Do you believe in Evolution?

[Link]

I want to see what people think. Me? Personally, I don't.

[Blademaster]

Oh, goody, another debate for every extremist at TPM to jump on! I'll get the popcorn...

And just for the record, I do believe in evolution. :wave:

[.hacker]

I personally do not believe in Evolution.

[Arnen]

I believe in evolution and I don't want to say anything else because I don't want to offend any religious freaks like I did last time I talked about something like this =D

[DarkTemplarZero]

There's not much to believe really, all evidence points to evolution. That's why it's a theory: all evidence we currently have supports it. You don't see any idiotic religious fanatic attacking the Theory of Relativity and claiming that gravity is caused by the weight of God's mercy and time dilation exists because God can't keep up with you when you're moving really really fast, or Kinetic Gas Theory by saying that all gases result from God's holy fart. Intelligent design's just another religious belief that's in line to get shot down by reason: 500 years ago people believed the Earth was only 4000 years old, in 1600 people believed the sun revolved around the Earth, in 1900 Lord Kelvin believed that there was nothing left to discover in the field of physics, and today some quaintly backward people believe that God created mankind in his image even if all evidence points to the contrary.

[Link]

If all evidence points to evolution, then it isn't science.

[Jeff]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, not proven, just believed. Yes, Relativity is also a theory, but at the same time it's due to be replaced by either String Theory or something else of that nature. Science is always evolving, every theory has flaws, and there are always new theories to overcome those flaws. There might be some theory that everyone believes, but there's always room for other theories in science. From my point of view, Evolution and Intelligent Design, are just two ways of explaining the same thing, just like String Theory and competing theories are trying to explain the Universe.

[Negrek]

I do believe in evolution myself; to me, it seems very logical and covers the bases nicely.


If all evidence points to evolution, then it isn't science.
...what? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.


From my point of view, Evolution and Intelligent Design, are just two ways of explaining the same thing, just like String Theory and competing theories are trying to explain the Universe.
That's true in a sense, but I wouldn't compare Intelligent Design to, say, an alternate String Theory or something, because it has no scientific basis. You're correct in saying that scientific theories are not perfect and are constantly being revised--heck, Darwin didn't even know anything about inheritance when he first proposed evolution. However, I think that the core concept of evolution, the whole survival of the fittest thing, is unlikely to change as time goes on. You never know, though.

[Heald]

Evolution is probably real, so that's why I believe in it.

Think about it - unless you're an idiot and actually believe the fairy tale that is Genesis (or any other 'creation story' where humans were created in their current form), when life first began to roam the Earth, the world was very much uncivilised - while it is somewhat plausible to believe that mankind began existence 'as is' i.e. how we are now, it is not plausible to believe that the technology that we rely on to survive, such as vaccines, weaponry and heating, existed with us. Look at humanity in its current form - we're weak, cowardly, selfish beings with nought but pink hairless monkey suits and a very vulnerable immune system. Back when the world was uncivilised and roaming with large, hairy, feral beasts with big teeth and disease was far more widespread, humanity as it exists today simply would have not survived.

This isn't evidence for evolution itself per se, but since carbon dating for the planet itself goes millions of years back, whereas human civilisation can barely be backdated 10 000 years, it would be foolish to deny that this is the truth.

Also, evolution does not contradict the existence of God - it merely contradicts Genesis. Both Genesis and Evolution were devised by a man, or men, so saying that one carries weight over the other due to its author is outrageous.

[Everoy]

Let me start out by saying this: I think that science is how things work and religion is why.

I personally believe that evolution is real. And, I also believe that it was triggered by a divine being. I am not religious in any sense of the word; I have no religious affiliation and the last time I went to any sort of church I was three. There is evidence for evolution; there is no evidence disputing it.

[DarkTemplarZero]

"If all evidence points to evolution, then it isn't science."
Care to explain that statement? I didn't really understand it.

"I'd just like to remind everyone that the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, not proven, just believed. Yes, Relativity is also a theory, but at the same time it's due to be replaced by either String Theory or something else of that nature. Science is always evolving, every theory has flaws, and there are always new theories to overcome those flaws. There might be some theory that everyone believes, but there's always room for other theories in science. From my point of view, Evolution and Intelligent Design, are just two ways of explaining the same thing, just like String Theory and competing theories are trying to explain the Universe."
First of all, String Theory has little or nothing to do with Einstein's Theory of Relativity: General Relativity's purpose is to accurately predict the effects of gravity, String Theory attempts to explain what gravity actually is. And don't get me started on the phantom science of String Theory, while it is mathematically beautiful in the 40 or so years it has been around there has been not a single experiment to show whether or not it actually applies to our universe, and so it can't really be called a theory. Stuff like Loop Quantum Gravity seems to be the more likely explanation of what gravity actually is anyway.

And the fact remains that while evolution is a theory, all evidence says that it is true, there are countless observations of evolution (not in action, but through fossil records and such), while all theologists have to say is that randomness cannot yield such an ordered result, which is laughably false as anybody who does computer science and studies simulated annealing (wiki it. Awesome stuff) can tell you.

"A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable." -- Wikipedia

[Poryhedron]

Let me start out by saying this: I think that science is how things work and religion is why.

I personally believe that evolution is real. And, I also believe that it was triggered by a divine being.
I forget the exact details now, but I once read something that explained, with surprisingly convincing detail, that if God created all of the different species on Earth by deliberately manipulating DNA he could do so without contradicting a single word of Genesis, except for the part about it all taking only six days.

Evolution exists. This can no longer be denied by people who bother to educate themselves; it is too easily observable in micro-organisms as they evolve a resistance to our antibiotics. Dandelions have evolved a defense against lawn mowers by gradually becoming shorter, to the point where the whirling blades pass over them. These days, people supporting intelligent design can no longer claim evolution is a myth; instead, they have to try to explain how it can be present in microbes and dandelions and yet not be capable of turning amoebae into humans over the course of millions of years.

Oh, and by the way...one of the bulwarks of intelligent design is the enormous complexity of the human eye. Scientists have now demonstrated how such a deeply intricate system can, in fact, be produced by evolution starting with a patch of light-sensitive cells.

[darktyranitar]

I believe in evolution.

But I disagree with the whole human-evolve-from-ape evolution theory.

[Poryhedron]

I believe in evolution.

But I disagree with the whole human-evolve-from-ape evolution theory.

Humans didn't really evolve from apes...at least, not modern apes. Humans and apes just have a common ancestor.

In fact... it's been determined that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than we are to apes.

[darktyranitar]

In fact... it's been determined that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than we are to apes.

I'm still not buying that.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Mmmm hmmm, so where did human beings come from then, if not a common ancestor who diverged into chimps and humans, who's DNA's are over 98% identical?

[Roy Karrde]

I believe that we have more important things in this world than to worry about a answer to a question that will never be answered, and if it is, it will not be in our life time. Some people are so up tight to use any excuse to attack religion and further their own bigotry. Other people are so defensive about their religion that they cannot get their head out of the sand and look around.

Both need to look around and focus on some of the bigger things than worry about if we evolved from Chimps or if God breathed life into us.

