Evolution

In OWB's previous post he basically admited that perhaps evolution is possible. So I think he's being open-minded about it....but if you guys want to argue that's fine too. I find it amusing.

 

We always argue.
It's our thing. =/

 

Logic behind behind what, evolution? I'm convinced evolutionists have skewed their understanding and have done this in a conscious effort to prevent themselves and others from seeing the illogic behind evolution.

As for keeping up; I was just pointing out how, no matter how "skewed" my understanding, what you were asking had just been asked and answered with Monkey Boy and you just weren't keeping up.

 

I think that neodude believes he was destined to do it.

 

Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process.

EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory.

We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

 

What "sounds reasonable to you" is not the point. Evolution is not something you can vote on. It's not something you can legislate. Nor is it a matter of opinion ... it's not like asking what's your favorite ice cream flavor. Evolution either happened or it didn't, and what you "believe" or what you think is "reasonable" is completely irrelevant. You might as well say you don't "believe" that Abraham Lincoln was shot in a theatre. Well, ok ... but he either was or he wasn't ... your "belief" doesn't really matter.

When people say things like "maybe your ancestors were monkeys, but mine weren't", one hopes they realize the abject absurdity of their statement. No one is able to choose who their ancestors were, and if in fact it truly happened that humans evolved from ape-like creatures millions of years ago, well then they did. It's not a matter of opinion. It's not a matter of saying "I believe" it happened or "I don't believe" it happened. "Belief" is irrelevant.

What's relevant is ... what actually did happen? That's the focus of the anthropological and biological communities ... to try and determine if Darwin and Wallace were right when they proposed the ideas of natural and sexual selection.

Since we don't have a time machine and can't go back and see for ourselves, all we have to go on is the existing physical evidence.

So what does the physical evidence say? It is possible to observe natural selection in progess? Science has been studying evolution and fitting the pieces together for a century and a half ... what evidence is available to answer the question of whether or not it actually happened? That's what you should focus on, not on trying to vote on it.

I have never come across anyone who has actually studied evolution and understands how it works that doubts that it happened. In my experience, the only people who doubt it are those who have not studied it and whose knowledge of the principles involved is extremely limited.

I once had a person argue vehemently against evolution, but whose argument consisted of ... "you know that all of evolution is based on one bone". It's difficult to intelligently discuss the subject in the face of ignorance to that degree.

It's not a perfect theory ... no scientific theory is perfect. Are there holes in it? Of course there are. There are plenty of things that still are not understood, and many details will probably need to be modified in the future. That's how scientific theories work.

But in the century and a half since Darwin and Wallace, the underlying principles have only been solidified. Thousands of biologists all over the world have painstakingly put together the pieces into a coherent theory that only gets stronger over time. The theory explains the physical evidence, and it successfully predicts new phenomena, and those are the hallmarks of a good theory.

 

Well put!

 

Not being up on the latest evolutionary terminology, I’m really not sure what you mean by micro evolution but if memory serves and you can correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that were the fact that there are Chihuahuas and Great Danes and that because more moths are of a different color because that color reflects the dominate color of their background, then that is proof of evolution. I agree that these things are facts, I just don’t see them as evolutionary.

So I keep being told and when I was young and easily fooled, I believed it but as I got a little older and started to ask questions, It seemed more and more like evolutionists were just making it up as they went along and the their best answer was; we’re here so it must have happened. Then if you still didn’t believe after they kept saying; it happened, it happened, then you were labeled too stupid to understand and told not to look behind the curtain.

So I’m told.

If everybody but me thought the moon was made of swiss cheese, would that make me wrong?

Really? I guess then I’m no longer a monkey’s uncle.

Honestly, it’s not so much lying as a over simplification, It’s just easier to say we supposedly evolved from monkeys than to try and keep up with the latest changes in evolutionary theories and say we supposedly evolved from whatever is suppose to be our latest common ancestor.

 

Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

 

Ever hear of a rhetorical question?

Once again there was no call for a vote, just a simple question, an asking for an opinion, a call to think about what had been said. When did that become a crime?

Is this proof? What if we take a poll of everyone who has studied evolution and see how many doubt it happened but then isn’t that what you railed against in the beginning of your post? Personally, I met someone who taught evolution at a college level and now no longer believes evolution, is that proof?

I’ve met with evolutionists that are on the same level as your “anti-evolutionist” does that mean that because they have very little knowledge of what the Bible says, that evolution isn’t true?

I didn’t say that the theory isn’t interesting but that doesn’t mean that all other thoughts on how the universe could have come into existence should be discarded.

The same could be said for Newton’s theories and they have all but been discarded.

 

Unfortunately life and our understanding of it as humans is constantly changing as certain view points are proven wrong and new theories are proposed.

As for over simplification, I can't think of a more over simplified way to look at the origin of life than to say it was created in under a week in it's entirety.

Just my opinion of course.

 

Well, I should have guessed you would say that "micro"evolution would have to do with "bacterial strains".

But seriously, to me that doesn't seem like evolution, to me it's more like killing off everyone with blue eyes and suddenly everyone has brown eyes, people didn't suddenly evolve to have only brown eyes, it just means that those who have blues have been removed. Likewise with the bacterial strains, some were naturally resistant to antibiotics and some weren't, now that you've killed off the one's that weren't resistant, the resistant ones are free to multiply.

 

That would denote a pretty severe lack of understanding of how evolution worked. Even if most mutations were "negative", that would not necessarily mean that they hadn't brought us to the point we're at now.

 

And because something's easier it's better? I'm pretty sure your god has something to say on that subject. Or maybe he's just worried about physical sloth, rather than intellectual sloth.

If you wilfully misrepresent a theory (which you are, if you know that it's an over-simplification), that's deceptive to those who don't know it. It's also frustrating to those who don't seem to find it easier to believe something that they know isn't true.

What you have said above is intended to imply that scientific theory is weaker than firm religious faith because it keeps changing and is hard to keep up with. And that is inaccurate and in my view misleading, since I don't believe that you are stupid.

To modify a classic analogy, three men with blindfolds feel an elephant. One feels its tail, says it's a rope, one feels its leg, says it's a tree, one feels... I forget what the other one feels. The point being that when they take their blindfolds off, their assessment will change. So then, OH NOES, they've changed their story, they've come up with another theory on what the elephant supposedly is. But this is not a weakness. The weak man is the man who puts the blindfold back on and flat out insists that it's a rope.

 

I think we've already discussed this.

Yes, it is a simplification, I have never denied that.

As for the "week" thing, as I've pointed out, no length is given for how long the "days" were, so that "week" could have been anywhere from 7 seconds or less to 7 billion years or more, the Bible just doesn't say.

And we all have one, wouldn't life be dull if we didn't?

 

I just wish those evolutionists would quit putting their blindfolds back on.

 

By this reasoning are you implying that at one point in time all current and all extinct species of animals inhabited the Earth at the same time?

I may have taken your statement wrong.

 

I really don't know what to say about this. You are describing exactly how evolution has been supposed to work since before Darwin, and then saying that it "doesn't seem like evolution" to you". I don't really know how to explain this to you. I know you've been involved in enough discussions of the subject to know roughly how evolution is supposed to work, whether you believe in it or not. So to describe exactly how evolution is supposed to work, and to then say that it "doesn't seem like evolution" just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make the theory look less sound, if that's what you were aiming for. It just makes you look silly.

 

That is not what I intended to imply. What is it about my statement that seemed to imply that?

 

I'm high right now I'm chalking that one up to dope...