Do you believe in evolution ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
@ Dowie - maybe you have read the last few pages and the statements made and the wilful reiteration of already covered positions without any apparent ability to take them on board and start to see why I wished to establish what the level of knowledge was.
 
arknor said:
so do we have an appendix, tail bone, erector pili and body Hair, male nipples, wisdom teeth ? why didn't we evolve and lose them
VXx7rG2.gif
Click to expand...

I can only assume you are tolling,

evolution is not a 10minute process... you think one day a monkeys hair and tail fell off and it was a modern human? we are in the process of loosing those things (well since they mostly do nothing theres not much seleecting them in and out any more)

once upon a time men and women identical single celled ?things? (well we would have started as some freak self replicating combo of chemicals id guess).

What you see today is the result of 3 billion years random replication mistakes (with various factors killing off that less sutible versions)
 
Do I believe in evolution?

Yes, yes I do.

We see evolution happening on a regular basis. For example the way certain bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics.

The way certain insect species become resistant to to the pesticides used to control them.

Given these observable changes and what is presented in the Theory of Evolution, I dont think any objectively minded individual could refute the existence of evolution.

But even discarding clear biological evolution, the overall concept of evolution is around us every day. We strive to adapt to new situations, we strive to improve. Every aspect of our lives is a journey to improve and develop.

I see no reason why the natural world would be any different.
 
arknor said:
so why haven't humans adapted to the sun? or the cold or numerous other things.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that we are adapted to the sun (we live on a planet that is near a the star in questions). If we weren't adapted to the sun it would probably kill us. However evolution doesn't create perfectly designed solutions, the result just needs to be enough of a trait that gives the slightest advantage to become dominant. Your subsequent example of why an ape doesn't become more human like is due to the simple reason that to do so would not be advantageous to the animal in its environment.

There's also some recent study that shows that sudden changes to your current environment can have a huge impact on the way genes are turned on and off during reproductions leading to rather rapid, albeit short lived changes (unless the environmental change becomes permanent) in offspring.
 
Angilion said:
Yes, it makes no sense because you're asking questions containing an incorrect assumption, namely that evolution has a purpose. You're even going as far as saying that animals choose whether or not to evolve!
Click to expand...

I stopped Pikachu evolving and gave Nindoran a moon stone, so yes, you do have a say.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "theory" in the scientific sense. A scientific theory means much more than the general term theory.
Click to expand...

It's actually not. I fully understand the implications of the word.

My point was that neither theory had been proved wrong, and so either could be correct.
 
Natural selection is the most convincing explanation I have heard for the variety of life and anatomical morphologies on earth.

The reason we still have nipples etc. is that losing them doesn't confer any selection advantage (ie. someone without nipples is not more likely to breed and/or survive than someone with nipples... indeed, they might be less likely to breed !).

It is also worth noting that humans tend to change their environment to suit themselves much more quickly than evolution would change them to suit the environment. Hence evolution is slowed down even further.
 
xs2man said:
It's actually not. I fully understand the implications of the word.

My point was that neither theory had been proved wrong, and so either could be correct.
Click to expand...

Except one is a scientific theory which is supported by a lot of scientific evidence and the other isn't.

Biblical Creationism isn't a scientific theory and is not supported by any scientific evidence so to give them equal footing is disingenuous at best.
 
We share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, we still have evidence on our bodies such as 3 now very weak muscles in our ears to turn them in directions of sounds, evidence of a 3rd eyelid, coccyx is the remainder of a tail, goose pimples are remnants of a threat mechanism to make animals fur look bigger when under threat, there are lots more.

such information should shoot creationists down in flames but unfortunately blind faith is nothing more than total ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence.
 
Usher said:
We share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, we still have evidence on our bodies such as 3 now very weak muscles in our ears to turn them in directions of sounds, evidence of a 3rd eyelid, coccyx is the remainder of a tail, goose pimples are remnants of a threat mechanism to make animals fur look bigger when under threat, there are lots more.

such information should shoot creationists down in flames but unfortunately blind faith is nothing more than total ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Click to expand...

But there's not evidence!!! :D
 
RDM said:
Except one is a scientific theory which is supported by a lot of scientific evidence and the other isn't.

Biblical Creationism isn't a scientific theory and is not supported by any scientific evidence so to give them equal footing is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

But if neither have been proved wrong, you can't say which one is.

I too feel more inclined to believe evolution (in fact, I actually do fully believe it), but I cannot say that creationism is simple BS. I can assume it's unlikely, but not that it's false.

For context, I studied Physics at University. That's not to say my opinion is any more valid than anyone elses, but simply to say, before I will believe something as absolute fact, I would need to see the evidence. While there is a absurd amount of evidence to support evolution, there is a lack of evidence to absolutely refute creationism. So I stand by my comment that either could be the truth, despite my large swing towards believing that evolution is the far more likely process.
 
xs2man said:
But if neither have been proved wrong, you can't say which one is.

I too feel more inclined to believe evolution (in fact, I actually do fully believe it), but I cannot say that creationism is simple BS. I can assume it's unlikely, but not that it's false.

For context, I studied Physics at University. That's not to say my opinion is any more valid than anyone elses, but simply to say, before I will believe something as absolute fact, I would need to see the evidence. While there is a absurd amount of evidence to support evolution, there is a lack of evidence to absolutely refute creationism. So I stand by my comment that either could be the truth, despite my large swing towards believing that evolution is the far more likely process.
Click to expand...

You studied physics at University, yet you come out with "But if neither have been proved wrong, you can't say which one is"

You do understand how evidence and the scientific method works, right?
 
xs2man said:
But if neither have been proved wrong, you can't say which one is.

I too feel more inclined to believe evolution (in fact, I actually do fully believe it), but I cannot say that creationism is simple BS. I can assume it's unlikely, but not that it's false.

For context, I studied Physics at University. That's not to say my opinion is any more valid than anyone elses, but simply to say, before I will believe something as absolute fact, I would need to see the evidence. While there is a absurd amount of evidence to support evolution, there is a lack of evidence to absolutely refute creationism. So I stand by my comment that either could be the truth, despite my large swing towards believing that evolution is the far more likely process.
Click to expand...

Yes you can say, with confidence, that creationism is BS. I mean, it depends how much of it you feel like disproving, but the universe is more than 6,000 years old, dinosaurs did exist, humans weren't some of the first creatures on earth, noah's ark can't possibly have happened (no fossil record) etc.
 
xs2man said:
But if neither have been proved wrong, you can't say which one is.

I too feel more inclined to believe evolution (in fact, I actually do fully believe it), but I cannot say that creationism is simple BS. I can assume it's unlikely, but not that it's false.

For context, I studied Physics at University. That's not to say my opinion is any more valid than anyone elses, but simply to say, before I will believe something as absolute fact, I would need to see the evidence. While there is a absurd amount of evidence to support evolution, there is a lack of evidence to absolutely refute creationism. So I stand by my comment that either could be the truth, despite my large swing towards believing that evolution is the far more likely process.
Click to expand...

As one of them isn't a scientific theory whey are you even comparing the two? Creationism is a "theory" in the common usage of the word rather than the scientific usage of the word.
 
Creationism would be more a hypothesis would it not, rather than a theory?. describing it as a theory gives it more credit than it really deserves surely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom