NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe in Evolution?

I'm a creationist...although i do believe in evolution...

*That's more a religious topic though*

*And actually i wouldn't be contradicting myself*

On another note, Does Macro-Evolution also count as Evolution for this thread?

I'm a creationist...although i do believe in evolution...

*That's more a religious topic though*

*And actually i wouldn't be contradicting myself*
You would be contradicting yourself. Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

You would be contradicting yourself. Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.
No, i think he means that God started the Big Bang, and has had a hand in the evolution of species.

I believe!
..and we're winning :p

No, i think he means that God started the Big Bang, and has had a hand in the evolution of species.

Yup :)

I think the conflict between evolution proponents and creationist dogmatics comes from the creationists unwillingness to recognize that Genesis is a parable designed to illustrate the sequence of creation...not the time scale of creation!

You would be contradicting yourself. Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.
No, some creationists think that there could have been a creator that kickstarted life (by putting the finger into the organic soup and stirring just long enough) and then just let nature follow its course, or in one that has been constantly nudging here and there (like a convenient asteroid to wipe out the evolutionary dead-alley of dinousaurs), or that simply came up with the laws of the Universe and then went for a walk. He's still due to come back to see what happened.

They use gaps in current knowledge as demonstration of a creator.

They use gaps in current knowledge as demonstration of a creator.


why do you say that?

Well actually there was no talks about Evolution in the bible..so people assumed it was G-d... it makes sense.

why do you say that?
It's a generalization actually. For example, some creationists argue that because no life has been made from base aminoacids in a lab, that's proof that life can't be created by random events and therefore must have been a god or something. Or not knowing exactly how the Universe was created, some argue we don't know because it's unknowable and therefore god did it.

Which evolution? The fact that organisms change over time, or the part that states humans evolved from primates?

It's a proven fact that organisms change over time--you can even watch it yourself.

The poll is misleading. I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept it as the most valid explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.

Evolution is true. Yo momma said so in bed last night :rolleyes:

Err... it seems to me one doesn't "believe" or not in evolution, one does "believe" in creationism... evolution is just the most likely and satisfying scientific theory about how species went into being - talking about facts; it doesn't prevent anyone, me included, from believing the world was created by God... from there to believing all humans descend from one man called Adam and one woman called Eve... that's a fundamentalist interpretation of the Holy Scriptures in my humble opinion, just like believing Joshua litterally stopped the Sun (which doesn't move, it's Earth that moves, everyone knows that since Galileo)...

This is an issue I have been thinking about a lot lately. I voted "no" because I don't believe that evolution as it is generally thought of (all species developing from a common ancestor via the process of natural selection) is necessarily a good explanation for the development of life.

I have actually studied both sides of the issue, since I am a Bible College student taking science classes at a major secular university.

Just in case anyone wondered...

Both evolution and creationism require "belief", because neither can be proven without any doubt (hence the name "theory of evolution"). Some people who believe in creation also believe in evolution. It is true that micro-evolution can be observed in the world today, so it would be foolish to say that this was not a fact.

However, macroevolution is not currently being observed. This might be because it takes "thousands of years" for these reproductively isolating changes to occur. The major problem I see with macroevolution is that the majority of mutations that occur are harmful, rather than helpful, to organisms. Also, scientists have difficulty explaining the necessity of "intermediate forms". For example, it would be advantageous for a pre-bird to develop wings, but what would be the advantage of the half-arm/half-wing apparatus that would have to develop between final forms?

Sorry that was kind of a long entry. I just think it is an interesting topic.

what would be the advantage of the half-arm/half-wing apparatus that would have to develop between final forms?

Ask a flying squirrel.

how about a fish with lungs or legs

thats creepy but entertaining
i mean think about it a fish with legs "attempting to walk on land but falling over and then flopping madly trying to get back in the water

I believe in microevolution, evolution within species, but not macroevolution, evolution to species.

For example, it would be advantageous for a pre-bird to develop wings, but what would be the advantage of the half-arm/half-wing apparatus that would have to develop between final forms?


The amount of times that friends of mine have actually tried to argue with me about Evolution and not made any sense. I believe and i have seen that about 92% of people have chosen that they do but with the quote above, it actually made me think about whether or not i believe. Like i said, my friends often try to argue with me that "God" created the world and that evolution doesn't exist but with useless arguments like "It just happened"... that argument that Agapia made actually made sense and it does make me wonder about the intermediate forms of evolution... Well done for finally making a backed-up argument...

I'm sorry, Agapia, but as a bible college student you may not be on the safest ground when declaring yourself an unbiased observer.

The comment the you can't "believe" in evolution is absolutely correct; I don't believe in gravity, photons or the post office but we can prove that they exist.

Saying that there is no proof of evolution is patently ridiculous: the vast majority of human bio-medical research is based around the principles and consequences of evolution. As a Bioinformatics student at university we use mathematical models to follow the course of evolution. This isn't hokey religion, it's fact. And proven. Every day.

Only people of limited intelligence and warped education could possibly think that the garden of Eden is a viable explanation for life.

Try thinking in smaller more incramental steps,
or check this page out:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

Actually Agapia is in a good position to study both points of view as like he said, he is a science student and a bible student.... i think that gives him both sides of view... surely?

my brain just collapsed

I'm sorry, Agapia, but as a bible college student you may not be on the safest ground when declaring yourself an unbiased observer.

The comment the you can't "believe" in evolution is absolutely correct; I don't believe in gravity, photons or the post office but we can prove that they exist.