In the end there are too many questions, and there are holes both sides can poke into each other's theories. But I would rather have people focus on the middle east nuts who use their backwards religion to kill people. And worry about the smaller questions later.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Whether or not evolution is the truth already has been answered: given all the evidence we have, the answer is a resounding yes. Science has always been like a Sherlock Holmes novel: once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth. All evidence we have points to evolution and nothing except a few quixotic skeptics to the contrary. Evolution may have a few holes, like lacking a precise mathematical model, etc. but there is no positive evidence for anything else.

To Roy: But I would rather have people focus on the [American government] nuts who use their backwards religion to kill people.
Don't diss Islam, it's basically the same religion as Christianity and Judaism, give or take a name or two. Quite frankly, all monotheistic religions are the same, give or take some names and places.
Second of all, the mysteries of life, reality, and the universe are no small question:
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when one contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries to comprehend only a little of this mystery every day." -- Einstein

[mr_pikachu]

It should be fun to see the responses to this post. Or irritating. We'll see.

Personally, I think that both theories are correct, in a sense. I'm inclined to believe that a solution exists which satisfies the biblical explanation (even if it happens to be metaphorical, which it may be) and scientific evidence. But that's just my personal view, and I'm hardly about to criticize someone for having a different take on things.

I would like to mention something about the nature of science itself, though. Science works with theories, which are often based on earlier theories. But theories are naturally flawed. The first seven meaning for "theory" on dictionary.com are as follows:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Theories are an explanation for what we have observed. Therefore, they are limited by two factors. First, the scope of our logical reasoning restricts the explanations that we can think of when we create a theory. Second, the events that we have observed are all that we are trying to explain.

When our logical capabilities expand, more possibilities come to light. When we observe further events that contradict previous theories, we must adapt and change our previous arguments to suit the new evidence.

Therefore, theories must naturally undergo constant scrutiny in light of continuing advances in logic and in evidence. We cannot assume that something is true just because "science says it is." Theories are theories, and nothing more.


EDIT: Bolded the definitions that actually apply to what I was saying.

EDIT2: Deleted a few of the bold tags upon further consideration.

[Little_Pikachu]

I believe in evolution a whole lot more than I believe that one day god just decided to make everything in the perfectly formed way it is today. Where did all these bones of ancient humans come from? Or were they just made along side the perfected humans and made to fight to the death for God's amusement?

[DarkTemplarZero]

Mr Pikachu: A scientific theory is different from the conventional meaning of "theory" in that it can't be a guess or speculation. Conjecture, yes, from the evidence given. While I don't disagree with you that theories aren't always correct, just look at Caloric Theory, but they must be proven or disproven scientifically through observation and reasoning, not through skepticism by religious nutcases who have no evidence to back up what they're saying.

LP: Such is the plight of philosophy; lots of argument that gets nowhere. For example, I could argue that the universe was created exactly one second ago by an all powerful being named Tony Montana and made the illusion that the universe was 13.7 billion years old, and, by Schrodinger's Uncertainty Principle, I can't prove it and you can't disprove it because we can't observe anything to support either argument.

[mr_pikachu]

Well, I admit that the latter two definitions I gave are a bit too extreme from a scientific standpoint. I'll go back and edit the bold tags out of that part, because you do make a valid point there.

Nonetheless, theories still have the two limitations that I mentioned previously: logical prowess and available evidence. When new ideas are considered, or when contradictory evidence comes to light, theories are changed. It's the nature of science that nothing can truly be "proven," but that we can only conclude the best explanation for the limited things we have seen. One look at how many theories there have been about the structure of atoms demonstrates that.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Don't invoke Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem here, it's irrelevant. What keeps evolution from being a scientific law (it's universally accepted among biologists, just like Newton's Laws of Motion are universally accepted among physicists for example) is three things: religious extremists, the fact that we haven't been able to observe it anywhere else in the universe because we haven't discovered life anywhere else in the universe (scientific laws must hold everywhere), and the fact that it lacks a nice mathematical model like F=ma or F=G*M1*M2/R^2.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? Hah nice point. Unfortunately, most scientists and mathematicians don't want to waste their lives trying to prove axioms. We can sit here and battle on and on about whether 0=0 is true or whether Newton's Third Law of Motion is true or whether every living creature is descended from a common ancestor and not get anywhere and science would become philosophy, but thankfully the question is irrelevant. The question is what can you derive from the axiom, not how you can prove it is true.

And you cannot compare evolution to the models of the atom: none of the theories of the atom were actually scientific theories, they were "models". Even when they were published the discoverers stated that their models had some flaws and failed to explain certain phenomena. Hell, Bohr's original paper stated that, while his model predicted the behavior of the hydrogen atom to the T, it was useless for helium and larger atoms because of electron repulsion, nobody has yet claimed to have an all-encompassing theory of how an atom works. There has never been a shred of scientific evidence that contradicts evolution. Once again, we can sit here and argue Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and whether F really equals ma, but that is irrelevant and there has never been any evidence that says otherwise, so for our purposes it's an axiom.

[youdontknowme]

I don't believe in macro-evolution, but I do believe in micro (ie. adaptation)
Nobody can prove or disprove evolution, like the existence of God; it's taken by faith.

[Negrek]

I don't believe in macro-evolution, but I do believe in micro (ie. adaptation)
Nobody can prove or disprove evolution, like the existence of God; it's taken by faith.
Yes you can. How else did some microbes become resistant to antibiotics? There was that whole thing with the moths and the sooty trees and them changing colors to remain camouflaged. And, in controlled laboratory settings, you can generate evolution though selective breeding of fast-reproducing organisms, such as bacteria or flies. Stuff evolves.

I've heard people say how they believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution before, but I've never understood what they consider to be the difference or what the argument is there. Care to enlighten me?

Indeed, science is a faith like religion, but one of a different nature--you can go on believing that the earth is flat all you like, but we have very conclusive evidence to prove otherwise. The existence of a God(s), by the very nature of the proposal, cannot be proven, and therefore requires a different kind of faith entirely.

[mr_pikachu]

1. If I'm not mistaken, micro-evolution is the adaptation of certain animals to various situations - you could compare it to Pokemon evolution, really. Macro-evolution is the gradual change of a species over an exceedingly long period of time into a different species.

2. "The earth is not flat" is generally taken as a scientific axiom now because it is readily observable. This is different from a theory. Human evolution is more difficult than an axiom, as we cannot go a few dozens years back in time to observe the changes.

[Negrek]

(*simultaneously testing BBCode thingy*)

1. Individuals don't evolve (thus, pokémon "evolution" is technically a misuse of the term). As it was defined to me, microevolution refers to the evolution of a specific population, whereas macroevolution the species as a whole. What I'm getting at is I don't see how people can believe in one and not the other.

2. The evolution this topic is discussing is not specifically human evolution, but the process in general. And it is even moreso readily observable than the curvature than the earth, unless you have a spaceship handy or some really fine instruments--you can engineer evolution experiments and observe their results in your house if you feel so inclined.

Edit: Okay, so the center and bold tags worked, but the color tag did not...? *goes away to fiddle*

Edit-edit: It disappeared as a result of my edit. Woe!

