[QUOTE=guitrguy]Its more of me thinking about how easy it us for to have a completely opposite set of moral standards.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in some cases yes and others no. Some also made more sense when they were made precedents than they do now. For example, sleeping around was worse years ago when there were no condoms and you were more likely to spread diseases.

On the other hand, if murdering people were a totally standard and accepted practice, you'd have to wonder how prolific our population would be. Though it has been acceptable in other societies and been fine. So there's no real way to say except to actually do an experiment. Which would be very hard and time consuming and expensive.

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution]Well, in some cases yes and others no. Some also made more sense when they were made precedents than they do now. For example, sleeping around was worse years ago when there were no condoms and you were more likely to spread diseases.

On the other hand, if murdering people were a totally standard and accepted practice, you'd have to wonder how prolific our population would be. Though it has been acceptable in other societies and been fine. So there's no real way to say except to actually do an experiment. Which would be very hard and time consuming and expensive.[/QUOTE]
It would be very interesting though.

[QUOTE=Eggo]i didn't know there was anyone dumb enough to disagree[/QUOTE]
Look, I'm not dumb, you're just not backing anything you say up.

[QUOTE=Moses]Look, I'm not dumb, you're just not backing anything you say up.[/QUOTE]

1) fossil record
2) comparative embryology
3) comparative DNA analysis
4) comparative protein analysis

there's tons more but i can't be bothered extracting my bio textbook from underneath my 4000 page 20 pound neuroscience book

[QUOTE=Eggo]1) fossil record[/QUOTE]
People have used chicken bones with the carbon dating system and it dated it back at least a million years.

[QUOTE=Eggo]3) comparative DNA analysis[/QUOTE]
Human DNA is much closer to a dog's DNA than any primate. Recent discovery too.
[QUOTE=Eggo]4) comparative protein analysis[/QUOTE]
Same thing.

I have no desire to debate otherwise my answers would be much more elaborate.

Hehe, every topic that we start in the CR thread eventually spills over into the community thread.

..Ok I can't think of any others, but this one did.

Well I remember coming in on the "breasts" subject. Then we started talking about fat chicks, and other stuff.

[QUOTE=Moses]Human DNA is much closer to a dog's DNA than any primate.[/quote]

that's completely irrelevant but i'd like a source anyway

[QUOTE=Moses]Same thing.[/quote]

source

[QUOTE=Moses]People have used chicken bones with the carbon dating system and it dated it back at least a million years.[/QUOTE]

even though carbon dating has nothing to do with my argument i'd like a source

[QUOTE=Moses]I have no desire to debate otherwise my answers would be much more elaborate.[/QUOTE]

that's fine with me i'm just wondering about the credibility of your sources

i mean my source is a textbook used by the world's top biology department what's yours

[QUOTE=Moses]People have used chicken bones with the carbon dating system and it dated it back at least a million years.
[/QUOTE]
For some odd reason I dont believe that.

[QUOTE=Moses]
Human DNA is much closer to a dog's DNA than any primate.
.[/QUOTE]


that means that dogs and humans have face similar evolutionary pressures

[QUOTE=Eggo]that's completely irrelevant but i'd like a source anyway



source



even though carbon dating has nothing to do with my argument i'd like a source



that's fine with me i'm just wondering about the credibility of your sources

i mean my source is a textbook used by the world's top biology department what's yours[/QUOTE]
If you asked me about a year ago, I would have known the sources. I'll look it up again eventually. I do remember that my AP Chemistry teacher, who is an atheist, said the thing about the dogs which is a fairly recent discovery within 04.

It's 12:44 PM over here and I'm exhausted from recording. I'll talk to you guys later.

[url]http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62291,00.html[/url]


you have to wade through the crap to get to the other generally irrelevant crap about dogs and men

dogs and humans?
ehh the only similarity i know b/w dogs and humans is our respiratory systems.

but eggo is right. religion is really taking a hit. with that said, i love my church, my church band and the people there. but that's about it.

[QUOTE=Moses]If you asked me about a year ago, I would have known the sources. I'll look it up again eventually. I do remember that my Chemistry teacher, who is an atheist, said the thing about the dogs which is a fairly recent discovery within 04.[/QUOTE]

uh i googled the carbon dating chicken thing and i'm getting nothing

and the bit about the dogs doesn't really mean anything at all considering how much we share in common with the rest of mammalia

[QUOTE=z-sprout][url]http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62291,00.html[/url]


you have to wade through the crap to get to the other generally irrelevant crap about dogs and men[/QUOTE]

uh i dont recall reading anything abt dogs being closer than PRIMATES, although it did say they were closer to us than mice.
but that fact was already known.