Saying that there is no proof of evolution is patently ridiculous: the vast majority of human bio-medical research is based around the principles and consequences of evolution. As a Bioinformatics student at university we use mathematical models to follow the course of evolution. This isn't hokey religion, it's fact. And proven. Every day.

Only people of limited intelligence and warped education could possibly think that the garden of Eden is a viable explanation for life.
Actually, gravity is unproven. It's just a convenient explanation for something that messes up a lot of physics.

Gravity isn't Proven!? What d'you mean... how bout you go and throw yourself at the floor and come back and tell me what happened? How can you say that Gravity isn't proven?

Both evolution and creationism require "belief", because neither can be proven without any doubt (hence the name "theory of evolution").
Well, it's not that creationism can not be proven without any doubt, it's that it can't be proven at all!
The major problem I see with macroevolution is that the majority of mutations that occur are harmful, rather than helpful, to organisms.
Also, scientists have difficulty explaining the necessity of "intermediate forms". For example, it would be advantageous for a pre-bird to develop wings, but what would be the advantage of the half-arm/half-wing apparatus that would have to develop between final forms?

See what I mean by "they use current gaps in knowledge as an explanation for god"? Most mutations are harmful, but maybe 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000 is useful. Even that's a lot of mutations when you think about the sheer number of organisms that are reproducing each day.

And it's not necessarily only mutations that drive evolution. Many scientist are more inclined to small variations that happen to be useful. For example, that 2 meter plus guy I met at a party. He's not a mutation, he's just a really tall dude. If in a pre-technological era something happened that made it impossible for short people like me to feed, then he would have survived and passed on his tall genes. He would have had short and tall children, the short ones die and the tall ones survive to pass the genes. The grandchildren are born taller, so less die. It would take a few generations, but you end up with tall humans.

The nature of the fossil record makes this idea harder to prove, but that's just the mechanical details of evolution, not evolution itself.

As for "intermediate forms" they work when they are better at a task than the previous form. So marsupials have "half" a placenta because that worked better for them than eggs, some fish have "half" a lung, some turtles have "half" a shell, etc. etc. I don't think there's any scientist who has problems explaining that.

gravity is painful if not used ........correctly

If you believe the universe is billions of years old then there is HEAPS of time for evolution (ie. mutation and natural selection) to explain all of the life on earth.
If you believe the universe is thousands of years old then thats your choice, although I would recomend reading Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene"

Gravity isn't Proven!? What d'you mean... how bout you go and throw yourself at the floor and come back and tell me what happened? How can you say that Gravity isn't proven?
Because it isn't. Neither are black holes. There's no way to prove it, yet. It's just a theory. Anyone familiar with science will tell you that.

This is an issue I have been thinking about a lot lately. I voted "no" because I don't believe that evolution as it is generally thought of (all species developing from a common ancestor via the process of natural selection) is necessarily a good explanation for the development of life.

I have actually studied both sides of the issue, since I am a Bible College student taking science classes at a major secular university.

Just in case anyone wondered...

Both evolution and creationism require "belief", because neither can be proven without any doubt (hence the name "theory of evolution"). Some people who believe in creation also believe in evolution. It is true that micro-evolution can be observed in the world today, so it would be foolish to say that this was not a fact.

However, macroevolution is not currently being observed. This might be because it takes "thousands of years" for these reproductively isolating changes to occur. The major problem I see with macroevolution is that the majority of mutations that occur are harmful, rather than helpful, to organisms. Also, scientists have difficulty explaining the necessity of "intermediate forms". For example, it would be advantageous for a pre-bird to develop wings, but what would be the advantage of the half-arm/half-wing apparatus that would have to develop between final forms?

Sorry that was kind of a long entry. I just think it is an interesting topic.

Specition, IIRC, occurs when two animals of a 'species' cannot interbreed. We have achived this in dogs (Think Chiwawa and Great Dane), although this is still just physical reasons and not Genetic reasons.

On Creationism:
1) Where did this god/creator come from?
2) What is it, as in a ball of photons? But photons have no will, so thats flawed. The only thing that has will is an animal, which requires evolution.

I believe in microevolution, evolution within species, but not macroevolution, evolution to species.
So you just ignore the multiple observed instances of speciation?

Because it isn't. Neither are black holes. There's no way to prove it, yet. It's just a theory. Anyone familiar with science will tell you that.
Sorry, gravity has been proven and the gravitational constant measured. Black holes have been detected. I think you may be a couple of centuries out of date.

Do you believe in Evolution?

No.

So you just ignore the multiple observed instances of speciation?
Name one.

Sorry, gravity has been proven and the gravitational constant measured. Black holes have been detected. I think you may be a couple of centuries out of date.
A constant has been measured yes. But that could be the rate at which invisible gnomes push you towards the earth. A self-existent force that has unlimited energy has NOT been proven. Black holes have been detected, but then again so was the ether in the 1800's. They have not been proven, unless you want to argue with Carl Sagan.

Name one.
The Nylon Bug.
And a bunch of species of Drosophilia.

Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/

section 5 deals with examples of Observed Instances of Speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Sorry, gravity has been proven and the gravitational constant measured. Black holes have been detected. I think you may be a couple of centuries out of date.

Thats what i was trying to say, i just couldnt get the words... But what is gravity? It's the force that keeps us stuck to the ground (I'm talking in relation to Earth and Humans). Hypothetically, Gravity is unproven and unmeasured then isn't it obvious that there is a force that keeps us to the ground? Like i said, throw yourself at the ground and tell me what happens? you will fall on your face... If Gravity is the force that keeps us on stuck to the ground then surely thats enough proof for you...