[mr_pikachu]

I'll just comment on the micro/macro-evolution part...

Think of it this way. Micro-evolution is like a caterpillar that becomes a butterfly. Macro-evolution is like apes changing into humans over thousands of years.

[Negrek]

(plz to be limegreen text this time)


Micro-evolution is like a caterpillar that becomes a butterfly. Macro-evolution is like apes changing into humans over thousands of years.
No. Individuals cannot evolve. Metamorphosis =/= biological evolution in any way, shape, or form. The transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly is not evolution, much less micro-evolution. Micro evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population--if a population is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (a practically impossible state), then it is undergoing micro-evolution. The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-evolution) on the matter gives a quick run-down; I'm too lazy to look for a more illustrious source.

(hahahaha, success! ... however temporary)

[mr_pikachu]

*grumbles*

It was a metaphor to explain who each term affects. It wasn't meant to be an actual example...

Oh, forget it. I should know better than to post in these topics by now.

[Negrek]

It was a metaphor to explain who each term affects. It wasn't meant to be an actual example...
*blink*

But it didn't correctly explain who the term affects, which was the point of the last post. But sorry for turning you off the debate. ^^;

[Blademaster]

No. Individuals cannot evolve.

Actually, I'd thank that to be false, simply because there had to be some point in time where one species became another.

For instance, say humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution is really slow, right? So gradually, the monkeys in question became more and more human, until eventually one of them 'crossed the threshhold' and became more human than chimpanzee. If individuals couldn't evolve, evolution would never happen - it's not like one day every monkey suddenly decided 'I'm gonna turn into a human today, but only if everyone else does, too.' It just seems like individual evolution must happen, at least sometime at some level, because the only other option available is group evolution, and that - that more than one of a certain species evolved into a certain other species at a certain time - seems impossible, or at the very least, infinitely less likely than the alternative.

And I base all of what I just said...

On absolutely nothing. Thank you, :wave:

P.S. Come back, Bri! This was just getting fun! :D

[Negrek]

For instance, say humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution is really slow, right? So gradually, the monkeys in question became more and more human, until eventually one of them 'crossed the threshhold' and became more human than chimpanzee. If individuals couldn't evolve, evolution would never happen - it's not like one day every monkey suddenly decided 'I'm gonna turn into a human today, but only if everyone else does, too.' It just seems like individual evolution must happen, at least sometime at some level, because the only other option available is group evolution, and that - that more than one of a certain species evolved into a certain other species at a certain time - seems impossible, or at the very least, infinitely less likely than the alternative.
Perhaps I was a little confusing--yes, individuals are different and show characteristics that deviate from all others of their species. However, they don't evolve themselves, that is, change genetically throughout their lifetime (mostly, but I'm not going to go into specifics). At some time, yes, there was one tree-dweller born that was more "human" than any of his relatives, but this was a result of the genetic lot he (or she, but I'll go with masculine pronouns because I'm lazy) had been dealt. No predecessor ever gained the "human" trait during their lifetime--they did not metamorhpose into a slightly more human being during the course of their hunting and gathering. A person's DNA is fixed at birth, and for all intents and purposes this cannot be altered by the individual afterwards, so a single creature cannot be said to evolve.

[Blademaster]

So, then, a monkey that was 49.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999% monkey gave birth to a monkey that was 50.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000001% human?
But..... WHEN did that happen? At some point, when that child was an infant, a newborn, an embryo, a zygote, or even an egg, it had to develop that extra 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000002% from somewhere. So...

?

[Negrek]

There are several ways that could have happened. First, there might be a perfectly "normal" cause for it--something that happens as a result of the mechanics of sexual reproduction (omg I get to turn this into a sex thread yay). When sex cells get made, they undergo a process called meiosis. When that happens, their DNA gets replicated so it can get put into the next generation of cells. However, before the DNA gets split up and reassigned to the next generation, it may undergo a process called crossing-over, where the replicated chromosomes exchange bits and pieces of DNA, resulting in some new combinations. There's one source of a change in genetic code. After that, the DNA all gets split up into new reproductive cells--however, only half the chromosomes make it into any one new cell; for each offspring, half the DNA comes from the mother, and the other half from the father. Thus, the kid is something totally different from either of its parents--an entirely new sequence of DNA, with uniquely combined traits as a result. Possibly, this might lead to some new adaption (perhaps, say, exceptionally long legs, if both parents had long legs).

Beyond that, there's mutation in the reproductive DNA. This can happen in many ways--radiation, as I'm sure you've heard, can do that. Alternatively, there might be a mistake in copying the DNA. And sometimes worse mistakes get made during the production of reproductive cells--wrong numbers of chromosomes getting put into a cell, stuff being improperly copied, and so on and so forth.

So that's where little differences in genetic code come from: mutations or recombination of parents' DNA, if the organism reproduces sexually.

[Blademaster]

Arrrrrrrrr... I'm taking biology; I can't believe I forgot about the meiosis thing. ><''''

And yeah, I know the whole radiation-mutation thing: I've seen Spiderman, ya know. ;)

[Magmar]

I believe in Evolution. Bulbasaur, evolve!

[Link]

Darwin considered some of the best evidence for his theory to be the striking resemblance of vertebrate embryos at an early stage of their development. He wrote in The Origin of Species that “the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles” are “closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar.” He argued that the best explanation for their embryonic similarity was that such animals “are the modified descendants of some ancient progenitor.” According to Darwin, “the embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state.”

Darwin believed that evolutionary changes tend to occur in the later stages of development and are gradually pushed back into embryogenesis, with the result that embryonic development bears the imprint of past evolution (in Ernst Haeckel’s words, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”). The doctrine of recapitulation fits so nicely with Darwin’s theory that it has endured to the present, and can be found in many modern biology textbooks. But it was clear to embryologists even during Darwin’s lifetime that it did not fit the facts. Nineteenth-century embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer pointed out that although vertebrate embryos resemble each other at one point in their development, they never resemble the adult of any species, present or past. The most that can be said is that embryos in the same major group (such as the vertebrates, which include fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals) tend to resemble each other at a certain stage before they develop the distinguishing characteristics of their class, genus and species.

Darwin and his followers ignored these difficulties, however, and the modern synthesis excluded embryology entirely. Only in the past twenty years, with the rise of developmental genetics, has comparative embryology attracted significant interest from evolutionary biologists. One result of this renewed interest has been the recognition that patterns of early development do not fit the Procrustean bed of recapitulationism.

Although it is true that vertebrate embryos are somewhat similar at one stage of their development, at earlier stages they are radically dissimilar. After fertilization, animal embryos first undergo a process called “cleavage,” in which the fertilized egg divides into hundreds or thousands of separate cells. During cleavage, embryos acquire their major body axes (e.g., anterior-posterior, or head-to-tail, and dorsal-ventral, or back-to-front). Each major group of animals follows a distinctive cleavage pattern; among vertebrates, for example, mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles cleave very differently.

