Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

[Catbone]

Screw mma 2nite this is GOLD JERRY, GOLD

 

[nicksjuzunk]

Brother, those pale ales rresulted in my academic probation and yes many an arse to kick out of the place. If u really partied back then please tell me u hit Campus Pub. My claim to fame was dancing with Ace Clement in there one night. Mike and Willys was also live, I partied with D Goodrich and Fred White the night D Good went shopping with his agent and had just bought that new Mercedes droptop. Oh yes i rode in it. Crashed on his couch and lost my keys in his couch which was shipped to Dallas a few days later bc he had just been drafted by the 'Boys. Cost me $100 for a key to raggedy No Limit Clement dorm room lock. Lol. The lacrosse and rugby parties were the best and the around the world parties at college park! Man sorry to post OT but this all came back like a flashback in Nam. Great times

Dat story bro, tho

 

[CroKev]

I am curious how teaching intelligent design is a laughably bogus theory while teaching that we evolved from monkeys isn't? There are some out there that use religion as a means to an end but most Christians do not shove anything down anyone's throats. Christians, for the most part, prefer to spread our religion through showing the love and kindness of our Savior to others. We preach service and sacrifice to the needy. Jesus calls us to give and care for widows, orphans, and those in need. He teaches us to love others as we love ourselves and to turn the other cheek. If this makes me a crazy delusional nonsensical person then I'll wear that mantel proudly. If you choose not to participate in religion, that is of course completely up to you. God gives us free will because He does not want our love and worship to be forced. He wants us to come to him but he will not force it. I have personally witnessed to many personal blessings and choose to see God in the design of our world to not believe in Him. I would appreciate it if you would tone down on your condemnation of religious folks on this message board. Nobody is in here giving sermons. If someone makes a religious post then you have the ability to skip it. If you do choose to respond, I'm sure everyone would appreciate a more measured response in the future.

Well-reasoned response, Glicht! Armchair, I can appreciate a lot of your sentiments and I can honestly say that I'd be an atheist if it wasn't for Christianity. The notions of many religions always struck me as just plain weird - whether it be the Greek gods made in our image to the Hindus and their millions of gods to the Muslims who actually believe one can work themselves into acceptance by a perfect being.

There's a story told of C.S. Lewis when he taught at Oxford that sums up the difference well. Several of Lewis' colleagues were gathered in the "Tea Room" one afternoon and evidently they'd been there for hours discussing the difference between Christianity and other world "religions." After going at it for a while, Lewis had walked in and someone asked, "Jack, what do you think?" He responded, "That's easy. It's grace." He then left the room, which had immediately grown disturbingly silent.

 

[CroKev]

I think you made some good points in the rest of your post, many of which I agree with (in spirit, if not in religious belief).

But I just wanted to point out that that isn't how evolution is taught or what is currently accepted by the scientific community.

Darth, you keep up with this stuff fairly well. I'd be curious why there are no transitional forms in existence today (i.e., the multitude of forms that have evolved from apes (or horses, etc.) to the final human form. I've never really read a good answer to this and I'm hopeful you can help. I've also never read a good proposal about how something like the eye could evolve. Thanks in advance (feel free to recommend reading sources as well).

 

[NochNoch]

Brother, those pale ales rresulted in my academic probation and yes many an arse to kick out of the place. If u really partied back then please tell me u hit Campus Pub. My claim to fame was dancing with Ace Clement in there one night. Mike and Willys was also live, I partied with D Goodrich and Fred White the night D Good went shopping with his agent and had just bought that new Mercedes droptop. Oh yes i rode in it. Crashed on his couch and lost my keys in his couch which was shipped to Dallas a few days later bc he had just been drafted by the 'Boys. Cost me $100 for a key to raggedy No Limit Clement dorm room lock. Lol. The lacrosse and rugby parties were the best and the around the world parties at college park! Man sorry to post OT but this all came back like a flashback in Nam. Great times

One of the other best things about McGees, being able to stumble down the alley behind the bar, only cross one real street, and then fall down inside Clement. It was a hellhole, but at least it was a close hellhole!