Nothing has been proven. Not evolution, not black holes, not gravity, not that the sky is sometimes blue, not that there is a person living on Earth. You can prove for yourself that you exist (you think, therefore you are), but you can't convince anyone else of that. Everything could just be a coincidence, or you could be dreaming, or you could be a brain in a jar hooked up to the Matrix.

Of course, at that point "proof" becomes a useless concept. If we want "proof" to be a useful concept (why else would we have a word for it?) we must accept things that seem to be extremely likely: e.g. any two particles with mass exert attractive forces on each other.

The Nylon Bug.
And a bunch of species of Drosophilia.

Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/
The nylon bug metabolizes nylon, a perfect example of MICROevolution, since it can mate with other members of the same species. I don't think you understand what macroevolution means.

The beautiful thing about science is that it does not require belief, or faith. In fact, science and scepticism go hand in hand.

Whether you believe in 'gravity' or not is irrelevent. You are still pulled towards a large mass and this phonomenom is called gravity. If that changes, we'll probably call it something else, but that doesn't mean 'gravity' was wrong. Science is merely the observation of natural effects. The theory of evolution is purely an observation of a natural effect - in this case, observation of speciation of Darwin's favourite birds :P. If this contradicts with creationism... well, thats why creationism requires faith, and belief.

I dislike it when people try to theologise science. It isn't a religion, and it certainly isn't mutually exclusive.

Whats the point of proof if we are going to go into so much into the technicalities of it... Proof cannot exist without faith or doubts... Nothing in this world is proven in if you think about it... it just means that anything is possible...

Billions and billions of random mutations certainly could explain microevolution and perhaps even speciation. But by that argument it's all about who reproduces the most and why, the "winners" have better traits that they pass on to their offspring. So why evolve past bacteria? It can live anywhere, it can mutate to almost any situation and extreme environment, and if it weren't for pesky smart critters like ourselves inventing antiseptics it would be darn near unkillable. And as anyone who watches a bacterial colony grow can tell you, they DEFINITELY outproduce us, which is what it's really all about. We should be evolving TOWARDS bacteria as a more proficient form of life, no?.

And cell specialization. Most cells in the body perform very specific functions. There is no way they could survive without the functions provided by many other extremely specialized systems of cells, each dependent on all the other systems for survival. The random mutations (i'm talking about the beginning of complex organisms) mentioned could possibly account for some helpful organ beginning in a body, but due to interdependcies random mutations would have to cause several organs to develop, at the same time, and in the exact right way such that they support one another. Sounds a bit too.. serendipitous to me.

Proof is one of those things that you could be absolutely ignorant to and still have a good argument. You could be ignorant and say that evolution does not exist and that God created us all and as much as i am an Atheist, it is still a good argument... It is still a valid argument because we dont actually know 100% that God does not exist... that is where faith comes in and you must have faith to believe...

A constant has been measured yes. But that could be the rate at which invisible gnomes push you towards the earth. A self-existent force that has unlimited energy has NOT been proven. Black holes have been detected, but then again so was the ether in the 1800's. They have not been proven, unless you want to argue with Carl Sagan.
Mmmh... by your mistaking of the gravitational constant with the attraction of gravity on Earth I can say this is going to be uphill. But anyway, here goes...

No, it's still unknown how gravity spreads itself, whether it's particles, waves, or invisible gnomes it's not known. But, nevertheless, matter produces a gravity field and it's effects can be measured and predicted. Your argument is like denying light existed before the discovery of the photon.

True, no one has gone to a black hole to take a looksee just to make sure that it is a black hole. But objects that behave just like a black hole, affect matter just like a black hole, and have all the characteristics of a black hole have been detected. Gee, I wonder what it could be?

And by all means send those Sagan quotes (which, mind you, might be outdated).

Isnt that really what this arguments about... faith. I don't understand all the science terms that u ppl use but when u are arguin about this its really arguin about faith without using the words... Wat do u hav faith in? Science? God? Evolution? Creation?

The nylon bug metabolizes nylon, a perfect example of MICROevolution, since it can mate with other members of the same species. I don't think you understand what macroevolution means.
Being able to mate with members of the species it diverged from does not necessarily mean that speciation hasn't happened. Plants and some birds have fertile offspring with members of different species. I would imagine that a sodding bacterium would do that as well. Plus, I'm pretty sure that the nylon bug reproduces by asexual division.

I also see you failed to address the speciation of Drosophilia.

Read up on TO about speciation and then come back.

It's pretty obvious no one is doutbing that gravity exists. The point is that the way it works is far from entirely known despite the fact that it such a pervasive presence in our everyday lives. We oberve its effects and make generalizations about its rules, but its causes are unkown. The analogy to Evolution is obvious; he clearly stated that it has been observed, but questions remain as to the true nature and extent of it. And as for black holes, how can something "Act like a black hole" if you can't actually look at a black whole and see what it does? it matches predictions of what would happen if there WERE a black hole there, but by the argument that this is a huge universe of inifinte possibilities, it's possible that something else is there that has the same effects on the surrounding space.