Animal embryos then enter the “gastrulation” stage, during which their cells move relative to each other, rearranging themselves to generate basic tissue types and establish the general layout of the animal’s body. The consequences of this process are so significant that embryologist Lewis Wolpert has written that “it is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly the important event in your life.” Like cleavage patterns, gastrulation patterns vary markedly among the major groups of animals, including the different classes of vertebrates.

Only after gastrulation do the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles begin to resemble each other. In the “pharyngula” stage, every vertebrate embryo looks vaguely like a tiny fish, with a prominent head and a long tail. The neck region of a vertebrate pharyngula also has a series of “pharyngeal pouches,” or tiny ridges, which recapitulationists misleadingly refer to as “gill slits.” Although in fish embryos these actually go on to form gills, in other vertebrates they develop into various other head structures such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland. The embryos of mammals, birds and reptiles never possess gills.

Therefore, Darwin’s belief in recapitulation is belied by the evidence. Embryologists have occasionally pointed this out, but their admonitions have fallen mostly on deaf ears. As recently as 1976, biologist William Ballard (who, according to Richard Elinson, coined the term “pharyngula”), lamented the fact that so much energy continues to be “diverted into the essentially fruitless 19th century activity of bending the facts of nature to support second-rate generalities.” Ballard concluded that it is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence” that one can argue that the early stages of the various classes of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.”

[youdontknowme]

Yes you can. How else did some microbes become resistant to antibiotics? There was that whole thing with the moths and the sooty trees and them changing colors to remain camouflaged. And, in controlled laboratory settings, you can generate evolution though selective breeding of fast-reproducing organisms, such as bacteria or flies. Stuff evolves. Like I said, I believe in micro, not macro.
I think some people are getting confused with what I'm saying...
When I said macro, I meant primates to humans. Micro being adaptations ie. what Negrek said about the moths.

When I said that evolution cannot be proven or disproved, I was referring to macro (at least, in my terms). Again, there's no undeniable evidence that proves the existence of such evolution.
If some day evolution can be proven like simple arithmetic (2+2=4), then I'll be damned.

[DarkTemplarZero]

So you say you believe that you believe in minor changes but not major ones? Don't you think that small adaptations bit by bit over millions of years can result in a radically different species? Think about what you're saying for a bit. Primates that were able to see over the tall grass in Africa prospered because they could find food more easily, so primates that could stand on their hind legs more readily were more likely to survive, so after some time a group of primates only stood on their hind legs, etc.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Glyptodon-Armadillo.jpg
^ Evolution.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Skelett_vom_Wal_MK1888_ohne_Text.gif
Baleen Whale skeleton. Notice it has hind legs (marked by C) ? Vestigial remnants of its terrestrial ancestors.

2+2=4 is not an axiom, it is derived from the assumption that a=a for all values of a, which you can debate philosophically but it's absurd. Evolution is more axiomatic than anything, it's just what's always been observed and there is no conceivable scientifically provable alternate theory, therefore, by Sherlock Holmes' principle, it must be the truth. Since you seem to be so against evolution, youdontknowme, tell me what you think? What logical and scientifically provable alternate theory to evolution do you have?

[Blademaster]

What logical and scientifically provable alternate theory to evolution do you have?

Magic. :D

What? Not logical enough?

(casts a spell that makes everyone believe magic is logical)

See? ;)

[Gavin Luper]

Magic. :D

What? Not logical enough?

(casts a spell that makes everyone believe magic is logical)

See? ;)

Man, I don't think I could've said that better myself.

You really enjoy these hey Blade?

Anyway, I think evolution is a clever theory and probable. In fact, it's probably right. I'm religious, not extremely so, I just think Genesis was symbolic rather than literal. Works for me at this stage. Hell, none of us are ever really going to know the truth anyway, it all comes down to what you believe in.

:hellyeah:

[Arnen]

It seems to me that people who don't believe in the whole ape-to-man thing just get offended by the idea that we probably evolved from animals that throw their own poo, and are too immature to admit it and instead turn to their religion for an excuse.

[Negrek]

It seems to me that people who don't believe in the whole ape-to-man thing just get offended by the idea that we probably evolved from animals that throw their own poo, and are too immature to admit it and instead turn to their religion for an excuse.
I don't really understand that view, myself. If people are going to get all offended about what our ancient ancestors were, why stop with apes? I mean, surely it would be much more offensive to imagine us descending from nasty little bacteria, or nasty-looking fishy things swimming around in some ancient ocean.

And yet, all I seem to hear along that line of thought is, "I just don't believe we could have evolved from monkeys!"

[Blademaster]

Man, I don't think I could've said that better myself.

You really enjoy these hey Blade?

Debates are too serious - I like to add some humor to the mix. It does the body good. :yes:

[DarkTemplarZero]

True dat blade. Magic always works

And what's the problem with being descended from an ape that threw it's poo, a fish, or a bacteria? What does it matter? *shrug* I couldn't care less.

[youdontknowme]

I believe that a magical stork came and dropped eggs onto the earth. :p

As I've said, I don't believe in evolution. I don't have some "scientifically provable alternate theory to evolution" but that doesn't mean I have to believe in it.
Of course, I don't think that we'll ever learn the "truth". I'm sure we all know that when it comes to evolution, beliefs get thrown around for something that we cannot truly prove. (ie. how life evolved from phospholipid bubbles)
It all comes down to faith (and I don't mean that in the religious sense). If you don't think it comes down to faith, then so be it. :|


It seems to me that people who don't believe in the whole ape-to-man thing just get offended by the idea that we probably evolved from animals that throw their own poo, and are too immature to admit it and instead turn to their religion for an excuse.I hope you're not referring to me. :( I just think it's farfetched.

[Blademaster]

You know what'd be really funny? After you die and meet up with God, if E told you that intelligent design and evolution were both wrong. I swear, if E told me we were made by magic or dropped of by aliens or something, I am gonna laugh my ass off. :rotfl:

[youdontknowme]

And God says the answer to life, the universe, and everything really was 42. And we thought that it was a bunch of bologna. Who would've thought? :p

As my friend says, "if you believe in God and there really is a God, then hooray. If you believe in God and there really isn't a God, then oh well." Win-win situation. :S

[darktyranitar]

Here's a thought: if all life evolved from one tiny algae cell, then where'd the algae came from in the first place?

...magic?

[The Blue Avenger]

As my friend says, "if you believe in God and there really is a God, then hooray. If you believe in God and there really isn't a God, then oh well." Win-win situation. :S

Everyone who I've seen use that argument seems to forget that there are different religions who each believe in different Gods. So you've really just got a one in however many religions there are chance of coming up with a win-win situation.

[Negrek]

Here's a thought: if all life evolved from one tiny algae cell, then where'd the algae came from in the first place?

...magic?
An interesting question, but irrelevant to the process of evolution itself; evolution deals not with the origin, but what follows after, although in some cases we trace it backwards in order to speculate what might have come before.


