeys?

do you believe that we evolved from the ancestors of monkeys?

yes	55.8%	[ 241 ]
no	35.4%	[ 153 ]
not sure because you dont know anything at the matter of this topic	8.8%	[ 38 ]
Total Votes:			[ 432 ]

[Golden Dysprosium]

dragonmatt5

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

Alright, mutation. Still, they haven't change into a new classification before? Not sure if you'd call it a new species of virus but that is pretty much what I am going for in terminology here. Granted that would probably be called micro-evolution (ignore the pun, it isn't intentional) but that would still be evolution correct?

AIDS is still AIDS (well, first it starts off as HIV, but that's besides the point). You could call it that, but there'd be a few raised eyebrows. Evolution typically involves >2 organisms passing on genes, but since cells produce asexually by mitosis, evolution isn't quite the right term for the job.
Let's put it this way: I mix Hydrogen and Oxygen. It can become H2O (water) or H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), or some other crap, but that too is besides the point. It really doesn't change the fact that I've mixed 2 gases and we're still relying on O and H for the nomenclature.

I was more referring to the mutations building up over time so that the new virus wasn't similar enough to the old to be called the same type of virus. Mutations are an important part of evolution after all. I am lacking in this field so I have no examples to pull up at the moment, yet I'll try to look some up after this post. I could have sworn I heard something about a virus changing enough to be considered an example of evolution.
Anyways as for your example, it seems it could apply to a carbon based lifeform changing and yet it still is pretty much the same as it still is a carbon based lifeform. Little vague..

Not my best work.
But yes, if it changed into a completely different virus, it'd generally be regarded as evolution. I guess what my inept explaination was getting at is that the virus would have to change to a certain extent to be deemed evolution. It really is just a mere technicality.

[dragonmatt5]

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

Alright, mutation. Still, they haven't change into a new classification before? Not sure if you'd call it a new species of virus but that is pretty much what I am going for in terminology here. Granted that would probably be called micro-evolution (ignore the pun, it isn't intentional) but that would still be evolution correct?

AIDS is still AIDS (well, first it starts off as HIV, but that's besides the point). You could call it that, but there'd be a few raised eyebrows. Evolution typically involves >2 organisms passing on genes, but since cells produce asexually by mitosis, evolution isn't quite the right term for the job.
Let's put it this way: I mix Hydrogen and Oxygen. It can become H2O (water) or H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), or some other crap, but that too is besides the point. It really doesn't change the fact that I've mixed 2 gases and we're still relying on O and H for the nomenclature.

I was more referring to the mutations building up over time so that the new virus wasn't similar enough to the old to be called the same type of virus. Mutations are an important part of evolution after all. I am lacking in this field so I have no examples to pull up at the moment, yet I'll try to look some up after this post. I could have sworn I heard something about a virus changing enough to be considered an example of evolution.
Anyways as for your example, it seems it could apply to a carbon based lifeform changing and yet it still is pretty much the same as it still is a carbon based lifeform. Little vague..

Not my best work.
But yes, if it changed into a completely different virus, it'd generally be regarded as evolution. I guess what my inept explanation was getting at is that the virus would have to change to a certain extent to be deemed evolution. It really is just a mere technicality.

I see. Kinda curious though, why would it have to be a certain extent to be considered evolution? Isn't that just stacked mutations? It seems silly to label it differently based on degree of change, if the change in itself is the process. I can see why some wouldn't want to call it mass mutation (leaves a less then desirable mental image I am sure) so why not call it simply evolution regardless of degree of change? That would also help stress that evolution doesn't work towards to higher goal end development, simply occurs, be it good or bad, with only the passing of the traits as markers if the trait was effective or not at helping the species adapt.

[Golden Dysprosium]

dragonmatt5

I see. Kinda curious though, why would it have to be a certain extent to be considered evolution? Isn't that just stacked mutations? It seems silly to label it differently based on degree of change, if the change in itself is the process. I can see why some wouldn't want to call it mass mutation (leaves a less then desirable mental image I am sure) so why not call it simply evolution regardless of degree of change? That would also help stress that evolution doesn't work towards to higher goal end development, simply occurs, be it good or bad, with only the passing of the traits as markers if the trait was effective or not at helping the species adapt.