Isnt that really what this arguments about... faith. I don't understand all the science terms that u ppl use but when u are arguin about this its really arguin about faith without using the words... Wat do u hav faith in? Science? God? Evolution? Creation?
That's the thing about science, you see. You may not have the terms to understand science, but you or anyone can learn them. You can even replicate other people's experiments and make your own observations. Or you can create new experiments and make observations and propose new theories, then people can replicate your experiments and support, modify or debunk theories.

The poll is misleading. I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept it as the most valid explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.

Thank you. The question implies that evolution is some mysterious unscientific idea. Perhaps Darwin's earlies speculation was such, but that *evolved* into a comprehensive theory that can account for most observations made about life.

Billions and billions of random mutations certainly could explain microevolution and perhaps even speciation. But by that argument it's all about who reproduces the most and why, the "winners" have better traits that they pass on to their offspring. So why evolve past bacteria? It can live anywhere, it can mutate to almost any situation and extreme environment, and if it weren't for pesky smart critters like ourselves inventing antiseptics it would be darn near unkillable. And as anyone who watches a bacterial colony grow can tell you, they DEFINITELY outproduce us, which is what it's really all about. We should be evolving TOWARDS bacteria as a more proficient form of life, no?.

Evolution isn't some mind thinking "gee, what's the best organism at reproducing?" At some point some single-celled organisms got together and started functioning as a multi-celled organism, and guess what: they reproduced before they died. So long as multi-celled organisms continue to reproduce before dying, they will continue to exist. Are multi-celled organisms the pinnacle of evolution? No. Are they the best at evolving? No. Have they managed to survive in a system wherein they must compete with single-celled organisms for some resources, or otherwise used resources that single-celled organisms aren't interested in? Yes.

And cell specialization. Most cells in the body perform very specific functions. There is no way they could survive without the functions provided by many other extremely specialized systems of cells, each dependent on all the other systems for survival. The random mutations (i'm talking about the beginning of complex organisms) mentioned could possibly account for some helpful organ beginning in a body, but due to interdependcies random mutations would have to cause several organs to develop, at the same time, and in the exact right way such that they support one another. Sounds a bit too.. serendipitous to me.

There are some interdependencies. But not every organ in a body is dependent on each other organ. We're not claiming that one day a bacterium reproduced and made a human. Many interdependencies weren't interdependencies earlier in the phylogeny, and didn't evolve as interdependencies (if you want to refute this, just provide an example, please).

It's pretty obvious no one is doutbing that gravity exists. The point is that the way it works is far from entirely known despite the fact that it such a pervasive presence in our everyday lives. We oberve its effects and make generalizations about its rules, but its causes are unkown. The analogy to Evolution is obvious; he clearly stated that it has been observed, but questions remain as to the true nature and extent of it. And as for black holes, how can something "Act like a black hole" if you can't actually look at a black whole and see what it does? it matches predictions of what would happen if there WERE a black hole there, but by the argument that this is a huge universe of inifinte possibilities, it's possible that something else is there that has the same effects on the surrounding space.
Yes, but then you would have to explain it. It's true that black holes were theorized before any was discovered, but it could have as easily been the other way.

When the theory of relativity came out, some people theorized that there could be objects so massive that not even light could escape them and then started to make calculations about what these objects would do, what they would "look like", if you will, and how they could be detected. They called them black holes, since they would absorb light.

Nobody was really sure that these objects existed for real until the invention of the radiotelescope and the discovery of some very powerful sources of X ray radiation. One especially, Cygnus X1, was very strange, because it seemed to come from a star, but the star itself didn't look all that weird from optical telescopes. What was weird, though, was that the X ray source seemed to orbit the star, at a rate suggesting an incredible massive object, one that should be seen easily and yet wasn't.

Guess what? Black hole proponents had theorized that if a black hole formed part of a binary star system and orbited close enough, it could start absorbing mass from it's companion. This mass, as it approached the even horizon and just before falling forever into the black hole, would emit a lot of X-ray radiation.

The Cygnus X1 object fit the description of a black hole almost to the dot and since then other black hole candidates have been found. Yes, yes, I wrote candidates. Because, you are right, they may still be something else, but so far no other theoretical model explains these things so perfectly. But that's also the thing about science, it's not about absolute certainty, but about discovery. Sometimes slow and sometimes painful but that's what makes it fun.

Well, we've just kinda gotten' off subject...

People who say no to evolution and (keep in mind, i said and) believe in creationalism sound cute when they explain why...it's almost as if they can give valid evidence ;) :rolleyes: :D ....

This whole argument brings me to a point i was thinking about in Science Classes one day... we were being taught about light's properties etc etc and we were being told about how many scientists and philosophers were wrong in the past about things to do with light.... i'll give you an example as thats not very clear: Before it was "proven" that the Earth orbits the sun, it was "Proven" that the universe orbits the Earth and people were even killed for suggesting such "Ludicrous" ideas like the sun was the centre of the solar system...

What if the scientists are still wrong about everything? If there were so many mistakes with "Proven" things in the past, whos to say that the "Proven" stuff today isn't still wrong?

Whest and Kscul, you are wrong, cos this is the topic... the topic is all about proof and faith... its all about religion and science... in truth we have gotten to the core of the topic which, and correct me if im wrong, was what the creator of this thread was trying to get ppl to talk about; religion, faith, proof and science...

Proven back in the past means that what the CHURCH taught...after all, the Church has always been right, right? ;) ....hehehe....

Actually, the person who started the thread (HEXIbus something) just asked "Do you believe in evolution?" and didn't go much father than that...the conversation kind of evolved from there...

You would be contradicting yourself. Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

Really? What if God was a monkey?

