I think evolution is completely true and I don't understand how it's not. People freak out when others say we evolved from monkeys but we didn't. We evolved from an ape like creature over a LONG period of time due to genetic mutations that made it easier for that person to survive and reproduce and make others with the same trait. When people say it is just a theory a theory is what is proven to be fact and nothing has proven it wrong. Gravitiy is a theory so jump out the window and test it. What do you guys think about evolution?
-
Welcome to ForumKorner!
Join today and become a part of the community.
Evolution
- Thread starter Bump Bot
- Start date
Nah I do not think it is real, if it us why are we not genetically mutating today? In all of history I have never heard of people mutating or anything, I believe in God, God only, he made this world, he made us, this is all just mumbo jumbo science stuff that got shoved in our faces so people have another fake reason to not be a Christian and deny the truth.
I believe @Michael would want to see this, also @Pun this thread is one of the best Philosophy & Debates I have ever seen, kudos to you.
I believe @Michael would want to see this, also @Pun this thread is one of the best Philosophy & Debates I have ever seen, kudos to you.
People evolve all the time. Curley hair is use to block the sun. Pale skin holds in heat. Black skin allows the person to sweat more. Long eyelashes are made to keep dirt out of eyes. Drinking other animal milk to survive is a mutation as well. Diseases such as aids is always evolving to survive too.Synsational said:
Pun said:
This is the most ridiculous claim regarding evolution I have ever read. There is evidence supporting and just as much, if not more, evidence going against it. Evolution is actually becoming a dying afterthought. They're pulling it from our school systems because it's becoming so difficult to argue in favor of.
It's very obvious creatures adapt to their environments. Physical characteristics they're already genetically intended to have are impacted by the environment, or mutated through generations to produce a change. Now, curly hair, variations in skin color, and length of eye lashes can HARDLY be compared to entire species changes.
It's pretty heavy to say a fish because an ape and an ape became man. Look at the world around you. There are still fish, ape, and man, but nothing in between. If evolution is such a slow process, don't you think you would see something in between. And I'm sure there are those that would argue there are species in between, but there is currently nothing more advanced and close to us than a chimpanzee. And for as brilliant as they are, they are hardly comparable to a human. Not to mention the thousands of holes in the fossil records where evolutionary advances should be. Plus, the lines of evolution they have developed, don't fall in the correct order when going through layers of the earth to built a proper fossil record; They're jumbled.
Evolution is a ginormous exaggeration of adaptation. Personally, I'm glad it's dying out. I'd rather our children be taught absolutely nothing than something so ridiculous.
Birds from a common ancestor such as Darwin's birds that he found on different island were different species of bird that are exactly the same but they evolved their beaks to get certain food on the islands. It's over a long time not very short. Like how Whales have fingers but they have no use for them they are in between. Still evolving from a land animal.kassie said:
Pun said:
I stated in my above post that it takes a long time, not a short one, which is why there should be more in between species alive today (or at least skeletal remains of them available) I never said I disagree with adaptation. Like I stated, things like that (a change in beaks) are pretty minor compared to an amoeba becoming a human being. And just so you know, fins are structures composed of bony rays when displayed in bony fish. Sharks have cartilage. Whales are mammals; I don't think it's far fetched if whales once spent more time at the surface, but there isn't really as much evidence for that as what your teacher or the internet would lead you to believe. And, again, changes in fin structure is different than species jumps. Keep in mind that every education is merely a recycled education of another generation. We're only taught what we're told to be taught. It takes a long time for theories to die out because people hate to be wrong about something they've believed their entire lives, but I assure you it's going away. I'm not even saying I'm against everything evolution puts on the table, but as a whole, way too many issues that can't be explained. At the very least, allow the thousands of holes in our fossils to lead you to question why you believe in this as absolute fact.
Synsational said:
The true ignorance here bothers me.
You simply assert that evolution is wrong because you think it is. You're denying the mounds of evidence and experimentation and study that has been done on this subject. Evolution is just as much of a fact as gravity is. Are you denying gravity? No. Why deny evolution?
