Hairless Chimps

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
I just think it's funny someone that keeps African cichlids doesn't "believe" in evolution. The African rift lakes are some of the greatest examples of evolution on the planet, we can literally see species changing and evolving in front of our eyes. How else can you have two dozen fish that look almost the same but vary depending on what part of the lake they're in?

Why is there not room for both anyway? Say God created the earth and animals, knowing the earth and its environments are constantly changing... Wouldn't he equip these animals with the ability to change and adapt to these environments? Obviously they do.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
I find this debate is entirely within TOS.

No ine is discussing Religion per se or as opposed to other regligious beliefs.
Evolution is science and Rob ' s expose is, to me, crystal clear in conveying, in english, the way I see it. As Aclockworks is, also. Scence does not imply the non existence of God ( what God, however, is out of this discussion and against the TOS )

Rob, on the other hand, i have a somewhat differente theory on the Neanderthals ( lack of intelligence in comparison to sapiens ) which you did not address.
 
Chicxulub said:
Simple, evolution is based in science, religion is based in philosophy. Evolution is not a religion; the only people who feel it is a religion are those who do not understand it or subscribe to its belief structure and view it as a competitive religion.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is the term "evolution" is used VERY broadly to cover too many ideas. Evolution-ites take one extreme of the meaning; while Religious-ites take the other. And therefore no accurate discussion can take place.

Idea #1: Evolution refers to "natural selection" only, ie the idea that an animal shows physiological changes/adaptations to cope/compete better with its environment.
Idea #2: Evolution refers to the "belief" that humans "evolved" from some primordial sludge/single cell organisms into the sentient being that we are today.

Now apply the true (yet equally false depending on what idea of "evolution" you consider) statement/definition below to both ideas:

Chicxulub said:
The scientific method is as follows:

First, formulate a question. (Why are some chimps hairless?)

Second, hypothesize. This is where you think up why the thing you're investigating is the way it is. (Is it because of Alopecia?)

Third, make a prediction. ("Yes, I believe this is Alopecia" or "No, I don't think this is Alopecia because of [fill in the blank])

Fourth, test. (Start with rats (or monkeys, or dogs or whatever or even chimps if you have good funding), test the affects of Alopecia on the test group while a control group which has all of the same conditions but NO Alopecia.

Fifth, Analyze. This is where you look at the results of the test and ask more questions (taking you back to step one). Until you have explored all possible avenues of investigation, you don't have a result. The question of hairless chimps can NOT be answered just on the Alopecia test.

Of course this is quite simplified, but it is a valid example.

Once all avenues of investigation have been explored, one would publish the results of the testing for peer review. Peer review is the most important step in the scientific method. If others can't repeat your experiments, a reviewer would call you out and unless you can address their questions, it's likely that your paper would be rejected.
Click to expand...

Statement applied to "Evolution" Idea #1: Natural/Competitive selection is a widely scientifically proven/accepted fact and in no way "infringes" on a persons belief in God/gods.

Statement applied to "Evolution" Idea #2: The "belief" the we "evolved" from, or "are the same as" another animal/species/organism is not reproducible with any scientific method (unless I've missed some massive scientific breakthrough recently). Therefore; that "belief" must be taken on "faith" the same way a religion relies on "faith" in an unknown/unprovable idea; and hence the rub (IMO) that Religious-ites have with the discussion of "evolution" being against TOS.











PS My theory on the Hairless Chimps... Wrong kind of shampoo:
[video=youtube;JscwfjTsyBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JscwfjTsyBA[/video]
 
Good post, Mel Gibbson!
 
I don't agree with all of it but I think any further examination of those points will get this closed. So back to the topic, naked chimps.
 
Why, Alan?

It really only depends on us. Go ahead.
 
MaddMaxx said:
Statement applied to "Evolution" Idea #1: Natural/Competitive selection is a widely scientifically proven/accepted fact and in no way "infringes" on a persons belief in God/gods.

Statement applied to "Evolution" Idea #2: The "belief" the we "evolved" from, or "are the same as" another animal/species/organism is not reproducible with any scientific method (unless I've missed some massive scientific breakthrough recently). Therefore; that "belief" must be taken on "faith" the same way a religion relies on "faith" in an unknown/unprovable idea; and hence the rub (IMO) that Religious-ites have with the discussion of "evolution" being against TOS.


PS My theory on the Hairless Chimps... Wrong kind of shampoo:
[video=youtube;JscwfjTsyBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JscwfjTsyBA[/video]
Click to expand...

Just joining the discussion here.

Want to start by saying thank you for laying out your ideas clearly and in an organized respectful manner. Good thought went into that post.

Now, I disagree with you that applying the same principles of natural selection to humans requires faith.

We have uncovered many types of 'human' type remains, including Neanderthal, which support the application of natural selection to the development of Homo sapien.



Sent from my DROID BIONIC using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom