Do you believe in evolution?

[whodat34 58]

Not to bring religion into this or anything, but i just had to point this out.

(i personally am a Christian yes and believe in the 6 day creation)

 

 

This fits perfectly with the Bible as in the beginning they didn't eat meat :) (ik this doesn't mean anything to u but i had to point it out :P

im a Christian as well

[sam131192 113]

Me a Christian too! :D

 

http://rt.com/news/skull-homo-georgia-species-373/

 

This link is about a recent news in which they excavated 4 human skulls which challenge the theory that man came from different species.

What about this ? Sadly such contradictions are downplayed and so not many people get to know about them.

 

And my advice to atheists, a person should only become one when he sees some evidence and then inferences from it that there is no God.Its wiser being an agnostic.

But how can man even think about that as he has not discovered 96% of the universe! In the end, science can only tell you how, not why.

 

Though I'm a creationist I believe like Einstein that "Science without religion is lame , religion without science is blind"

Edited November 27, 2013 by sam131192

[skitee 555]

 

 

basically over time we will change so we can survive if it gets hotter our skins will be darker if an ice age the worlds population will have light skin.

Difference between Macro and Micro evolution right there. Completely agree with your second statement (about the dark/light skin) but that doesn't go anywhere to proving anything about macro-evolution, which is what this discussion is about. ;)

 

In my opinion (and that of the majority of scientists), all animals are, in essence, half-evolved. All animals constantly continue to evolve, albeit at a very slow rate; we ourselves are half-evolved from prehistoric man, but we have yet to evolve further. In order words, all animals are constantly evolving.

 

Take the example of us. We have an appendix... but apart from having to have it removed every now and then when it becomes inflamed, what is it for? Well, nothing really, as far as doctors/scientists can tell... It's simply what remains of our old digestive systems, say scientists; as we consumed a lot more vegetables/plants than we do now, the appendix was needed to digest all that extra fibre. But once we started eating more meat, the appendix was no longer needed. In that way, we're half-evolved ourselves - we still have unnecessary bits and pieces in our bodies from the past. 

 

A small example of evolution and natural selection:

 

- Take the prehistoric version of a horse-like creature, which consumed the leaves of certain trees.

- Now, those prehistoric four-legged animals that lived in hot countries had difficulty finding food; the trees there were quite tall, and so the leaves were hard to reach.

- By chance, due to a genetic mutation, a few of them were born with longer necks than the rest, and so could more easily reach the leaves closer to the top of the trees.

- These particular animals had a better chance of survival, and reproduced, producing more longer-necked horse-like creatures.

- Eventually, these particular animals evolved into its own species as their necks grew longer through each generation - the giraffe.

- The remaining, shorter-necked animals found ways of gradually changing their diet to grass (and other low-lying plants) in order to have a better chance of survival.

- There you have it - the prehistoric ancestors of giraffes and horses became two distinct species.

Gonna have to call this one as a big lie right here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the evolutionary view has no credibility but the appendix argument doesn't cut it anymore. For a long time, the appendix was considered as such, a useless by-product of evolution. Alas, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t and other recent scientific research has refuted that view. :| The appendix does have a purpose in life.

 

Also, about natural selection. My belief about natural selection is that it does exist - anyone who observes the world can see some form of natural selection taking place in nature. However, I don't think natural selection can answer the real question here: How do species change? Oh, it's fine to say "animals changed to be more adapted to their environment" but biologically that doesn't cut it. Perhaps a giraffe used to be a little shorter and gradually the taller ones ousted the smaller ones via natural selection, but natural selection doesn't explain macro-evolution, the way in which a species can just change into another species. There is no evidence of that happening in our world (apple trees don't produce oranges, to state a slightly exaggerated example) so that's why I don't get natural selection as an argument for macro-evolution; another thing I'd say is that all evidence in biology is that mutations are almost always bad, especially when it comes to beings as complex as mammals and reptiles and so on. Again, all of this is my interpretation of evidence - everyone interprets evidence differently.

[monkeyburn 13,523]

 

 

[JonathanBernatowicz 119]

I believe in a one true God that has always been here (that of which is too large for our understanding) and made the earth. I believe the earth is not xyz billion years of age, but rather 6-12k years old. Though, science itself proves that it would take more faith to believe in Evolution, than what I believe which is solely in the Bible. I'm not in great position to argue, but I'll try to defend my point if one of you questions me. I am with the points of already.dead and skitee.