He'd be a damn kool monke'... :D ...

Choclocheze I dont think you are thinking of evolution in the right way.
1) its not concious and doesn't choose (think about the process of natural selection)

2) I think you are looking at teams (bacteria are so good at...), what is important is the successful survival and reproduction at the individual level

3) whilst interdependencies exist obviously they didn't start out that way, but over time seperate organs became interdependant through natural selection.

4) try to make the steps you are thinking about smaller, eg. dont go from blind eyeless animal to advanced modern eyes, think about the small intermediate steps where each is beneficieal.
photoreceptive cell -> slightly more directionally sensitive photoreceptive cell.

Evolution is the most plausible theory mandkind has come up with so far..or so we say..or believe ;)

This whole argument brings me to a point i was thinking about in Science Classes one day... we were being taught about light's properties etc etc and we were being told about how many scientists and philosophers were wrong in the past about things to do with light.... i'll give you an example as thats not very clear: Before it was "proven" that the Earth orbits the sun, it was "Proven" that the universe orbits the Earth and people were even killed for suggesting such "Ludicrous" ideas like the sun was the centre of the solar system...

Well, since modern science wasn't really developed until the 16th, 17th century, then it wasn't really "proven", at least not in a scientific way. Other societies with more observational philosophies knew that the Earth was round and that it orbited the sun along with the other planets.


What if the scientists are still wrong about everything? If there were so many mistakes with "Proven" things in the past, whos to say that the "Proven" stuff today isn't still wrong?
That's other good thing about science. As observational tools get better and also our ability to make experiments, some theories will surely have to be rethought. And they will be rethought. This doesn't necessarily mean that current theories are "wrong", just incomplete.

i disagree with evolution not only for religious reasons but mostly on scientific ones. I find the evidence for evolution very lacking. For example, where are the fossils of the missing links that are used as proof of evolution. I find it strange that will all the thousands of fossils that have been found not one validated find of a missing link has been found. I also find the mutation theory of evolution wanting. It seems to me that the animals who were in between species would have a disablility or would lack certain skills that would prevent them from surviving much less thriving and reproducing. This seems to go against the survival of the fittest put forth by Darwin. So in conclusion i find it much easier to believe that there is a God who created the world, whole and complete, then there is to believe that something as complicated as a human being came into being merely by accident.

i disagree with evolution not only for religious reasons but mostly on scientific ones. I find the evidence for evolution very lacking. For example, where are the fossils of the missing links that are used as proof of evolution. I find it strange that will all the thousands of fossils that have been found not one validated find of a missing link has been found.
So the following aren't "missing links", more accurately called transitional form?

Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Hyracotherium
Ambulocetus
Eoraptor
Acanthostega
Icthyostega
Archaeopteryx
Rahonavis

Keep in mind that these are all off the top of my head.

i disagree with evolution not only for religious reasons but mostly on scientific ones. I find the evidence for evolution very lacking. For example, where are the fossils of the missing links that are used as proof of evolution. I find it strange that will all the thousands of fossils that have been found not one validated find of a missing link has been found.


I hate it when people say they don't believe in evolution because of scientific concerns and then go and cite totally unscientific arguments. Missing link? That term is so old. There are many fossils of intermediate stages between species. There's no complete fossil record, but given the conditions of how fossils are formed that's no wonder.


I also find the mutation theory of evolution wanting. It seems to me that the animals who were in between species would have a disablility or would lack certain skills that would prevent them from surviving much less thriving and reproducing.


Animals don't have to work perfectly, just better than the other one. Marsupials are an evolutionary stage between egg laying and placental mammals. During a time they survived and thrived all over the world, as evidenced by the fossil record. Then placental mammals evolved, which proved to be better than marsupials at having offspring. So, they drove the marsupials out of almost everywhere, except some isolated places like islands, Australia and South America. When Central America bridged North and South America, placentals moved from the north to the south, wiping out the marsupials. Only a couple of marsupial species survive in America because they occupy very specific niches where they don't have placental competitors. Australian marsupials have been decimated by the introduction of placental mammals.

This seems to go against the survival of the fittest put forth by Darwin. So in conclusion i find it much easier to believe that there is a God who created the world, whole and complete, then there is to believe that something as complicated as a human being came into being merely by accident.

So, you don't believe in evolution because there is no complete fossil record but believe in something of which there is no record at all? Way to be scientific about it! I mean, instead of trying to come up with an alternative plausible explanation of the fossil record you just ignore it and offer a totally unsupported alternative.

i disagree with evolution not only for religious reasons but mostly on scientific ones. I find the evidence for evolution very lacking. For example, where are the fossils of the missing links that are used as proof of evolution.
What missing links?

I find it strange that will all the thousands of fossils that have been found not one validated find of a missing link has been found.
I dont find it strange at all. Anything found isnt missing, so logic dictates that only things not found can be missing. All links found are not missing and only non-found links can be accurately described as missing. Clearly any link that is missing ceases to be missing when it is no longer missing, ergo you cant find a missing link because the act of finding a link negates the description missing.

I also find the mutation theory of evolution wanting. It seems to me that the animals who were in between species would have a disablility or would lack certain skills that would prevent them from surviving much less thriving and reproducing.
Disability or lack of skills that would prevent them from surviving in exactly which conditions?

This seems to go against the survival of the fittest put forth by Darwin.
Darwin did not have the benefit of a couple of hundred years of investigating the implications of his own studies. It's not survival of the fittest, but rather survival of the fit enough for the particular circumstances - the phrase 'fit enough' defined as 'able to reproduce viable offspring'.

