Evolution

[Kassie]

I knew the off the top of my head.

Noted.

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.

This is arguably the most close minded thing regarding evolution I have ever read. If there was zero evidence against evolution, everyone would believe in it as much as they believe in gravity. If someone PROVED evolution, they would be extremely famous and there would be a huge uproar. You cannot argue that there are fossils and links, thousands upon thousands of them, missing. That's fact and used as evidence against evolution, as well as tons of other things. I implore you to look into it.

All the evidence points to evolution, whether you like it or not. Creation is merely faith based, and requires no evidence.

Wrong. Study symbiotic relationships. And that evidence is not evolution's problem, it's the lack of evidence. It's an argument that has as many holes as a sponge. You have faith that your thousands of missing links have existed, don't you? Even though you've never seen their fossils, and certainly don't see them living anymore today, you have faith in them. Before you reply to me and say there are fossils of variations in species and certainly, to a degree, macroevolution. I know. And that is not my point. It is the gradual, very slightly changed string of fossils branching into every single living thing. Very different points.

And I have no inclination to like or dislike anything. I have not stated what I believe in. I'm simply pointing out flaws in an argument, not looking to tear down something I don't believe in or protect something I do believe in.

It's not a law, though. It is a theory. That isn't up for debate. That's just a fact.

That is irrelevant to the point I am making. Gravity is immediately observable, to everyone on Earth. I think it's safe to assume to majority of human beings believe in gravity, because it can be demonstrated in a matter of seconds, unlike evolution.

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.

Was not referring to a first human. Starting point = ape. Ending point = human. Is there anything between those two alive on Earth right now? Not that we know of.

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.

Again, no species between an ape and human alive today. Peculiar. Also, those are huge jumps. Ginormous. There should be thousands of gradual fossils between those leaps. It's not just finding one missing link. You're looking for literal millions.

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

I was not directly labeling evolution a religion, obviously. I was making a point that evolution requires an enormous amount of blind faith, as religions do.

---

Evolution is still happening. Why do elephants have knee bones still and why do whales and dolphins still have finger bones because they are evolving and still are.

I already explained the fins thing to you. And whales are mammals, very similar to land mammals aside from spending life in the sea. It is not erroneous to presume that whales could have once spent time on land. You have to understand there is a difference between those changes and the belief that single-celled organisms branched off into the entirety of life.

 

[Bump Bot]

Noted.


This is arguably the most close minded thing regarding evolution I have ever read. If there was zero evidence against evolution, everyone would believe in it as much as they believe in gravity. If someone PROVED evolution, they would be extremely famous and there would be a huge uproar. You cannot argue that there are fossils and links, thousands upon thousands of them, missing. That's fact and used as evidence against evolution, as well as tons of other things. I implore you to look into it.


Wrong. Study symbiotic relationships. And that evidence is not evolution's problem, it's the lack of evidence. It's an argument that has as many holes as a sponge. You have faith that your thousands of missing links have existed, don't you? Even though you've never seen their fossils, and certainly don't see them living anymore today, you have faith in them. Before you reply to me and say there are fossils of variations in species and certainly, to a degree, macroevolution. I know. And that is not my point. It is the gradual, very slightly chained string of fossils branching into every single living thing. Very different points.

And I have no inclination to like or dislike anything. I have no stated what I believe in. I'm simply pointing out flaws in an argument, not looking to tear down something I don't believe in or protect something I do believe in.


That is irrelevant to the point I am making. Gravity is immediately observable, to everyone on Earth. I think it's safe to assume to majority of human beings believe in gravity, because it can be demonstrated in a matter of seconds, unlike evolution.


Was not referring to a first human. Starting point = ape. Ending point = human. Is there anything between those two alive on Earth right now? Not that we know of.


Again, no species between an ape and human alive today. Peculiar. Also, those are huge jumps. Ginormous. There should be thousands of gradual fossils between those leaps. It's not just finding one missing link. You're looking for literal millions.