Pun said:
The "gills" never maintain a connection from the throat to the outside, so they are not gills or slits, by definition. And they have been this way. When growing a body, grooves and hollowed out areas appear over the body, making the appearance of gills. And they never develop a structure of a gill like a fish's would. They eventually develop into distinct features between the head, jaw, and neck, as well as ears. This is something mostly everyone has given up arguing by now, because when examining it, it's pretty obvious they aren't gills. Old biology textbooks cling to this, so maybe you've read it there.
Leader said:
When you can lay before me an entire, completed fossil record and a creature obviously between a chimpanzee and a human, then you can try to assert to me that evolution is the equivalence of gravity. Gravity is a law by the way. I can go anywhere on earth and drop something and observe for myself that it falls to the ground. Evolution has so many gaps and uncertainties, it requires as much faith as any religion on Earth.
kassie said:
Your assertions are completely false.
First of all, gravity is a theory. It's a misconception that gravity is a law. It is part of Newton's laws, but it is not a scientific law. Gravitation is still a theory.
Second, evolution happened, and there is evidence to support that claim. The difference between science and religion is that religion requires faith, yet science requires evidence. Evolution requires no faith because of the evidence.
There are several know links between apes and humans. We know of the Australopithecus, Homo habilus, Homo erectus, and finally the Homo sapien.
Leader said:
How long did it take you to google all those names?
There is not complete evidence for evolution. There is just as much, and continuously growing, evidence going against evolution. You have faith that the gaps missing in your belief will eventually be filled, or do not need to be. Evolution is an incomplete argument, and therefore relies on faith to a very obvious degree. I'm not arguing for the truth in creationism, but there is some form of evidence for nearly every belief about the origin of the Earth, so having a few scraps of evidence does not make something absolutely true.
As I stated, gravity is immediately observable; evolution is not. That isn't an "assertion" let alone is it completely false. It's not up for argument that if I drop something it's going to fall. It is going to fall.
Isn't it peculiar that none of these "links" are still around today, though the beginning and end creatures still are?
Also, I have a huge problem with you saying evolution HAPPENED. If evolution is absolutely correct, it should still be HAPPENING. And while I have heard, for the millionth time, it is a very slow process, there are not very obvious in between species, as there logically should be. Again, there is nothing presently known to be alive on this planet in between a chimp and a human. As soon as something that convincing is found, I'm sure much of the planet will convert to the religion that is evolution.
By "we," I'm making the assumption that you're referring to the human race.Synsational said:
If so, I hope you realize that the human race, as your referring to it, has been recorded in existence for that last several thousand years. The evolution of single-celled organisms to what we are today today spanned a few billion years. To put the length in perspective: if the billions of years of our world's existence was converted into a modern-day 12-month calendar, the existence of the human race would merely take up the last 14 seconds of the entire year.
In several thousand years, you're right, you wouldn't/won't notice much.
I hope you realize that those named species are the most-commonly known ancestors to modern man. Their nomenclature is general knowledge to the everyday freshman attending a biology/science class.kassie said:
Sector said:
Considering most freshman biology classes are merely the regurgitation of recycled lectures, I'm sure that's something students etch into their mind for test material. But I'm still going to go out on a limb here and say most freshman students have done none to little genuine research on the matter and take their teacher's word for it. This goes for public and private schools regardless of the teaching. It's been a while since I was in high school, but the youth of today as a whole aren't particularly bright or curious, and I mean that in the least offensive way possible.
kassie said:
I knew the off the top of my head.
kassie said:
If there was any evidence against evolution, it would not be considered science anymore. If someone had disproved evolution, they would be extremely famous and there would be a huge uproar.
All the evidence points to evolution, whether you like it or not. Creation is merely faith based, and requires no evidence.
kassie said:
It's not a law, though. It is a theory. That isn't up for debate. That's just a fact.
kassie said:
You would need an understanding of evolution in order to understand this.
The species eventually adapted and over millions of years evolved into the latter species. There was no first human or first Homo erectus because of the simple fact that evolution works over long time periods.
kassie said:
There are very obvious inbetween species, as I listed before.
Apes produced another evolutionary branch where they evolved into present day chimpanzees, another branch evolved into humans.
As for the claim that evolution is a religion...
"Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
Featured
Share this page