So in conclusion i find it much easier to believe that there is a God who created the world, whole and complete, then there is to believe that something as complicated as a human being came into being merely by accident.
The world whole and complete? Doesnt the fact that the world is changing and therefore not yet either whole or complete exclude the possibly that the world could have been created whole and complete?

Had to throw this in. You should read a book by Dr Sailhammer called Genesis Unbound (I think I got those names all right). He debunks the idea that some Christians are using saying the "day" in genesis is meant to be a time scale rather than 24 hours. The hebrew word used for "day" there is used dozens of times in the Bible and /always/ means literally 24 hours.

He make the point that there is no other book in the Bible that has a "summary" as the first line, either. So Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth" isn't summarizing what the rest of the chapter is now going to describe, it's actually what happened. First, God created the heavens and the earth (Dr Sailhammer, btw, is one of the foremost experts of the archaic Hebrew language), then the next word was slightly mis-translated. It's been translated as "formless and void" which is misleading. The actual translation is "was a wilderness". Sailhammer then argues that this means the earth was already created and even possibly had life on it, so doesn't discount the big bang or evolution.

His last argument that ties all this together says that the entire Torah is about the promised land, not about the whole earth. Wouldn't it make sense if this story was about the formation of the promised land, then? Then, of course, he backs it up again with language study and extremely, banally accurate translations.

There were a very few specific things which the Torah specifically mentions that God actively created. Man was one of them. That's the only place a literal translation of the Bible denies evolution ... specifically in the evolution of man (and I think some fruit trees, but I'd have to look it up).

That's a quick summarization of a couple hundred page book that's really excellent. My point being, it's possible to accept both a literal translation /and/ evolution ... maybe this post belongs more on the thread where the guy was told he's going to hell for believing in evolution, but I thought it was appropriate here as well.

As to evolution itself, I think it's the best theory we've got so far, but I don't think it's 100% proven yet ... maybe not even 95% proven. From reading, I get the impression there's still some slight kinks to work out, or maybe just some evolution steps we don't yet understand.

Be more concerned with de-evolution.

I think the theory of evolution is just another idea that was once contradicted by religion, then proven by science, going down the history of scientific discovery.
In the past, people have considered the sayings ancient philosophers as default truth and didn't challenge it. Many discoveries and breakthroughs we rely on today were once challenged by religion just as evolution is today. For example, the law of the pendulum, the heliocentric theory, and many others. I think in the future, the church will adapt to the times like it has in the past and accept the evolution theory after it has been proven, if it is proven.

Personally, I think the bible may have been influenced by god (if there is a god, but thats probably another thread), but not every literal translation of it is the word of god. It has been altered alot since it was compiled, and then throughout the middle ages. You can twist and "interpret" the bible in so many different ways that one can make anything true "according to the bible." I bet if someone says the bible takes a certain position on something, someone else will find and "interpret" another completely contradicting passage of it.



quote of the day: "I would assign the bible to read, but I would also have to assign a few other fictions just to make it fun."

Be more concerned with de-evolution.
I'm not in the least bit concerned with 'de-evolution' since it cant exist.

I think the theory of evolution is just another idea that was once contradicted by religion, then proven by science, going down the history of scientific discovery.
In the past, people have considered the sayings ancient philosophers as default truth and didn't challenge it. Many discoveries and breakthroughs we rely on today were once challenged by religion just as evolution is today. For example, the law of the pendulum, the heliocentric theory, and many others. I think in the future, the church will adapt to the times like it has in the past and accept the evolution theory after it has been proven, if it is proven.

Personally, I think the bible may have been influenced by god (if there is a god, but thats probably another thread), but not every literal translation of it is the word of god. It has been altered alot since it was compiled, and then throughout the middle ages. You can twist and "interpret" the bible in so many different ways that one can make anything true "according to the bible." I bet if someone says the bible takes a certain position on something, someone else will find and "interpret" another completely contradicting passage of it.


That's certainly a fair assessment of the Bible, but as somone who advocates a more literal translation of it, I'll just point out that there's a lot in the Bible that /is/ vague and can be taken many ways just as you say. The part that's wrong is when some wacko, be he the pope or a priest, decides that /he/ knows what the correct interpretation is and forces that ideology on others, even if it's only through proclamation. I have a similar problem with the Koran. Why can't we (in both these texts) simply admit we don't get it all yet, and leave it at that instead of attacking others based on vague passages that are easily misinterpreted?

Bah.

I'm not in the least bit concerned with 'de-evolution' since it cant exist.

That's what you think, human.

That's what you think, human.
Actually it's what I know, the beauty of tautological truths is you need never doubt them.

It's pretty obvious no one is doutbing that gravity exists. The point is that the way it works is far from entirely known despite the fact that it such a pervasive presence in our everyday lives. We oberve its effects and make generalizations about its rules, but its causes are unkown.
The analogy to Evolution is obvious; he clearly stated that it has been observed, but questions remain as to the true nature and extent of it. And as for black holes, how can something "Act like a black hole" if you can't actually look at a black whole and see what it does? it matches predictions of what would happen if there WERE a black hole there, but by the argument that this is a huge universe of inifinte possibilities, it's possible that something else is there that has the same effects on the surrounding space.
So true, we know pretty well how gravity works on "familiar" enviroment, like Earth, but in black holes (in theory) and in quantum physics the laws of gravity don't hold true anymore. We know there are something called dark materia, but noone knows what it is.
We're just quessing, but I would certainly put my bet on evolution.

