Do you believe in Evolution?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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]? 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.

[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]

[DarkTemplarZero]

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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?

[Magmar]

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