 

[Vols4us]

I am curious how teaching intelligent design is a laughably bogus theory while teaching that we evolved from monkeys isn't? There are some out there that use religion as a means to an end but most Christians do not shove anything down anyone's throats. Christians, for the most part, prefer to spread our religion through showing the love and kindness of our Savior to others. We preach service and sacrifice to the needy. Jesus calls us to give and care for widows, orphans, and those in need. He teaches us to love others as we love ourselves and to turn the other cheek. If this makes me a crazy delusional nonsensical person then I'll wear that mantel proudly. If you choose not to participate in religion, that is of course completely up to you. God gives us free will because He does not want our love and worship to be forced. He wants us to come to him but he will not force it. I have personally witnessed to many personal blessings and choose to see God in the design of our world to not believe in Him. I would appreciate it if you would tone down on your condemnation of religious folks on this message board. Nobody is in here giving sermons. If someone makes a religious post then you have the ability to skip it. If you do choose to respond, I'm sure everyone would appreciate a more measured response in the future.

Spot on my friend.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Darth, you keep up with this stuff fairly well. I'd be curious why there are no transitional forms in existence today (i.e., the multitude of forms that have evolved from apes (or horses, etc.) to the final human form. I've never really read a good answer to this and I'm hopeful you can help. I've also never read a good proposal about how something like the eye could evolve. Thanks in advance (feel free to recommend reading sources as well).

As for your first question, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you're asking why there are currently no Neanderthals or Homo Erectus populations walking around, then there are a couple layers to answering that question.

First, it's worth noting that that evolution isn't something that happens in a heirarchical order. The species of today aren't necessarily "better" or "more highly evolved" than ones of the past. They're just differently evolved through circumstances of environment and competition. Also, evolution is forever ongoing and not at all sudden. A new species isn't just born at once. It takes generations upon generations upon generations of small mutations in a population for a new species to be born. Try thinking of it this way: if you took a current day Siberian Husky and stood it, in a line, by everyone of its ancestors all the way back to it being a wolf, there wouldn't any single generation you could point to and say "here is where wolf became dog." You'd have to skip several generations to be able to see the differences needed for a species change.


Back to your question: The easiest summary answer is that early humans outcompeted earlier or (at the time) contemporary proto-humans for food and resources, killed them off, and/or mated with them. (As for the latter, it's pretty well accepted that humans and Neanderthals shared enough DNA to create viable offspring and that many humans today are at least partly descended from Neanderthals...as for homo Erectus there's currently a bit of debate on whether humans and homo Erectus could create viable offspring). All three of these species (and all of the other proto-human species in the lineage of humans) shared the same basic ecological niche. Humans, being the smartest, and one of the bigger of the proto-humans, were easily able to beat out the competition for resources.

The fossil record shows this type of thing happening all the time. A great example is when the north and South American continents originally became connected. South America, which had been largely inhabited by marsupials saw mass extinctions of those marsupials because the mammals from North America were better adapted to compete in their ecological niche. The marsupial that took up the same niche as say, a jaguar-like feline, didn't stand much of a chance to compete. The same thing likely happened at basically every stage in human evolution: the former species that didn't adapt (or the species that made adaptions that served them no advantages or even disadvantages) often were outcompeted for resources and ceased to exist.

If your question is different and you're asking why we don't have more highly evolved humans who are in transition to another form of human, the answer also has a few layers. The easiest to comprehend is that we are the transition! The fossil record shows that current day humans do have differences from humans of the not so distant past (distant in a geological time scale type meaning). Current day humans, on average have a brain 100-200 CCs smaller than earlier humans. Today, 20-30% of humans are born without wisdom teeth (in the past, humans had larger jaws and nearly all grew wisdom teeth).

Apart from that, there are other adaptations where we can see evidence for humans still evolving. A common one is the ability to drink cow's milk. Most places in the world, adult humans can't drink cow's milk because of lactose intolerance. However, nearly 3/4 of people descended from Europeans can. It's thought that this adaptation Is between 5-10,000 years old (happening around the time of domestication of cows). Europeans, because of less exposure to sunlight than other areas, adapted to be able to gain vitamin D from cow's milk while in other places people receive enough sunlight to not need alternative sources of vitamin D.

Another adaptation is one we can see by looking at sufferers of sickle cell anemia. The rates of people who have it are much, much higher in places where malaria is a problem (notably, sub Saharan Africa). That's because people who have sickle cell anemia have a bit of a natural resistance to malaria as transmitted by mosquitoes. So sickle cell anemia has been somewhat of an advantage in those areas ( at least from a living-long-enough-to-pass-on-your-genes standpoint). This can even be seen in African Americans today. The odds of them having sickle cell anemia are something like 1:400 that's compared to 1:16,000 in Hispanic Americans (not sure the rates on whites, but most likely comparable to the latter group).