Well, since it isn't 3 a.m right now, I'll be able to explain it more effectively.
Genetic mutations in animals is passed on through reproduction, which theoretically increases the chances of more mutation, esp. if it's with another mutated animal. This results in physical changes that are passed on via that most enjoyable act.
A virus reproduces asexually through mitosis, thus the genetic change would have to occur on a much smaller level.
Alternately, if you have 10 monkeys and 10 HIV cells: 3 monkeys have the mutation, but that's all throughout their genes. 3 of the HIV cells have it, but they just divide. So it really just comes down to names and numbers.

[vipr230]

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

I see. Kinda curious though, why would it have to be a certain extent to be considered evolution? Isn't that just stacked mutations? It seems silly to label it differently based on degree of change, if the change in itself is the process. I can see why some wouldn't want to call it mass mutation (leaves a less then desirable mental image I am sure) so why not call it simply evolution regardless of degree of change? That would also help stress that evolution doesn't work towards to higher goal end development, simply occurs, be it good or bad, with only the passing of the traits as markers if the trait was effective or not at helping the species adapt.

Well, since it isn't 3 a.m right now, I'll be able to explain it more effectively.
Genetic mutations in animals is passed on through reproduction, which theoretically increases the chances of more mutation, esp. if it's with another mutated animal. This results in physical changes that are passed on via that most enjoyable act.
A virus reproduces asexually through mitosis, thus the genetic change would have to occur on a much smaller level.
Alternately, if you have 10 monkeys and 10 HIV cells: 3 monkeys have the mutation, but that's all throughout their genes. 3 of the HIV cells have it, but they just divide. So it really just comes down to names and numbers.

A virus doesn't reproduce via mitosis, a virus injects its own DNA into another cell and uses the cell's framework to reproduce, a virus itself isn't capable of reproduction, it needs to infect something.

And I blame the rather odd description of how sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity on it being 3am for you as well.

However, given that I'm a bit too lazy to provide a full description here I'll leave you with cdk007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM

[dragonmatt5]

Ok, that makes a little more sense. As does the sleep I got before rereading some of this. Also nice plug or cdk007, he makes good vids.

[a d m i n - 0 8 0 1]

well heres my theory according to the bible and what i study, when adam and eve where banished from eden they had 2 sons. now i think since the human kind was left with cave men. and Cane had kids with a cave man. but maybe both theories are true i dont know

[Golden Dysprosium]

vipr230

A virus doesn't reproduce via mitosis, a virus injects its own DNA into another cell and uses the cell's framework to reproduce, a virus itself isn't capable of reproduction, it needs to infect something.
And I blame the rather odd description of how sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity on it being 3am for you as well.
However, given that I'm a bit too lazy to provide a full description here I'll leave you with cdk007
]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM

Dammit! Why do I keep forgetting that?! sweatdrop
*sigh* the point is, they can evolve. Thus, we have proof of Evolution, so Shedder can kiss my posterior fascia.

firedone

well heres my theory according to the bible and what i study, when adam and eve where banished from eden they had 2 sons. now i think since the human kind was left with cave men. and Cane had kids with a cave man. but maybe both theories are true i dont know

Uhhh.....what?
Cane was given a curse mark and banished from his home...OMG! Cane is Sasuke Uchiha! eek

[Screep]

5ut58ut58t5u8ut58t58u1111

Malevolent Jelly Bean

you'd rather we believe a book claiming that we were created from dirt

Why not?

Evolution practically says we ultimately came from the earth.

This is why i believe Christianity is inline with Evolution. Just the days are ALOT longer than ours.

[Screep]

Chet Nice

Yes, I do believe that we have evolved from the ancestors of monkeys and apes. I believe this because its SCIENCE AND FACT. How can a person (god, jesus, whoever you god worshiping people call him) CREATE ANOTHER PERSON (by yourself)?!? And how can someone rise from the dead without our modern technology? jesus is not real, or whoever he is.

Your not real. That makes about as much difference as you saying Jesus isn't real. If you are correct then so am I. Don't talk to me, imagination.

[Screep]

Layra-chan

Lady Antu

Out of the things you listed gravity is the only theory. We have physical proof of cells, germs, photons, atoms, and tectonic plates, so you can't state that they are a theory, they are fact.

We have "physical proof" that objects are solid, and yet we also know that most objects consist of a sparse cloud of tiny nuclei and tinier electrons with most "solid" things actually being empty space.