Edited November 28, 2013 by JonathanBernatowicz

[DirtFighter 199]

Difference between Macro and Micro evolution right there. Completely agree with your second statement (about the dark/light skin) but that doesn't go anywhere to proving anything about macro-evolution, which is what this discussion is about. ;)

 

Gonna have to call this one as a big lie right here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the evolutionary view has no credibility but the appendix argument doesn't cut it anymore. For a long time, the appendix was considered as such, a useless by-product of evolution. Alas, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t and other recent scientific research has refuted that view. :| The appendix does have a purpose in life.

 

Also, about natural selection. My belief about natural selection is that it does exist - anyone who observes the world can see some form of natural selection taking place in nature. However, I don't think natural selection can answer the real question here: How do species change? Oh, it's fine to say "animals changed to be more adapted to their environment" but biologically that doesn't cut it. Perhaps a giraffe used to be a little shorter and gradually the taller ones ousted the smaller ones via natural selection, but natural selection doesn't explain macro-evolution, the way in which a species can just change into another species. There is no evidence of that happening in our world (apple trees don't produce oranges, to state a slightly exaggerated example) so that's why I don't get natural selection as an argument for macro-evolution; another thing I'd say is that all evidence in biology is that mutations are almost always bad, especially when it comes to beings as complex as mammals and reptiles and so on. Again, all of this is my interpretation of evidence - everyone interprets evidence differently.

Well said. that made me think of two things that are scientific laws and not theory. The law of Thermodynamics and the law of Entropy. So the argument of things evolving now is impossible according to these two scientific laws. You can not get order out of chaos. And you can not create "new" energy

 

http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.html

http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookglossE.html#entropy

[marc.anthony 101]

How about i am religious. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[xxElyxx 275]

No?

[Who_Boss 154]

the only evolutions that i believe in is POKEMON :P

other then that.. none

[ChuckNorris2090 102]

the only evolutions that i believe in is POKEMON :P

other then that.. none

Haha, I remember back then when I loved when my Pokemon would evolve. It just looked cool.  :P

[already.dead 360]

How can nothing create something :|

[GoldRock 6,165]

And my advice to atheists, a person should only become one when he sees some evidence and then inferences from it that there is no God.Its wiser being an agnostic.

Though I used to agree with such an argument, I now see this as a logical fallacy. Well, I am an agnostic atheist in that I don't believe in God yet I don't reject the fact he could exist... In the same way that one can't reject the possible existence of fairies, that is. Not disproving something is very different to proving something. Remember: innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way round. It's not the responsibility of atheists to provide evidence for their non-belief, just as I wouldn't expect you to provide evidence saying that giant lemons orbit galaxies outside of the observable universe. It would be the responsibility of those who believe such a thing to support their belief.

 

Gonna have to call this one as a big lie right here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the evolutionary view has no credibility but the appendix argument doesn't cut it anymore. For a long time, the appendix was considered as such, a useless by-product of evolution. Alas, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t and other recent scientific research has refuted that view. :| The appendix does have a purpose in life.

 

Also, about natural selection. My belief about natural selection is that it does exist - anyone who observes the world can see some form of natural selection taking place in nature. However, I don't think natural selection can answer the real question here: How do species change? Oh, it's fine to say "animals changed to be more adapted to their environment" but biologically that doesn't cut it. Perhaps a giraffe used to be a little shorter and gradually the taller ones ousted the smaller ones via natural selection, but natural selection doesn't explain macro-evolution, the way in which a species can just change into another species. There is no evidence of that happening in our world (apple trees don't produce oranges, to state a slightly exaggerated example) so that's why I don't get natural selection as an argument for macro-evolution; another thing I'd say is that all evidence in biology is that mutations are almost always bad, especially when it comes to beings as complex as mammals and reptiles and so on. Again, all of this is my interpretation of evidence - everyone interprets evidence differently.

As taken from a less-biased source, Wikipedia:

 

 

Function.

 

Although it was long accepted that the immune tissue, called gut associated lymphoid tissue, surrounding the appendix and elsewhere in the gut carries out a number of important functions, explanations were lacking for the distinctive shape of the appendix and its apparent lack of importance as judged by an absence of side effects following appendectomy.

 

William Parker, Randy Bollinger, and colleagues at Duke University proposed in 2007 that the appendix serves as a haven for useful bacteria when illness flushes those bacteria from the rest of the intestines. This proposal is based on a new understanding of how the immune system supports the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria, in combination with many well-known features of the appendix, including its architecture, its location just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine, and its association with copious amounts of immune tissue. Research performed at Winthrop University-Hospital showed that individuals without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of Clostridium difficile. However, other research showed that there is a greater rate of C. difficile infection among people with an appendix than those without.

