Do you believe in Evolution?

[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:


(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.

[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:


(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

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?

[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.

[Razola]

I think we're looking too much into this.

Well, it's a silly thread to begin with.

[Heald]

John Wayne Gacy agrees.