So there definitely are ways in which humans are different now from in the past (and even ways we're different depending on where our ancestors lived). To answer your second question, I'll make another post since this one became a novel (fair warning, my understanding of the next question is much sketchier than my understanding of this one).

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

My understanding of how eyes evolved is much sketchier (as is the scientific understanding of how eyes evolved compared to the from ape to man question) because it happened a seriously long time ago. Like, really, really long ago.

To give you an idea of how long ago, imagine the age of the earth as the length from your shoulder to the edge of your longest finger tip. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It's commonly believed that eyes evolved around 540 million years ago. So eyes would be evolving somewhere around your forearm. If you were to take a nail file and shorten the longest finger's nail a few milimeters, you'd erase the entire lifetime of humans.


So the fossil record on when exactly this started happening is sketchy at best, understandably. It's hard to enough to find 250,000 year old proto-human fossils. 540,000,000 years is almost unfashionably long.


Anyway, my understanding of the currently accepted explanation for the eye is something like this: early organisms (that lived in the sea) originally had no sight, but they all were able to react to sunlight (though not in a manner we'd call sight, per se). Some of these organisms' sensitivity to light adapted to be slightly more receptive, which gave them an advantage when it came to photosynthesis or to sense changed in the time of day which in turn led to an advantage in mating.

After that the next step is slight cup like depressions to these light sensitive cell areas that allow an organism to also (clumsily) sense the direction from which light is coming. The deeper the cup, the better the more receptive the sense of light and direction. There are still extant organisms with this type of sight today.

After that, a shrinking of the opening of the cup around the cells led to greater ability to focus. Sea critters like nautilus' have sight like this today b

The next step was transparent cells growing over the opening to stop parasites from getting in the way. At that point, you basically have an eye and improvements in receptiveness to light/darkness/ UV light, etc is just a matter of natural selection.


Like I said, my understanding of this isn't as good as the previous question. So here's a wiki link and a link to an episode of the cosmos that breaks it down fairly well, IMO.

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - Episode 2 [Eng-Subs] "Some Of The Things That Molecules Do" - Video Dailymotion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

 

[bignewt]

Ha i was about to say someone is watching cosmos!

 

[Glitch]

I think you made some good points in the rest of your post, many of which I agree with (in spirit, if not in religious belief).

But I just wanted to point out that that isn't how evolution is taught or what is currently accepted by the scientific community.

Well I stand corrected then. Also, I do believe that animals (including humans) evolve. There is proof that many of the animals of today have ancestors in ancient species. You can even see differences in humans from only a few hundred years ago. Our lifestyle and dietary options make us bigger (taller) and faster than our ancestors. The world changes and we change with it. In my view what doesn't change is God. Thanks for the pleasant response!

 

[bignewt]

Too bad for the vikings, egyptians and native americans i guess.

 

[CroKev]

Thanks Darth! I have to admit that I'd run across most of the examples you provided beforehand but you gave a good summary. I must admit, though, that it seems to me that it would take a lot more "faith" to believe that an eye evolved from an indentation over several millennia rather than from the hand of an intelligent designer. I guess I have too little faith. ;-) I also find that "adaptations" are better referred to as "abnormalities" of which the record shows that species died as a result of them rather than being able to pass them on to the next generation.

Anyway, I do appreciate the spirit and the reasoning behind your answers.

On to football, I guess.

 

[Dallasbowlin]

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Thanks Darth! I have to admit that I'd run across most of the examples you provided beforehand but you gave a good summary. I must admit, though, that it seems to me that it would take a lot more "faith" to believe that an eye evolved from an indentation over several millennia rather than from the hand of an intelligent designer. I guess I have too little faith. ;-) I also find that "adaptations" are better referred to as "abnormalities" of which the record shows that species died as a result of them rather than being able to pass them on to the next generation.

Anyway, I do appreciate the spirit and the reasoning behind your answers.

On to football, I guess.

Faith isn't really the right term, since science is quick to dump an explanation if another, better one is found. Faith means believing in something regardless of evidence. Science is about following the evidence.

As for developing from an indentation, to me there are two reasons this seems like a pretty good explanation, one scientific and one more philosophical.

1. There are extant species that represent every stage on that evolutionary path. Planarians see with those indentations, nautiluses have deeper ones with no transparent cover, etc. It's not like scientists are just making wild speculations. We can see all of the steps from indentation to eyeball in the world currently.

2. If our eyes were designed by an all knowing, all powerful creator, wouldn't they work better? Having evolved in the ocean stunted the possibilities of eyesight (because they evolved to see almost entirely refracted light). If they'd evolved on land then (in theory) we be able to see more of the light spectrum. We'd be able to see better at night. We'd be able to see better details super up close, like fish can.