I'm definately not an expert in science, far from it infact, but in a black hole, i thought the theories, not "laws" of Gravity still ran true but because a black hole is such a large matter that it has such a large graviational field... i dunno, like i said, i wouldnt know as im not an expert in science...

The poll is misleading. I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept it as the most valid explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.If you (and others) hadn't said that already, I would have. I've had this argument elsewhere, and my (internal, not necessarily dictionary-perfect) definition of "belief" is directly related to faith, the holding of ideas that are unsupported by proof (though not necessarily untrue just because of that) whereas I use "opinion" to demonstrate my holding of reasonable-proven concepts (though not necessarily entirely or even partially correct, just because of that). Depending on the dictionary, "belief" and "opinion" can get lumped together, so it's a dead horse argument, but one that can divide to otherwise perfectly rational people. (Such we all are, I'm sure... :))


but what would be the advantage of the half-arm/half-wing apparatus that would have to develop between final forms?Taking that one as an example, a lizard-like creature that could either make itself faster by flapping backwards or allowing it to glide over dips in the ground (and, later, off cliffs and from branches and things), depending on which current theory is eventually deemed most likely. Either way, though, the 'lizard' that could escape predators and not die would have an advantage over those that could not/did not, and then the better ones at doing it had advantages over the not-so-good ones.


[Observed instances of speciation?]The Nylon BugI quite like the example of hair lice and body lice. The theory is that they diverged at the time we started wearing clothes, with the lice still suited to open-air body-hair restricting themselves to the head, and the lice that could live 'under wrap' in the clothes/covered body-hair regions. Hair lice and body lice don't encounter each other, and so thay have developed differently, and they are two separate species that never cross over onto the other's territory under normal circumstances. They can be (artificially) mated, but it isn't that long since they separated, leave it a while longer (assuming we don't precipitate some other evolutionary pressures due to attempting to wipe them out chemically, or however) and they may well be different species unable to reproduce at all.

i disagree with evolution not only for religious reasons but mostly on scientific ones. I find the evidence for evolution very lacking. For example, where are the fossils of the missing links that are used as proof of evolution. I find it strange that will all the thousands of fossils that have been found not one validated find of a missing link has been found. I also find the mutation theory of evolution wanting. It seems to me that the animals who were in between species would have a disablility or would lack certain skills that would prevent them from surviving much less thriving and reproducing. This seems to go against the survival of the fittest put forth by Darwin. So in conclusion i find it much easier to believe that there is a God who created the world, whole and complete, then there is to believe that something as complicated as a human being came into being merely by accident.Others have gone over this with more style, but:
A large amount of evidence for evolution exists. The evidence for pure/Genesis-based Creationism is essentially absent (and could never exist, by definition).
As other have said, 'missing links' (or previously missing ones, at least) have been discovered, and given the small number of creatures that could possibly be both fossilised (effectively lay down and died in the right, undisturbed, type of sediment) and then discovered (not still burried, not long-ago eroded, not destroyed in quarrying, not subducted into the mantle or otherwise distorted/destroyed beyond recognition) within appreciative human history means that we've got as good a proof as we could hope for.
Animals are never 'in-between' species. Any creature that lives to reproduce is a member of group of other creatures of similar style, and is a viable biological form and partly with the luck to not be killed from any one of a number of natural causes, but mostly with a design that allows it a smal advantage in escaping such death (such as a fish that can breath a little when the tide goes out, having just enough speed to escape a predator/out-compete a fellow prey-creature, a slightly elongated neck that allows it to eat leaves other creatures have missed or some esoterical mental/instinctive quality that gives it an advantage when fire starts to sweep across the savanna) as it might encounter. If you lived in an arbitrary snap-shot in history, you'd find groups of creatures that were 'finished' from your point of view but that, in a later age, would be 'clearly' an intermediate form of whatever descendant-creatures existed at that other time. The same applies to today. Should lions survive the advance of humans and last for several millenia more, some minor differences (colour of coat, size and shape, perhaps social patterns) will appear to be 'exagerated'. The thing is that we humans on our time-scale are essentially unable to observe or predict such changes, and we can only hypothesise that (for example, and without any expertise in the field to back this example up) east-African lions and west-African lions might diverge in body-plan such that one reduces in average adult size and the other develops a more subtle mane, and subtle changes to the surface chemistry of the male and female gametes over time and a spot-poll of reproductive viability in the future might well lead to the conclusion that the two sets of lion populations are separate species. In fact, this could happen just as well (and possibly quicker) without any obvous external signs of change, given that the gamete surface chemistry happened to be gradually mutated within each population without any effect on the external appearance used in mate-selection.
Had the dominent sapient creature on this planet been derived from marsupial (rather than placental) mammals, then while I doubt it would have gone exactly the same way (there's no guarantee the World Wars, as we know them, would have happened, for example) but you could imagine the creatures (probably bipedal with manipulative hands, large brains and language, maybe eventually leading to the scientific methods, innovation of technology and possibly the invention of a mass communication/dissemination system such as the Internet) wondering why their body-plan came about by chance. That's a long (and yet not entirely complete) description of the Weak Anthropic Principle (if I have the weak and stong versions the right way round) in that yes, we are accidents, but in the same way that the area of land we know of as Italy is shaped like a high-heeled boot is an accident of plate techtonics, geology and weathering, topped off by some socio-political constructs by our ancestors that meant that the entire country was that shape, not just an arbitrary and unpopulated peninsula the other side of the world from the only inhabited continent on Earth (for example).