I was not directly labeling evolution a religion, obviously. I was making a point that evolution requires an enormous amount of blind faith, as religions do.

---

I already explained the fins thing to you. And whales are mammals, very similar to land mammals aside from spending life in the sea. It is not erroneous to presume that whales could have once spent time on land. You have to understand there is a difference between those changes and the belief that single-celled organisms branched off into the entirety of life.

---

Well single celled organisms mutated to be multicellular that is a proven fact.

 

[Kassie]

Well single celled organisms mutated to be multicellular that is a proven fact.

This is a rather recent finding. Scientists are expecting degeneration of the cells, not an increase in complexity. It's a sensationalized finding that has little to no research done for it to date.

 

[Nevermind]

This is arguably the most close minded thing regarding evolution I have ever read. If there was zero evidence against evolution, everyone would believe in it as much as they believe in gravity. If someone PROVED evolution, they would be extremely famous and there would be a huge uproar. You cannot argue that there are fossils and links, thousands upon thousands of them, missing. That's fact and used as evidence against evolution, as well as tons of other things. I implore you to look into it.

Evolution is just as factual as gravitation. They are both classified as scientific theories, and are therefore treated as fact until proven otherwise.

Wrong. Study symbiotic relationships. And that evidence is not evolution's problem, it's the lack of evidence. It's an argument that has as many holes as a sponge. You have faith that your thousands of missing links have existed, don't you? Even though you've never seen their fossils, and certainly don't see them living anymore today, you have faith in them. Before you reply to me and say there are fossils of variations in species and certainly, to a degree, macroevolution. I know. And that is not my point. It is the gradual, very slightly changed string of fossils branching into every single living thing. Very different points.

And I have no inclination to like or dislike anything. I have not stated what I believe in. I'm simply pointing out flaws in an argument, not looking to tear down something I don't believe in or protect something I do believe in.

Fossil records and DNA are observable evidence that supports evolution. Also, lack of evidence is not evidence. You're referring to the god of the gaps. Just because there are gaps doesn't mean science can't and won't fill them. We went from solely believing in a god to having scientific theories that work without a god. The amount of advancements and discoveries in science, even in the past fifty years, is quite amazing. Science will continue to progress.

That is irrelevant to the point I am making. Gravity is immediately observable, to everyone on Earth. I think it's safe to assume to majority of human beings believe in gravity, because it can be demonstrated in a matter of seconds, unlike evolution.

I don't see your point. Both of them have evidence to support them, and both are considered scientific theories.

Was not referring to a first human. Starting point = ape. Ending point = human. Is there anything between those two alive on Earth right now? Not that we know of.

I don't see your argument.

Again, no species between an ape and human alive today. Peculiar. Also, those are huge jumps. Ginormous. There should be thousands of gradual fossils between those leaps. It's not just finding one missing link. You're looking for literal millions.

Those species evolved to present day humans.

I was not directly labeling evolution a religion, obviously. I was making a point that evolution requires an enormous amount of blind faith, as religions do.

"The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples' set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

 

[Cann!bal]

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.

We're constantly changing. Evolution has not stopped. In the past millennia the average height for a male human has increased by almost two feet. Evolution is not a process that can be observed visually for such drastic changes take extensive periods of time.

I don't understand how you can deny evolution when you blatantly have no clue what evolution is.

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.

Pun was manifesting the equivocation fallacy so many evolution deniers make, including you. A scientific theory differs greatly from a conventional theory. If a flaw is manifested in a scientific theory, its validity is discarded entirely. There is no evidence that suggests evolution is false. If there was a single flaw in the theory of evolution, entire branches of science would collapse, such as the entire branch of biology. However, contrarily, the theory of evolution has yet to manifest a flaw and has only been 100% accurate with the predictions it makes with the fossil record.

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.

Macroevolution is purely a lot of microevolution (what you just said was true) over an extensive period of time.

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.

That's not what evolution dictates, so yeah you're right, I suppose. Evolution dictates we all hold a common ancestor, which we descended from.