[QUOTE=Eggo]and the bit about the dogs doesn't really mean anything at all considering how much we share in common with the rest of mammalia[/QUOTE]
Well comparative DNA/Protein analysis was one of your arguements.

[QUOTE=ghettoeddo]uh i dont recall reading anything abt dogs being closer than PRIMATES, although it did say they were closer to us than mice.
but that fact was already known.[/QUOTE]

yeah actually the freakin article says that they are closer to us genetically than mice jeez

this is why i always ask for source hehe

[QUOTE=Moses]Well comparative DNA/Protein analysis was one of your arguements.[/QUOTE]

yeah and it's still one of them

[QUOTE=Moses]Well comparative DNA/Protein analysis was one of your arguements.[/QUOTE]
He talking about evolution as whole not just humans.

i really love symphony X...
anyway. eggo, i remember you saying the picture of comparative embryology was true, although i stated that the author withdrew the picture from later versions of textbooks. but you never gave a reason. can you give one?

This convo has gotten to scientific for my tastes. I shall get some sleep now before my theory exam.

there is no such thing as TOO scientific in my world heh.
science is my favorite subject by far.

[QUOTE=ghettoeddo]i really love symphony X...
anyway. eggo, i remember you saying the picture of comparative embryology was true, although i stated that the author withdrew the picture from later versions of textbooks. but you never gave a reason. can you give one?[/QUOTE]

a reason for why it was true?

there are a billion pictures of comparative embryology examples out there and there's one in my textbook for last year's advanced biology class

[QUOTE=Moses]People have used chicken bones with the carbon dating system and it dated it back at least a million years.[/QUOTE]

Except you don't dig chicken bones out of hundreds of feet of eroding rock in the middle of the desert and from the bottom of the ocean and underneath Arctic ice. Besides, if the earth is so young then the Romans would have had a hell of a time conquering other countries with T-Rex running around. And besides, dinosaur bones aren't "chicken bones."

And also, fossils aren't bones either. They're basically rock and sediment that has gradually replaced bone matter due to the natural catyclysms that preserved the skeletons from the natural course of decay it would experience in the open world, which is why so many new dinosaurs continue to be discovered and yet why so few complete skeletons, families, anything exist; because fossilization was a rare, luck-of-the-draw process.

Using that as an argument against carbon dating seems pretty weak.

[QUOTE]Human DNA is much closer to a dog's DNA than any primate. Recent discovery too. [/QUOTE]

Only something like 10 percent of ANY DNA molecule is different from one animal to the next. It makes the "IT'S SO DIFFERENT" and the "IT'S SO SIMILAR!" arguments used by anti-evolutionists look pretty weak to begin with.

And what about the Neanderthal? Is he just an in-between ape that somehow doesn't exist anymore? Give me a break. You can't explain his existance without drawing the appropriate dilineation from previous erect apes that no longer live and the modern man that does.

Really, any idiot can see that there is a staggering amount of evidence for evolution just on the bare-bones, common sense level I've explicated here, operating on knowledge gleaned from dinosaur books from first grade. Give me a friggin' break. Trilemma may continue to lie about he "doesn't recognize that there's evidence" over in the Politics forum, but there's reams of it. People like that, who refuse to look, don't deserve to be educated to the contrary by people with enough good sense to recognize the truth when they see it, instead of forcing the real world to adapt to the most specific nonsense in an ancient book.

[QUOTE=ghettoeddo]there is no such thing as TOO scientific in my world heh.
science is my favorite subject by far.[/QUOTE]

until you think about STRING THEORY!!!! "evil crackle"

i love strnig theory. i dont even pretend to know anything about it, but what i have learned and what i do know is pretty wild :]

aieee the inner nerd arises.

[QUOTE=z-sprout]until you think about STRING THEORY!!!! "evil crackle"[/QUOTE]
String theory is far easier for me to grasp than all this biology nonsense :)

and all this biology nonsense is easier for me to grasp than string theory :-)

i wish i had space in my schedule in the next four years for physics though

it's a subject i'm very interested in :-(

I hate science. Me talking about science is just a short trip towards getting pwned.

Eh, even if you had some space, chances are you'd have to take at least a year of basic Physics to get into the more advanced theory courses. For us we were required to take 3 sems of basic Physics (up to relativity and quantum mechanics), and now we have the freedom to take some technical electives in Physics if we want, going into more detail on Quantum and theoretical Physics. Yay for being an engineer :)

Well, the pre-med track at JHU means I'd be taking basic Physics in Junior year :-(

*sigh*

In other ways, being pre-med is quite awesome :-)