All things that science says are falsifiable, meaning that at best we can say that something hasn't been disproven yet. This is what separates science from religion. Read Karl Popper's work on the subject.

Tectonic plates are a theory; no one has actually seen a tectonic plate, and while there is plenty of evidence for tectonic plates existing, this does not mean that they definitively exist in the form that we think they do. It could be that what we think are tectonic plates are actually something else, say, giant turtles, that only look like tectonic plates in the situation that we tend to observe them in, at the scale that we observe them from. A giant turtle, once removed from the earth, would look very different from a tectonic plate, but when it's buried underneath us and moving only very slowly, it might look like a tectonic plate..
Similarly for cells; they might also be tiny, translucent turtles that are too small for us to distinguish from actual cells. Germs might also be turtles, and maybe atoms are also turtles, and photons might be turtles as well; it's turtles all the way down.

The point of all this is, no matter how much evidence we have, there is always the chance that we're wrong, that what we're looking at is something that looks identical in the situations that we observe but that acts differently in situations that we haven't examined yet.
Cells are a theory. Germs are a theory. Atoms are theory. Photons are a theory. They all have plenty of evidence (and we have plenty of evidence for gravity), but "proof" is a lie spread by those who don't understand science..

Oh my god. Too many turtles.

[Screep]

Golden Dysprosium

firedone

well heres my theory according to the bible and what i study, when adam and eve where banished from eden they had 2 sons. now i think since the human kind was left with cave men. and Cane had kids with a cave man. but maybe both theories are true i dont know

Uhhh.....what?
Cane was given a curse mark and banished from his home...OMG! Cane is Sasuke Uchiha! eek

16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

Begs the question of where these other people came from. The bible never said that Adam and Eve were the first people, just the first jews.

[Golden Dysprosium]

Noitanigaminu

5ut58ut58t5u8ut58t58u1111

Malevolent Jelly Bean

you'd rather we believe a book claiming that we were created from dirt

Why not?
Evolution practically says we ultimately came from the earth.

This is why i believe Christianity is inline with Evolution.

Kinda like how the increase in the popularity of Spondgebob Squarepants led to Al Qaeda attack the World Trade Center?
Just because you can connect the dots, doesn't mean it's right. Many a Grade 2 workbook has taught me that. sweatdrop

Noitanigaminu

Chet Nice

And how can someone rise from the dead without our modern technology? jesus is not real, or whoever he is.

That makes about as much difference as you saying Jesus isn't real. If you are correct then so am I.

What? neutral

[Screep]

Golden Dysprosium

Noitanigaminu

Chet Nice

And how can someone rise from the dead without our modern technology? jesus is not real, or whoever he is.

That makes about as much difference as you saying Jesus isn't real. If you are correct then so am I.

What? neutral

I have no proof towards God other than what is said by him in the Bible. I have no proof of Chet Nice other than what is said by her on Gaia. Better?

[Golden Dysprosium]

Noitanigaminu

Golden Dysprosium

Noitanigaminu

Chet Nice

how can someone rise from the dead without our modern technology? jesus is not real, or whoever he is.

Your not real. That makes about as much difference as you saying Jesus isn't real. If you are correct then so am I. Don't talk to me, imagination.

What? neutral

I have no proof towards God other than what is said by him in the Bible. I have no proof of Chet Nice other than what is said by her on Gaia. Better?

Unless Chet is Jesus, that doesn't make sense. Furthermore, I don't recall the Bible saying that it was written by "god", merely that it is the word of god.

[Screep]

Golden Dysprosium

Noitanigaminu

Golden Dysprosium

Noitanigaminu

Chet Nice

how can someone rise from the dead without our modern technology? jesus is not real, or whoever he is.

Your not real. That makes about as much difference as you saying Jesus isn't real. If you are correct then so am I. Don't talk to me, imagination.

What? neutral

I have no proof towards God other than what is said by him in the Bible. I have no proof of Chet Nice other than what is said by her on Gaia. Better?

Unless Chet is Jesus, that doesn't make sense. Furthermore, I don't recall the Bible saying that it was written by "god", merely that it is the word of god.

I never said God wrote it. I said what was said by him, which means (at least I thought it did) that someone wrote what he said. Sorry if I confused you.