 

 

As can be seen, theories as to the function of the appendix are widely unconclusive, with conflicting results from studies - Darwin's idea about the appendix being a leftover from evolution is still accepted as a possibility. In fact, I found out about this through a Biology lesson; the theory is evidently possible enough to be taught in schools.

 

As for mutations being bad, I would actually argue that mutations have their good and bad points - as a relatively tall person (having reached 6 foot at 14), I would say that such variation has meant that I am occasionally more clumsy than my peers (as studies have shown), but that I have the advantage in quite a few sports (for example, schemes have been set up especially for tall people to enhance their more natural sporting ability). I would say it is near impossible to easily label a mutation as 'good' or 'bad', as that could depend on the environment an animal finds itself situated in.

 

As for macro-evolution and natural selection, there weren't always humans and large mammals. Evidently, they've got to have come from somewhere... Which leads me to believe that they are variations of more simple creatures, which eventually became their own species. Let's not forget that evolution discusses this happening over millions of years, so the changes wouldn't be as apparent as, say, an apple tree changing to an orange one overnight.

 

Of course, this is not exclusively an atheist view. In the US:

 

- 58% of Catholics, 54% of Orthodox Christians, and 51% of Protestants support evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human life on Earth

- This figure lies at 80% for Buddhists, Hindus (my own official religion), and Jews

- 45% of Muslims support evolution

 

Evolution is not a perfect explanation, just as the Laws of Physics have many exceptions at a sub-atomic level. Both theories, however, are considered the best that science can currently offer, and both hold quite a few truths, in my opinion.

Edited November 28, 2013 by GoldRock

[gocac 17]

my belly evolved for sure :/

[sam131192 113]

http://rt.com/news/s...ia-species-373/ check this out .

[Eragon 13,876]

Closed to prevent trolling/flaming.

Wrong, it stay open as it says my yele....

And yes i believe 

[GoldRock 6,165]

http://rt.com/news/s...ia-species-373/ check this out .

Thanks for the link :) I have, however, already read that article:

 

- The article does not offer conclusive proof - the evidence provided could merely be interpreted as rejecting evolution. In actual fact, a quoted scientist in that article thought that the skull supports evolution, rather than rejecting it. It's all a matter of interpretation.

- I have pointed out that whilst evolution is not perfect, and may have its exceptions as shown by the views of those conducting the study in that article, it is still the best theory there currently is, in the opinion of many.

- In any case, those conducting the study seem a little confused - surely there skulls could be variations, yes, but of a previous species of human beings? I doubt 'variation' goes as far as one human of the 'same species' having a brain one-third the size of we do... Those particular skulls do not seem to match closely enough to our current anatomy to be considered variations of us - rather, they seem to show the variations seen in past species of homosapiens.

Edited November 28, 2013 by GoldRock

[sam131192 113]

Thanks for the link :) I have, however, already read that article:

 

- The article does not offer conclusive proof - the evidence provided could merely be interpreted as rejecting evolution. In actual fact, a quoted scientist in that article thought that the skull supports evolution, rather than rejecting it. It's all a matter of interpretation.

- I have pointed out that whilst evolution is not perfect, and may have its exceptions as shown by the views of those conducting the study in that article, it is still the best theory there currently is, in the opinion of many.

- In any case, those conducting the study seem a little confused - surely there skulls could be variations, yes, but of a previous species of human beings? I doubt 'variation' goes as far as one human of the 'same species' having a brain one-third the size of we do... Those particular skulls do not seem to match closely enough to our current anatomy to be considered variations of us - rather, they seem to show the variations seen in past species of homosapiens.

Ya it would be foolhardy to think variations in human beings as a basis for categorizing them as different species. But that is exactly what evolutionists have done. They have, in their hurry to prove evoulution quickly classified them according to their hieght, size etc. But this find has forced them to think again.

 

And as you say that evolution is the best theory in place, I would like to know your doubts on the creationists viewpoint, I'll try and answer them as much as i can to your satisfaction.

[GoldRock 6,165]

Ya it would be foolhardy to think variations in human beings as a basis for categorizing them as different species. But that is exactly what evolutionists have done. They have, in their hurry to prove evoulution quickly classified them according to their hieght, size etc. But this find has forced them to think again.

 

And as you say that evolution is the best theory in place, I would like to know your doubts on the creationists viewpoint, I'll try and answer them as much as i can to your satisfaction.

Actually, I'm pretty sure scientists can tell the difference between a variation (two humans different in height, but otherwise very similar) and a species (two humans with noticeable anatomical differences).