Everyone who I've seen use that argument seems to forget that there are different religions who each believe in different Gods. So you've really just got a one in however many religions there are chance of coming up with a win-win situation.
True that. I think it would be funny to discover post-mortem that, in fact, this place is run by some forlorn little deity (or pantheon thereof) deeply embittered by the fact that nobody recognizes him/her/it for what he/she/it is. Because even with all the philosophies and religions extant as of now, there's no way of knowing that even a single one of them is correct--there's an infinite number of possibilities in that regard.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Evolution is not so much a matter of "belief" in it as much as it is a matter of whether or not you believe that the Universe is something that can be completely understood by humans or if you believe that reality is this magical thing that nobody could ever understand. Personally, I subscribe to the former and I can't imagine living otherwise. But on the other hand, the great Dostoevsky once wrote in one of his books how he couldn't understand why atheists, knowing that there was no god, no afterlife, and no divine meaning in life, didn't just shoot themselves on the spot. Ah the diversity of human opinion.

And as for DT's comment, it's a very interesting question, one that scientists are working on. Why is life preferable to inanimacy? *shrug* The universe would be so much simpler if we were all rocks. One theory is that in some primordial goo some atoms randomly combined to form the first amino acid and subsequently the first protein, hence the first organic molecule, and things went from there. There's no real observable answer to that though.

And finally, I think it would be pretty funny if the Universe was actually run by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that the afterlife has a beer volcano. I would get a kick out of that.

[Weasel Overlord]

Bleergh, beer volcano. *makes face at the beer* Now if it was vodka...

Wait wait, I did come here with a point!

I do believe in evolution, although according to Vulpix.ck (my resident zoological studies homie) they're even starting to question the whole evolution thing... (bear with me while I try and remember all this, it's really interesting)

Okay, so I believe in evolution. But it's probably because I'm far too sensibly-minded (occasionally) to believe in God. (or Allah, or anything, really) The Bible was written by a man, and changed over history. The Bible is therefore a "story", with a human author, and any story written by a person is going to be altered by that person's point of view, or prejudices, or even just how they saw a certain situation. And that's basically why I'll never feel able to take the events of the Bible, say Genesis, as being truth. Now taking them metaphorically, that's acceptable, but there's still the question of God. How can there be one single being in the universe who created the human race? And then there's the age-old argument; If God created the world, and is omniscient and merciful, then how can there be so much evil in the world?

I'm not contradicting myself when I present the counter-argument; God gave humans free will, according to the Bible. We are therefore free to choose whether we want to go down the path of good, or whether to live a life of evil.

Then there's the lovely; If God was perfect, how could he have created evil?
Well, a similar answer. Free will can once again be applied, and then there's the fact that without evil, there can be no good. For we need evil to define good, and vice versa. It relates back to the philosophical argument debating whether God, being infallible, could make a rock that he cannot lift. Since God is infallible, and can basically do anything, he is capable of creating the rock; however, if he created a rock that he could not lift, then that would make God himself fallible. And so, we have a vicious circle.

And I think now I'm done talking about God... hehe.

Evolution. Right. According to new research (university lecturers are constantly researching new theories, so don't complain at me if you've not heard of this before - you won't have done, likely enough)
concerning the old fossils.

There are soft cell organisms, and hard cell organisms (I'm explaining this how I remember Vulps telling me... so don't pick at me if it's wrong, or for not using the correct terms - I'm an English Language student, not a scientist any more, lol) which have been found as fossils.

But apparantly, all the fossils that have ever been found only ever date back to a certain period in history. Can't remember the date. But there have been no fossils found anywhere in the world which predate this certain "date" in history. Now, soft celled organisms don't fossilise well, they're soft celled, so they decay instead, unlike hard-celled organisms, which preserve nicely. (fossils are cool, hooray!)

So, as far as I remember, this seems to mean that there could have been soft celled organisms pre-dating any fossils that we've found so far, because of the fact that they don't fossilise.

I guess this could therefore imply that there were human-like organisms before the fossils we've already dated.

This probably isn't anything like the actual theory that I was told (I was drunk, leave me alone!) but it's still interesting no doubt!

[Negrek]

But apparantly, all the fossils that have ever been found only ever date back to a certain period in history. Can't remember the date. But there have been no fossils found anywhere in the world which predate this certain "date" in history. Now, soft celled organisms don't fossilise well, they're soft celled, so they decay instead, unlike hard-celled organisms, which preserve nicely. (fossils are cool, hooray!)

So, as far as I remember, this seems to mean that there could have been soft celled organisms pre-dating any fossils that we've found so far, because of the fact that they don't fossilise.

I guess this could therefore imply that there were human-like organisms before the fossils we've already dated.
It's true that there were fossils long before what we are able to detect (or so we assume). However, the farthest back that we've gotten fossilized evidence of life is waaaay back to the single-cell days, when there was hardly any oxygen in the atmosphere and things were very different than they were today, in general. Certainly, a human as we know it couldn't survive in those times.

We haven't, of course, found a conclusive "origin" fossil for the human evolutionary chain that, like archaeopteryx, seems to represent a turning point in evolution or point the way towards what's to come; it's entirely possible, if not almost certain, that there are fossils of human-like organisms that predate any that we have currently found. However, there are fossils from well before when humans are thought to have emerged (dinosaurs and so forth), so although there might be fossils farther back in the human lineage that we haven't found, they're certainly not older than anything we've discovered (in terms of resemblance to currently living humans, anyway).

In short, I fail to see how that would refute evolution... ?

[DarkTemplarZero]

Well yeah, beer is weak, except John Harvard's Pale Ale, that's good stuff. Smirnoff is the shiz (I'm Russian, what do you expect?). But I digress.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." -- Gene Roddenberry

[Katie]

Well considering pretty much everything we know about biology relies on the concept of evolution, yes I do believe it. I haven't seen any reasonable evidence that contradicts it either. Hell, we've SEEN microevolution, and micro + time = macro. I guess if you believe the earth is 6000 years old, that could be a roadblock. But we've dated rocks back to 4.55 billion years, and archaebacteria fossils back to 3.8 so.........
If the theory ain't broke, don't fix it. Give it a century or two and it'll probably be a law.
Hypothesis = untested idea.
Theory = hypothesis that has been tested a lot, and hasn't been disproven yet.
Law = theory that is very very unlikely to disprove.
There's not going to be some random fossil we'll find that will automatically change it from a theory to a law, so I wish people would stop using that stupid "evolution is just a theory durrr" line.
On a related note, intelligent design. Oh god. Everyone's entitled to believe in ID if they want, but it's fucking retarded to try to shove it into schools. It'll cripple the advancement of science. ID is basically writing on a math test "I don't know how to do this problem, and therefor it cannot be done. Since there is an answer, and no way it can be done, I'll just assume that only a being of a higher power could work out the middle part." Don't just GIVE UP, FIGURE IT OUT. Jesus.

Personally I find the whole idea of evolution and the origin of life/origin of planet and whatnot fascinating. :) I'm taking a Historical Geology class next semester, can't wait!
There is one thing I don't really get though. Since evolution is based on mutations, does that mean that every human living right now developed from one individual animal that happened to have that one trait?
...I can't really phrase this question. Argh. Ok. Rephrase.
A million years ago there were 5000 same species monkeys. One has [random important trait]. Do ALL 4999 other monkeys' family trees die off, and EVERYTHING that ever evolves from this species of monkey is a direct descendent of that one single monkey with [random important trait]? Or could multiple monkeys have developed [trait]? :confused: I hope someone can translate my jibberish and form an answer, because it bugs me.