Do you believe in Evolution?Evolution is not a question of belief. And since evolution is visible at work in all creatures today there is no reason to believe it has been otherwise in earlier times.
If evolution was inexisting there would be no domestic animals or races in cats or dogs.

So true, we know pretty well how gravity works on "familiar" enviroment, like Earth, but in black holes (in theory) and in quantum physics the laws of gravity don't hold true anymore.Says who?

Says who?

Astronomers. The theories of dark matter and dark energy indicate the very real possibility that gravity does not apply to large-scale systems. Galaxy clusters are accelerating AWAY from one another. That means that gravity doesn't exist exactly the way we think it does. Dark energy is a theoretical explaination of why the universe seems to be working against our current physical models.

Says who?
I don't know who said it first, I read about it from Hawking's books. I can check it later on when I'm at home.

Says who?

Stephen Hawkings for example? I'd love to see you try and challenge his statements.

Stephen Hawkings for example? I'd love to see you try and challenge his statements.
Obviously god can refute his statements!

Seriously though I happen to agree but no single source is in fallible, though to prove it false personally I think that most people would need just a wee bit more ‘oompf’ as far as mental capabilities go to even understand what he is talking about :-P

Knowing the intention behind the poll, I answered "yes". However, technically I do not "believe" in evolution. On exhaustive investigation, academic and autodidactic research/education, I accept Evolutionary Theory as the best plausible explanation as to how evolution occurs.

The "Theory of Evolution" is the massive body of 150 years of scientific research that comprises the analysis of the set of facts concerning evolution--natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and the like.

So, the Theory of Evolution explains how evolution may have occurred. That it occurred, however, is a scientifically-observed fact.

An excellent book on the subject is Dr. Douglas Futuyma's college text, Evolutionary Biology. For those more heavily steeped in scientific education, the must-read is Stephen Jay Gould's 1600-page magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.. An excellent web resource on Evolutionary Theory is the Talk.Origins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org).

If anyone has a question regarding specific peer-reviewed research, don't hesitate to ask... I'm a member of the American Assocation for the Advancement of Science and have access to over 100 years of peer-reviewed research archives... I'll be glad, time permitting, to see if I can dig up the relevant research in AAAS publications to which I have access, particularly Science.



Nature abhors a moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken

Astronomers. The theories of dark matter and dark energy indicate the very real possibility that gravity does not apply to large-scale systems. Galaxy clusters are accelerating AWAY from one another. That means that gravity doesn't exist exactly the way we think it does. Dark energy is a theoretical explaination of why the universe seems to be working against our current physical models.
Galaxies are accelerating away not because of gravity but because of an unknown ofrce. The best way to describe I think is that the universe is a ballon. As you blow air into it expands. However, it=f you draw 2 points on the ballon and blow more air into it the distance between them is greater.

Of course therer are many other problems with gravity. For example only recently have we had tests done to confirm some of Einstein's theorys. There is some speculation that the power of gravity changes slowly, very very slowly, over time. Lastly, gravity does not work on a small scale. We have no equations for gravty in the atomic level. And quantum mechanics does not work on a large level.

With regard to evolution. Everyone believed in Newton for a long time. Was he right? Actually yes. According to almost all measurements made his equation worked out. The other ones were explained as flukes, or there was another plantet or asteroid affecting them which we didnt know about.

Now with evolution. From what we know it is right. People are improving on it. For example people now realise that evolution doesnt happen constantly. Sometimes there is a great deal of evolution in a short period of time and at other points barely anything happens. The theory is not final, like gravity. However, you cant disregard it unless you have a theory that is better.

to the people who don't believe in evolution.

Delta 32.

Delta 32 is a explame of evolution that happened to humans when the frist great plague hit europe. What happened is that a few people's DNA mutated and gain a parshal emunity to the plague. and then several genertions later when the Black Death hit many of the decendes of the carriers of the mutant gens survived the plague.

How this was proved was that the Scinceist found a small town that was hit extremely hard by they plague. (when this town was hit no one was expicted to live. but many people sirived.) then the scienceist used the records in the town hall and tracked down the direct ancestors and many of the had the Delta 32 mutation.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf119/sf119p05.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/clues.html

my personal source was a dorumentery on the subject on the History Channel.

i like evolution in that we are not all evolved fully

Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus

Archaeopteryx



i would like whole skelotons or at least maybe half of one. these examples are only skulls and maybe a couple extra bones thrown in and could be a monkey or a subspecies of man that is know extinct. and Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur not a link between dinosaurs and birds.

I do not belive we evolved from bacteria or even monkeys. But I do believe in evolution, you can watch it happen. Evoluion is based on natural selection. If you were to kill veryone in the world with non-blue eyes, the population would eventually only have the genetic coding for blue eyes because the other colors have been wiped our. Viola, evolution.

Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus

Archaeopteryx



i would like whole skelotons or at least maybe half of one. these examples are only skulls and maybe a couple extra bones thrown in and could be a monkey or a subspecies of man that is know extinct. and Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur not a link between dinosaurs and birds.
We have complete skeletons for all of them. Check out the link to TalkOrigins that I posted a few pages back.
Archaeopteryx is a bona fide transitional. You want to dispute that, give some evidence. Your assertions are meaningless.