 

Well, my doubts on the creationist viewpoint would fill a book :lol: Creationists believe the world was created in six days by a superhuman being, who took a nap on the seventh. Wha... ho... where's the evidence? How would that be possible? Doesn't God have to follow his own laws of nature? If not, then why doesn't he break them more often, in order to save good people from death, disease, destruction? That's mainly why I tend to find the viewpoint of liberalist theists, who point out the idea that the days of Genesis represent 'ages' (long periods of time) more credible.

 

P.S. And don't answer with 'because the Bible says so'. I've heard that one waaay too many times :rolleyes: Feel free to explain concepts given in the Bible, though, and we could discuss those - though an atheist, I'm actually a bit of a religious encyclopaedia. Religion's a fascinating subject, and is correct in many ways ^_^

Edited November 28, 2013 by GoldRock

[sam131192 113]

Deleted

Edited November 28, 2013 by sam131192

[kingeoin14 30]

Actually, I'm pretty sure scientists can tell the difference between a variation (two humans different in height, but otherwise very similar) and a species (two humans with noticeable anatomical differences).

 

Well, my doubts on the creationist viewpoint would fill a book :lol: Creationists believe the world was created in six days by a superhuman being, who took a nap on the seventh. Wha... ho... where's the evidence? How would that be possible? Doesn't God have to follow his own laws of nature? If not, then why doesn't he break them more often, in order to save good people from death, disease, destruction? That's mainly why I tend to find the viewpoint of liberalist theists, who point out the idea that the days of Genesis represent 'ages' (long periods of time) more credible.

 

P.S. And don't answer with 'because the Bible says so'. I've heard that one waaay too many times :rolleyes: Feel free to explain concepts given in the Bible, though, and we could discuss those - though an atheist, I'm actually a bit of a religious encyclopaedia. Religion's a fascinating subject, and is correct in many ways ^_^

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8030672/US-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers-quiz-finds.html

[already.dead 360]

Actually, I'm pretty sure scientists can tell the difference between a variation (two humans different in height, but otherwise very similar) and a species (two humans with noticeable anatomical differences).

 

Well, my doubts on the creationist viewpoint would fill a book :lol: Creationists believe the world was created in six days by a superhuman being, who took a nap on the seventh. Wha... ho... where's the evidence? How would that be possible? Doesn't God have to follow his own laws of nature? If not, then why doesn't he break them more often, in order to save good people from death, disease, destruction? That's mainly why I tend to find the viewpoint of liberalist theists, who point out the idea that the days of Genesis represent 'ages' (long periods of time) more credible.

 

P.S. And don't answer with 'because the Bible says so'. I've heard that one waaay too many times :rolleyes: Feel free to explain concepts given in the Bible, though, and we could discuss those - though an atheist, I'm actually a bit of a religious encyclopaedia. Religion's a fascinating subject, and is correct in many ways ^_^

in hebrew (which it was originally written) the word they use for day there usually means 24 hours. it also says evening and morning came.

Exodus 20:11 ¹¹ For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

 

and after those seven days there was around 6k years (all the people ages etc. events are listed and add up to around 6k years) so i believe the world is around 6 thousand years old only

Edited November 28, 2013 by already.dead

[Psycho 586]

in hebrew (which it was originally written) the word they use for day there usually means 24 hours. it also says evening and morning came.

Exodus 20:11 ¹¹ For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

 

and after those seven days there was around 6k years (all the people ages etc. events are listed and add up to around 6k years) so i believe the world is around 6 thousand years old only

well which is wrong because they are things way older than 6000 years and evidence of humans longer than 6000 years, please explain how all those bones of animals were discovered how can we even live next to them without evolution and extinction happening? 6000 years ago people lived with dinosaurs and mammoths? also in bible how can adam and eve lead to well today? we would all be well identical because they should be no variation and have asexual reproduction right skittles?

[sam131192 113]

 

As taken from a less-biased source, Wikipedia:

Wikipedia has'nt been an  un biased source for a long time!

[r_felipe050 1]

Yes i believe in Evolution. IMO god , allah and that kinda stuff are just fake.

[sam131192 113]

well which is wrong because they are things way older than 6000 years and evidence of humans longer than 6000 years, please explain how all those bones of animals were discovered how can we even live next to them without evolution and extinction happening? 6000 years ago people lived with dinosaurs and mammoths? also in bible how can adam and eve lead to well today? we would all be well identical because they should be no variation and have asexual reproduction right skittles?

http://www.examiner.com/article/basics-of-carbon-dating-and-its-flaws