That's fraudulent. There are indeed species in between. Here's a broad spectrum of the evolution of man.

All of our hominid cousins have ceased. 99% of all species to have lived on Earth are extinct; not that big of a shocker there's no other species currently alive comparable of our cognitive capabilities.

The gaps in the fossil record serve as evidence of evolution if anything. So far evolution has allowed us to predict what we will find with 100% accuracy. That's fraudulent; they are not jumbled at all. I suggest you do some protagonist perspective research before taking what ever you hear as truth in regards of evolution.

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.

Evolution is not dying out in the slightest. The theory is being constantly advocated by governments and renown scientific organizations to be taught as truth in schools and in general. Please link me to a single renown scientific organization that holds no religious affiliation and claims evolution is false. I doubt you can.

EDIT 3/29/14:

@Kassie

 

[Cann!bal]

@Kassie, I'm still awaiting your rebuttal.

 

[Miles]

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.

Butting in now. You've never "heard of people mutating or anything"?

A mutation is not something like a hulk, we do not have super mutations like that. Mutations aren't bad either. They are generally not even noticed in short periods of time, because real change due to mutations only occurs over long periods; hence evolution.

Mutation: bigger lung capacity
Result: Can run from large animal for longer and survive
Bigger picture result: Reproduces and passes on bigger lung capacity mutation

Mutation: Asthma (constriction of lungs)
Result: (not today) Cannot run for as long
Bigger picture result: Dies off and does not get to reproduce--asthma does not pass on from this animal

Natural selection. The fittest survive. It doesn't work as well today due to medicine keeping everyone alive, but imagine 500 years ago when you had to keep yourself alive to reproduce, can you imagine someone with no legs due to a mutation being abel to survive --> reproduce? No. That is why people have legs and not no legs. Unrealistic example, but thats what happens.

@Starfire

 

[Bit]

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?

Name something in this entire universe that doesn't change over time.

I'm pretty sure the theory is that everything evolved from a single celled organism, which then mutated and branched off into different species corresponding with it's environment.

 

[Cann!bal]

Name something in this entire universe that doesn't change over time.

I'm pretty sure the theory is that everything evolved from a single celled organism, which then mutated and branched off into different species corresponding with it's environment.

To be accurate, the epoch of life as we know it didn't initiate with a single celled organism. It began with something much less complex.

 

[Bit]

To be accurate, the epoch of life as we know it didn't initiate with a single celled organism. It began with something much less complex.

I'm pretty sure a single celled organism is as simple as life gets.

Then again I'm no scientist, and I'm not about to go dig that deep into something I know to be fact.

 

[Cann!bal]

I'm pretty sure a single celled organism is as simple as life gets.

Then again I'm no scientist, and I'm not about to go dig that deep into something I know to be fact.

Cells are the smallest iota of life at a conventional level, however, at a technical level it can go further. A single cell organism didn't pop out of nowhere and branch off from there. It too descended from a common ancestor and went through the process we did.

 

[Kassie]

There is nothing said that I blatantly disagree with.

In regards to what Pun was saying, I was merely stating that evolution differs from gravity in how it can be tested. He told me to "jump out of a window and test it" in regards to gravity, but evolution isn't the same in that it doesn't provide an immediate answer the instant I want to witness it.

Edit: I was going to ask you for an elaboration on the very beginning of life, but that's probably better placed in a different thread.

 

[Akatsuki]

Well for me, I believe in God. I see where People come from with this whole "evolution" thing but I don't believe in it. Like turtles and tortoise or frogs and toads. They're different but not the same. There are boundaries between the genetics. I like to believe Gid made the world and in God because it give me hope. If I wasn't Christian, I wouldn't have anything to put my hope in.

Therefor, you have a really nice "theory" here but I believe that god made the earth, it's people, and everything.