This type of argument works for a lot of features on our bodies. How intelligent is it to put a playground and a sewage system right next to one another between our legs? Who would make people breath and eat with the same tube? Why give us eyes that can only see 3/16 of light there is to be seen? The fact that humans could easily design and plan a better, more efficient body lends credence to the randomness of evolution IMO.

 

[Glitch]

Faith isn't really the right term, since science is quick to dump an explanation if another, better one is found. Faith means believing in something regardless of evidence. Science is about following the evidence.

As for developing from an indentation, to me there are two reasons this seems like a pretty good explanation, one scientific and one more philosophical.

1. There are extant species that represent every stage on that evolutionary path. Planarians see with those indentations, nautiluses have deeper ones with no transparent cover, etc. It's not like scientists are just making wild speculations. We can see all of the steps from indentation to eyeball in the world currently.

2. If our eyes were designed by an all knowing, all powerful creator, wouldn't they work better? Having evolved in the ocean stunted the possibilities of eyesight (because they evolved to see almost entirely refracted light). If they'd evolved on land then (in theory) we be able to see more of the light spectrum. We'd be able to see better at night. We'd be able to see better details super up close, like fish can.

This type of argument works for a lot of features on our bodies. How intelligent is it to put a playground and a sewage system right next to one another between our legs? Who would make people breath and eat with the same tube? Why give us eyes that can only see 3/16 of light there is to be seen? The fact that humans could easily design and plan a better, more efficient body lends credence to the randomness of evolution IMO.

Canines, felines, and other wild animals see very well at night. Did they not evolve in the water like humans? Or maybe I missed something about the evolution of the eye. I am truly curious.

 

[Vols4us]

Darth - please explain the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. Is the rate the same as scientists originally determined in the recent past or have they revised it? The answer to that question is a tad important to any theory or understanding of life.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Canines, felines, and other wild animals see very well at night. Did they not evolve in the water like humans? Or maybe I missed something about the evolution of the eye. I am truly curious.

Cats, dogs, and some other animals can see really well at night, at least relative to humans. But they still aren't nearly as well adapted to it as they would be if they could see a broader range on the electromagnetic spectrum. Furthermore, most of those animals that can see at night can't even see the spectrum of colors that humans see.

The eyes of all vertebrates evolved originally in the water. Thats not to say they haven't evolved since, though. That happened a LONG time ago. Hence the adaptations animals like Eagles (who have very good long range sight) and felines have made. However, pretty much all of them have some sort of design flaw or another as a result of the randomness of evolution.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Darth - please explain the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. Is the rate the same as scientists originally determined in the recent past or have they revised it? The answer to that question is a tad important to any theory or understanding of life.

This question is way over my head. But my understanding is that due to the difficulties in determining the rate of mitochondrial DNA, there is no current scientific consensus and estimates have generally varied based on the attempted methods of calculation.


I can't really go into any more depth than that since most of that is beyond my understanding, honestly.

 

[bignewt]

all this intellectual verbosity coming from a guy with a nascar avatar is making my head crazy.

 

[Glitch]

Cats, dogs, and some other animals can see really well at night, at least relative to humans. But they still aren't nearly as well adapted to it as they would be if they could see a broader range on the electromagnetic spectrum. Furthermore, most of those animals that can see at night can't even see the spectrum of colors that humans see.

The eyes of all vertebrates evolved originally in the water. Thats not to say they haven't evolved since, though. That happened a LONG time ago. Hence the adaptations animals like Eagles (who have very good long range sight) and felines have made. However, pretty much all of them have some sort of design flaw or another as a result of the randomness of evolution.

I'm sorry. Why do people have a hard time believing in intelligent design? Let's say, for the sake of argument that all life first developed in the ocean. (I concede that only because the bible states in Genesis that God first created the creatures of the sea.) Why would all higher forms of life develop to require sexual reproduction? Does it not seem like intelligent design the way life requires both male and female to reproduce? Wouldn't it have been more likely that animals would have developed to reproduce asexually? There is just too much balance in the world to allow me to see anything but intelligent design. I appreciate your argument but I still see a creator even if your argument is proven fact.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I was an unbeliever..it's one part of my testimony that I don't like admitting. At best I was agnostic. Something happened to me that science cannot explain. It is my miracle. I don't know why God chose to reveal his power to me, while others search, and beg for a sign that they never see. But I would be the greatest of fools to deny or doubt his existence. It is personal to me, not second hand.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I'm sorry. Why do people have a hard time believing in intelligent design? Let's say, for the sake of argument that all life first developed in the ocean. (I concede that only because the bible states in Genesis that God first created the creatures of the sea.) Why would all higher forms of life develop to require sexual reproduction? Does it not seem like intelligent design the way life requires both male and female to reproduce? Wouldn't it have been more likely that animals would have developed to reproduce asexually? There is just too much balance in the world to allow me to see anything but intelligent design. I appreciate your argument but I still see a creator even if your argument is proven fact.