[Negrek]

There is one thing I don't really get though. Since evolution is based on mutations, does that mean that every human living right now developed from one individual animal that happened to have that one trait?
...I can't really phrase this question. Argh. Ok. Rephrase.
A million years ago there were 5000 same species monkeys. One has [random important trait]. Do ALL 4999 other monkeys' family trees die off, and EVERYTHING that ever evolves from this species of monkey is a direct descendent of that one single monkey with [random important trait]? Or could multiple monkeys have developed [trait]? I hope someone can translate my jibberish and form an answer, because it bugs me.
Nope, the same mutation/trait can and has arisen in different areas across the globe. I would say that, yes, somewhere back in time there was one single individual who had some sort of trait that spawned the human line as we know it, but that does not a) mean that the rest of that individual's family tree died out as a result, nor that this trait was perpetuated throughout all of its descendents or b) that no other individual could ever evolve said trait.

Evolution isn't always a straight-line process--that is, species don't usually progress from configuration a to configuration b with just one string of mutations and no off-shoots. Just because one individual gains a trait that makes it more competitive than the others of its species, does not mean that it will evolve into a new species that will automatically push out all the rest of its former comrades. If the new mutation allows the individual to take advantage of a new niche, for example, it may not drive out the species from which it was descended, as they will not be in direct competition. Rarely does one single species out of a group persist while all older species die off--that's why you get things like the coelecanth, which has been around for ages even as its descendants have moved on to other things. A species' "family tree" typically has many branches, some of them leading to dead ends, others taking on drastically different forms. Hominids are actually fairly unusual for the fact that only one species of them survives today. Also, all the descendants of that "one monkey" would not necessarily possess the trait that got its line started--species gain and lose acquired traits over time as evolutionary pressures change.

Also, more than one individual may develop a given trait; in fact, the same trait may appear in more than one species. When species a world apart adapt to fit similar niches, they evolve some very similar characteristics, even though descended from entirely different ancestors. This is called convergent evolution. For example, hedgehogs, echidnas, and the two different groups of porcupine all developed their characteristic spines independently. Koalas, even, have unique fingerprints like humans--it is possible for the same trait to appear in many different places.

I hope that answered your question.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Good point on the math test thing Katie, props.

Evolution works very much like simulated annealing in math and computer science, hence why the latter is called a "genetic algorithm". If a randomly developed trait leads to better survival then it is adopted, but if the trait leads to less survivability it is not necessarily discarded, but it is accepted with a certain probability (i.e. the probability that the branch with decreased survivability doesn't die off) and may lead to even more survivability in the long run. Randomized trial and error, loosely guided to a certain goal. It may seem a bit unlikely, but in this mixed up universe of ours it works. Beautiful, no?

[Blademaster]

It may seem a bit unlikely, but in this mixed up world of ours it works.

Fixed it. :cool:

[Mystic_clown]

ID is basically writing on a math test "I don't know how to do this problem, and therefor it cannot be done. Since there is an answer, and no way it can be done, I'll just assume that only a being of a higher power could work out the middle part." Don't just GIVE UP, FIGURE IT OUT. Jesus.

I wonder if anyone's actually done that?

Anyway, I red somewhere that this science team tried to replicate conditions of what would it would be millions of years ago (realy bloody hot, lots of carbon dioxide, etc), and were amazed to discover organic matter forming. Very primate organic matter, but organic matter none the less. This would explain where the first life forms came from.

And on the topic of ID, well, they can believe it if they want, but putting it on the same level as evolution...There is no word to describe how idiotic that is.

[Razola]

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/7128/iwanttobelieveevekj9.jpg

[DarkTemplarZero]

http://www.adammessinger.com/images/darwin-rangers/darwin-rangers_combined.png

http://www.bx.psu.edu/makova_lab/Images/evol.gif

[Mew Master]

Eh, I'm going to throw my two cents in here because as a Scientist, I actually see change evolution in action, and I just got done taking my Zoology Final.

First off, I'm a Paleontologist, so I spend a fair ammount of time looking at different species of dinosaurs and birds looking for a connection.

Second off, and the most important. Evolution is not a belief. It is a Scientific theory that can be argued either to be incredibly false, or very accurate. Just as you can argue that science and faith bang off each other like oil and water, there are some who think the two can co-exsist. I think they can, but then again, what do I know? I'm agnostic.

Well, let's look at the main points of evolution.

1. Evolution is a change in a population over an expanse of time.

Whether you want to accpet this or not, there is evidence for changes within a population. Evolution is scrutinized because we can't see the differences within out own generation. For specific changes to be taken place we need at least three successive generations to see a change. However, we can see a few trends.

Human beings have increased in height from the late 1800's the average height increased by 4-6 inches at best. We also have begun to live longer, as a result of both medicine and our own resistances to natural viruses and ailments. However, the bad part of this is that there is also an increased rate of death by corinary and cancer-related ailments. That can be partially explained by behavior and habit, but behavior is part of the driving force behind evolution.

The other fact brought up is that viruses, bacteria, and insects are becoming resistant to everything we throw at them. This happens when an exsesive use of an anti-biotic and insecticie kills all but a few of the population. That population, that survived the original onslought, is able to reproduce with more of those who are resistant. And the cycle continues with many more resistant organisms surviving and multiplying.

This also ties into adaptive radiation, where one species eventually changes and evolves into several different species with a common ancestor. This is why Mammals, Reptiles, Birds, and Fish are tied to the first few multi-celled organisms.

2. Change is bound to happen in a population.

We may be only 99% different from the rest of the world's species however there is that 1% difference that accounts for variation.

A population is each genetically different. When they mate, the genetic variations increase drastically (X^2). Which allows for different genetic combinations. Those combinations that survive pass on those genes to the next generation and so on...

3. Organisms in a population are not the same

See previous point.

4. Variation is repeatable across Generations.

As I stated earlier, variation across time is seen through bacteria (because they can reproduce quickly and have shorter life-spans), or through statistics (human height, as mentioned earlier). And these variations continue on as the organisms live, grow, and reproduce.

5. More offspring = More survive and reproduce

Different species have different ways of surviving. Cats have litters of kittens between 3-7. Humans have young that number anywhere from 1-7, but more often it's just one. This has to do with the survivability of the species. Cats have some natural predators that threaten their young, so they have large batches to ensure that they survive. Humans on the other hand have no natural predators (other than ourselves, you can argue either way), and thus have far fewer young with a longer gestation period (two months in a cat vs 9 months in a human). Other species, however, are fully able to stand the second they're out of the womb (antelope)

I'll end with a few final notes.

When you look at the different taxinomic classifications of animals, you can see change across them that mimics change over time.

From "Protozoa" -> Porifera -> Cnideria -> Platyhelminthes -> Nematodes -> Mollusca -> Annelids -> Arthorpoda -> Echinodermata -> Chordata. The addaptive radiology branches out into the living organisms of the animal kingdom.

Now, I am a supporter of Evolution. I am also respectful of other people's beliefs and I don't try to force my ideals on someone else. Just so long as they don't force theirs on me.