 

[Kassie]

Well for me, I believe in God. I see where People come from with this whole "evolution" thing but I don't believe in it. Like turtles and tortoise or frogs and toads. They're different but not the same. There are boundaries between the genetics. I like to believe Gid made the world and in God because it give me hope. If I wasn't Christian, I wouldn't have anything to put my hope in.

Therefor, you have a really nice "theory" here but I believe that god made the earth, it's people, and everything.

Evolution and a belief in God don't really need to picked between, in my opinion. What prevents you from entertaining both?

 

[Aura]

Evolution and a belief in God don't really need to picked between, in my opinion. What prevents you from entertaining both?

Stop referring to it as "God." There is no god, by any definition but especially the traditional interpretation. There could be a creator. It doesnt mean we have to worship it, which instigates religion and infers that the creator is worthy of worship. Clearly if we do have a creator it is not worthy of worship. Look around you, terrible things happen to innocent people everyday. Divine intervention does not exist, at least not in the sense of protecting people. There is no god.

 

[Kassie]

Stop referring to it as "God." There is no god, by any definition but especially the traditional interpretation. There could be a creator. It doesnt mean we have to worship it, which instigates religion and infers that the creator is worthy of worship. Clearly if we do have a creator it is not worthy of worship. Look around you, terrible things happen to innocent people everyday. Divine intervention does not exist, at least not in the sense of protecting people. There is no god.

I refer to "it" as God because that is how the person I quoted from referred to him. He's free to believe that God is an entity worthy of worship, just as you're allowed to believe the opposite. I was simply suggesting that he could believe in both: God and evolution.

 

[Poison]

Stop referring to it as "God." There is no god, by any definition but especially the traditional interpretation. There could be a creator. It doesnt mean we have to worship it, which instigates religion and infers that the creator is worthy of worship. Clearly if we do have a creator it is not worthy of worship. Look around you, terrible things happen to innocent people everyday. Divine intervention does not exist, at least not in the sense of protecting people. There is no god.

Uhh.. I wouldn't argue with @Kassie
She knows everything, bro.

But on-topic:

There is only one way anything in this world is created, and that is through time, space, and scientific nature. Nothing was created by a supreme being, otherwise you would be able to teleport to other worlds, and time would never exist.

But then again, does time really exist? Time is a man-made thing.

However, the "man-made" genes that we have grown to better use have helped us homosapians grow to have better knowledge of what we are able to manipulate and create. Taking DNA strands from animals and humans have allowed us to recreate the host it has been taken from.

 

[Kassie]

Uhh.. I wouldn't argue with @Kassie
She knows everything, bro.

But on-topic:

There is only one way anything in this world is created, and that is through time, space, and scientific nature. Nothing was created by a supreme being, otherwise you would be able to teleport to other worlds, and time would never exist.

But then again, does time really exist? Time is a man-made thing.

However, the "man-made" genes that we have grown to better use have helped us homosapians grow to have better knowledge of what we are able to manipulate and create. Taking DNA strands from animals and humans have allowed us to recreate the host it has been taken from.

I don't know anything, but I have continuously evolving opinions about everything.

Teleportation and a lacking of time? How would that tie into having a creator whatsoever?

Edit: Time exists because things die; Everything has an expiration date eventually.

 

[Poison]

I don't know anything, but I have continuously evolving opinions about everything.

Teleportation and a lacking of time? How would that tie into having a creator whatsoever?

Edit: Time exists because things die; Everything has an expiration date eventually.

Time was a man-made phenomenon.
Teleportation is something mad is trying to achieve.
As for expiration dates: if time doesn't exist, then everything dies on it's own terms.

 

[Kassie]

Time was a man-made phenomenon.
Teleportation is something mad is trying to achieve.
As for expiration dates: if time doesn't exist, then everything dies on it's own terms.

I'm not following on the teleportation tying into a creator issue.

Time, in the way that we measure it and revolve our lives around it, is man made.

Time, in the sense of measuring the duration between the start and end of something, is observable. An end to my life is just as certain as the beginning of it was, which makes my life measurable, temporary, etc.