The important thing to remember is that life evolving the way science currently believes it did doesn't disprove the idea of some sort of creator (though it does definitely conflict with many religions' creation stories and the age many world religions believe the earth to be). The fact that the the universe all works according to a set of rules seems indicative of some sort of creator or higher power IMO.

But evolution is a scientific theory with an enormous amount of scientific backing, much like the theory of gravity (and FTR, there is still A LOT about the way gravity works scientists haven't figured out as well...doesn't mean it's not a pretty rock solid scientific fact).

As for sexual reproduction, the easiest to understand explanation is that the origin of sexual reproduction most likely happened from asexual reproduction gone wrong due to a mutation of some sort. Honestly, it's a bit over my head as well. The thing to keep in mind though is that these were all very simple organisms and a mutation and jump from asexual to sexual reproduction isn't as big of an evolutionary leap as one might imagine (though it did lay the groundwork for the evolution of increasingly complex organisms) if you're thinking of the jump between one species of animal and other.

But there are a number of organisms (like many seedless plants and other microorganisms) that have, interestingly, LOST the ability to sexually reproduce and have gone back to asexual reproduction. So we know that transition from one method of reproduction to another can and has happened.

 

[volinbama256]

One of the other best things about McGees, being able to stumble down the alley behind the bar, only cross one real street, and then fall down inside Clement. It was a hellhole, but at least it was a close hellhole!

You guys are young bucks... I remember standing outside the Library on the strip around 1AM after whipping FL 45-3, and Alvin Harper running by me yelling at the Po-Po(chasing him) "Do you even know who I am!?"... needless to say it was a pitiful sight because in 3 seconds he was GONE and the Po just stopped and gave up pursuit.... Ahhh, good memories! UT is just an awesome place, no matter when you attended... My son is a senior in High School and UT is in his top three choices. I have to remain neutral for my marriage's sake, but would love an excuse to spend even more time on campus in the coming years! :thumbsup:

 

[Glitch]

The important thing to remember is that life evolving the way science currently believes it did doesn't disprove the idea of some sort of creator (though it does definitely conflict with many religions' creation stories and the age many world religions believe the earth to be). The fact that the the universe all works according to a set of rules seems indicative of some sort of creator or higher power IMO.

But evolution is a scientific theory with an enormous amount of scientific backing, much like the theory of gravity (and FTR, there is still A LOT about the way gravity works scientists haven't figured out as well...doesn't mean it's not a pretty rock solid scientific fact).

As for sexual reproduction, the easiest to understand explanation is that the origin of sexual reproduction most likely happened from asexual reproduction gone wrong due to a mutation of some sort. Honestly, it's a bit over my head as well. The thing to keep in mind though is that these were all very simple organisms and a mutation and jump from asexual to sexual reproduction isn't as big of an evolutionary leap as one might imagine (though it did lay the groundwork for the evolution of increasingly complex organisms) if you're thinking of the jump between one species of animal and other.

But there are a number of organisms (like many seedless plants and other microorganisms) that have, interestingly, LOST the ability to sexually reproduce and have gone back to asexual reproduction. So we know that transition from one method of reproduction to another can and has happened.

While I take the bible at face value I do believe that the seven days in which God created the earth is subjective. A day to God could be any length of time to our limited minds. I also believe that science and Christianty are not mutually exclusive. Like you stated above, I think science can be used to prove the existence of God. Christians that run from science are forgetting that God created everything and science is the study of how God made everything so it is a study of God. Again, good discussion Darth.

 

[CroKev]

Faith isn't really the right term, since science is quick to dump an explanation if another, better one is found. Faith means believing in something regardless of evidence. Science is about following the evidence.

Though "faith" is defined in Hebrews as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen," it has nothing to do with "believing in something regardless of evidence." I became a follower of Christ after the overwhelming evidence of His resurrection. If not for that, I'm sure I'd be an agnostic at best.