Okay... there's my..... *counts fingers* Um.... 34 cents worth. ^^U

[Jay Umbreon]

im a believer =]
though it would be nice to believe that lots of virgins are waiting in heaven for me ^_^ ...but still...
nah, im with darwin.
religion gives people hope for a life after death
it gives people meaning where there's uncertainty
again, hope when there's fear
but the cold truth, is most probably evolution
born, die, that's it.

[Razola]

Yeah, because God being behind evolution is entirely out of the question.

I don't think they even had a calendar like we do now when they wrote the Bible. I don't see why the biggest thing we get out of Genesis is "We didn't come from monkeys" when "Don't kill your brother, jackass." is probably the lesson of the story.

[Heald]

^ - Really? I thought the lessons were 'Don't listen to talking snakes' and 'Women are gullible fools'.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Razola's point is awesome btw.

And anyway, I want to have an afterlife with plenty of scantly clad virgins. Unfortunately, that doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.

[pokemasterfrank]

Bleergh, beer volcano. *makes face at the beer* Now if it was vodka...

Wait wait, I did come here with a point!

I do believe in evolution, although according to Vulpix.ck (my resident zoological studies homie) they're even starting to question the whole evolution thing... (bear with me while I try and remember all this, it's really interesting)

Okay, so I believe in evolution. But it's probably because I'm far too sensibly-minded (occasionally) to believe in God. (or Allah, or anything, really) The Bible was written by a man, and changed over history. The Bible is therefore a "story", with a human author, and any story written by a person is going to be altered by that person's point of view, or prejudices, or even just how they saw a certain situation. And that's basically why I'll never feel able to take the events of the Bible, say Genesis, as being truth. Now taking them metaphorically, that's acceptable, but there's still the question of God. How can there be one single being in the universe who created the human race? And then there's the age-old argument; If God created the world, and is omniscient and merciful, then how can there be so much evil in the world?

I'm not contradicting myself when I present the counter-argument; God gave humans free will, according to the Bible. We are therefore free to choose whether we want to go down the path of good, or whether to live a life of evil.

Then there's the lovely; If God was perfect, how could he have created evil?
Well, a similar answer. Free will can once again be applied, and then there's the fact that without evil, there can be no good. For we need evil to define good, and vice versa. It relates back to the philosophical argument debating whether God, being infallible, could make a rock that he cannot lift. Since God is infallible, and can basically do anything, he is capable of creating the rock; however, if he created a rock that he could not lift, then that would make God himself fallible. And so, we have a vicious circle.

And I think now I'm done talking about God... hehe.

Evolution. Right. According to new research (university lecturers are constantly researching new theories, so don't complain at me if you've not heard of this before - you won't have done, likely enough)
concerning the old fossils.

There are soft cell organisms, and hard cell organisms (I'm explaining this how I remember Vulps telling me... so don't pick at me if it's wrong, or for not using the correct terms - I'm an English Language student, not a scientist any more, lol) which have been found as fossils.

But apparantly, all the fossils that have ever been found only ever date back to a certain period in history. Can't remember the date. But there have been no fossils found anywhere in the world which predate this certain "date" in history. Now, soft celled organisms don't fossilise well, they're soft celled, so they decay instead, unlike hard-celled organisms, which preserve nicely. (fossils are cool, hooray!)

So, as far as I remember, this seems to mean that there could have been soft celled organisms pre-dating any fossils that we've found so far, because of the fact that they don't fossilise.

I guess this could therefore imply that there were human-like organisms before the fossils we've already dated.

This probably isn't anything like the actual theory that I was told (I was drunk, leave me alone!) but it's still interesting no doubt!

Wouldn't it make more sense that it implies that there were only things like ameobas? I mean, when we die, we leave bones behind. Humans are probably classified as "hard-celled".

And it's perfectally possible for multiple organisms to have the same evolutionary change. The evolutionary features occur when one trait suits whatever environment better, so those with it live and those without it die. And those with the trait breed and yield more organisms with said trait.

[Razola]

^ - Really? I thought the lessons were 'Don't listen to talking snakes' and 'Women are gullible fools'.Well, Adam listened to Eve, so who is the bigger fool? I believe old Ben had a saying about that once.

[Asilynne]

Ok first lets look at the two main theories:
Intellegent Design vs Evolution

Most people can only think in black and white, for one to be right the other must be wrong. But I dont believe that, I believe that they are both right in a sense because they in fact dont conflict as much as some may think.

Look at it this way.

In the Bible it says the Universe and earth and all its creatures were created in 6 days, and on the 7th God rested. Now if taken literally this does indeed sound daunting to believe in for many people. But, take into consideration the kind of being we are dealing with. God is said to be omnipresent "In the beginning there was God". Ageless limitless etc. We as humans live short lives, an hour, a day, a year, all of these are measureable to us in ways that are easy for us to comprehend. You can watch an hour go by if you stare at the clock long enough, you can count a year by crossing off days on the calendar. We see a day pass by the rising and setting of the sun. We are comfortable with our concept of that which is in reality unmeasureable--Time.
What is a day to one such as God then? He has no set limit on his life, no age, or at least not one we can comprehend. A day to someone who can live forever may be a million years. So the earth may not have been made in a human day, but a day for God, which would fit with the theory of the world being formed over thousands of years.
Now personally I dont believe in evolution, Darwin had some screwed up ideas. They wont print it in todays books, they abidge him now, but when he first wrote his orgin of species he also wrote about the "evolution" of the human race, which nowadays would be considered racist. I do however believe in the concept of adaptation, the belief that animals will adapt to their suroundings in order to survive. The finches on the galapagos Islands didnt stop being finches, they didnt become another higher form of bird like eagles, they just adapted their feeding tools to where they lived. They stayed the same species, just with different shaped beaks so that they could feed on the food sources unique to their homes. Black people, White people, asians etc. are all the same species, but over time due to environment and diet, adapted with different features to better suit where they live.
Humans probably ddnt appear on earth as the exact being we are today. I know there was a lower form of human in the past, but its ridiculous to believe that humans developed out of an entirely different species such as apes. Many people try to argue that humans and chimps have only about a (I believe) 8% difference in genome, as if that means we are related. Considering how big the genome is, and considering how even a slight variant can have wildly different outcomes, this certainly doesnt prove we came from the same ancient ancestor.

So in conclusion if taking into account the fact that time for us is relative and that for a supreme being a day may span much farther than our lifetimes, and understanding that an animal adapting to its surroundings makes more sense than an animal changing into a completely different animal, these two theories are not bitter rivalling enemies at all. They may be hard to grasp together, and may be worded in different ways, but they both speak of the same thing. If you know how to look at something with an open mind, you can see that the way the world works can be very simple, in a scientific or a divine way.


Oh and you dont have to agree with me, I just like getting what I think out there ^-^ Keep the religion bashing to a minimum please, lets all respect each other as people :D

[Heald]

You see, in the US, there's this whole 'Evolution versus God' thing and nutjobs trying to keep evolution out of schools and such, whereas in the UK, evolution is more or less taken as fact, or at least, a scientific theory with a lot of evidence to prove it and very little to the contrary. Hell, even our clergymen understand that evolution is probably fact and that it doesn't necessarily contradict Christianity.

Not trying to prove a point, just making an interesting observation. However, I guess our schools are actually taught the facts about evolution and not the watered-down version I gather some of your schools teach in order not to offend the idiots.

Also, to Raz - doesn't Genesis say that Eve was naked at the time? If a naked woman asked you to sample her fruit, wouldn't you take her up on her offer?

[DarkTemplarZero]

Depends, was Eve hot? And what about her brother Steve?

Razola: Hahah great quote. "Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

Asilynne: That had to be the single most idiotic rambling I have seen in my entire life. In that entire paragraph I think you had one train of thought that could be considered rational and the rest was just trash. I'm not bashing religion or you in particular, I just don't want anybody mistaking what you said for something that makes sense.

First of all, humans and chimps differ by less than 2% genetically, with a great deal of common genes. Using the beauty of computational biology we can infer that the concestor (most recent common ancestor) between chimps and humans lived about 5-7 million years ago (See Richard Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life").

And while I agree that Darwin's Finches were still Finches, your knowledge of taxonomy is clearly lacking, because each of Darwin's Finches is a different species, belonging to the same Kingdom, Phylum, Class, and Order, yes, but each a different Species and 4-6 different Genera, depending on your source.

Next, your argument about geological time is valid, but self-defeating. You believe in adaptation, but you don't believe that over a sufficient time minor changes can result in a net large change. Again I'll point you to read up on simulated annealing to see that random changes over time with an impetus toward a certain goal do lead toward that goal.

"Considering how big the genome is, and considering how even a slight variant can have wildly different outcomes, this certainly doesnt prove we came from the same ancient ancestor"
Why thank you, I guess we can agree that even a slight variation can cause wildly different outcomes. And how easy is it to cause a slight variation? Incredibly easy, random mutations occur all the time in your body. In a sufficiently large population variation is ridiculously common. Now about that not proving a common ancestor, true, 2% difference is huge, however, there's the fossil record for proof, considering that humans looked like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Austrolopithecus_africanus.jpg
(Austrolopithecus, the commonly accepted ancestor of homo habilis, homo erectus, etc. and therefore modern humans from approximately 1-4 million years ago)

about 3 million years ago, is it that much of a stretch to believe that humans shared a common ancestor with Chimpanzees? And also you forget, we humans are classified as part of the family Hominidae, along with gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans, so technically, we're still apes.

[Asilynne]

Sorry DTZ I stopped reading when I saw the word "idiotic". If you want your point to be taken as a valid one, you should perhaps try to have a little class, maybe learn some basic human concepts such as "respect", "dignity" and "decency". It gets tiring after awhile wading through insults just to find the point your trying to make, and I dont care enough about your opinion to do so. Also Im confused, your Organization is supposed to be there to "defend human rights" correct? Why then are you so harsh and unfeeling to your fellow humans when in topics such as this one? Or did you twist it around in your mind that if they say something you dont like they stop being human? Think about what you say before you sound (even more) like a hypocrite :>

[DarkTemplarZero]

I'm sorry Asilynne, it's nothing personal, I just can't stand it when people try to pass off completely irrational opinions as coherent arguments. And too bad, you're missing out on some good stuff in my post. Who knows, you might want to become a computational biologist one day :) <3

[Asilynne]

I'm sorry Asilynne, it's nothing personal, I just can't stand it when people try to pass off completely irrational opinions as coherent arguments. And too bad, you're missing out on some good stuff in my post. Who knows, you might want to become a computational biologist one day :) <3

Apology accepted :> If youd care to rewrite it so you dont sound like an ass Ill check it out ^-~

[Mew Master]

Um... actually.. Humans and the rest of the primape family share about 99.5% of all genes <-<U

[pokemasterfrank]

Apology accepted :> If youd care to rewrite it so you dont sound like an ass Ill check it out ^-~


Depends, was Eve hot? And what about her brother Steve?

Razola: Hahah great quote. "Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

Asilynne: That had to be the single most idiotic rambling I have seen in my entire life. In that entire paragraph I think you had one train of thought that could be considered rational and the rest was just trash. I'm not bashing religion or you in particular, I just don't want anybody mistaking what you said for something that makes sense.

First of all, humans and chimps differ by less than 2% genetically, with a great deal of common genes. Using the beauty of computational biology we can infer that the concestor (most recent common ancestor) between chimps and humans lived about 5-7 million years ago (See Richard Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life").

And while I agree that Darwin's Finches were still Finches, your knowledge of taxonomy is clearly lacking, because each of Darwin's Finches is a different species, belonging to the same Kingdom, Phylum, Class, and Order, yes, but each a different Species and 4-6 different Genera, depending on your source.

Next, your argument about geological time is valid, but self-defeating. You believe in adaptation, but you don't believe that over a sufficient time minor changes can result in a net large change. Again I'll point you to read up on simulated annealing to see that random changes over time with an impetus toward a certain goal do lead toward that goal.

"Considering how big the genome is, and considering how even a slight variant can have wildly different outcomes, this certainly doesnt prove we came from the same ancient ancestor"
Why thank you, I guess we can agree that even a slight variation can cause wildly different outcomes. And how easy is it to cause a slight variation? Incredibly easy, random mutations occur all the time in your body. In a sufficiently large population variation is ridiculously common. Now about that not proving a common ancestor, true, 2% difference is huge, however, there's the fossil record for proof, considering that humans looked like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Austrolopithecus_africanus.jpg
(Austrolopithecus, the commonly accepted ancestor of homo habilis, homo erectus, etc. and therefore modern humans from approximately 1-4 million years ago)

about 3 million years ago, is it that much of a stretch to believe that humans shared a common ancestor with Chimpanzees? And also you forget, we humans are classified as part of the family Hominidae, along with gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans, so technically, we're still apes.

Fix. lol :P

I agree with DTZ on this one. Points are valid.

Evolution is sound in logic. And it can be easily integrated into religious beliefs - but that doesn't stop people from refusing to believe it.

EDIT: wtf. I have to spell out strike? :P

[Green_Pikachu]

i may not believe in evolution to a T, but I believe in parts of it. there really is nothing else to believe in. it's the only sensible option for explaining how we're here.

[Mega Horny]

Well, why wouldn't we believe in evolution? This is a freakin' Pokemon forum. Oh wait, is this one of those everstone threads? Sorry.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Hahah true dat. If a Magikarp can become a Gyrados, why can't a monkey become you or me?

[Razola]

Say that Eve was naked at the time? If a naked woman asked you to sample her fruit, wouldn't you take her up on her offer?If we're following the Bible, you must remember that clothing doesn't exist. She's always naked and hey, you're the only guy on Earth. You're also in Eden, which apparently is PARADISE and I bet living there is like having awesome nonstop sex.

My point is a naked chick in Eden probably had less sway than a naked chick does today.

[Heald]

I think we're looking too much into this.

[Magmar]

If god created men in his own image then he created them gay... oh wait, wrong discussion.

[Razola]

I think we're looking too much into this.Well, it's a silly thread to begin with.

[Heald]

John Wayne Gacy agrees.