Evolution: Fact Or Fiction

Whats your religion?

Atheist	39.3%	[ 1138 ]
Protestant	16.9%	[ 489 ]
Catholic	14.1%	[ 407 ]
Hindu	1.3%	[ 37 ]
Muslim	1.8%	[ 53 ]
Jew	2.3%	[ 67 ]
Buddhist	5.1%	[ 149 ]
Greek Orthodox	0.7%	[ 21 ]
Pagan	14.2%	[ 412 ]
Egyptian	4.2%	[ 122 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2895 ]

[maybecca]

bluewolfcub

If children turn into adults then why are there still children rolleyes

The evil atheisatanists would have you believe it's some mythical fairytale called 'childbirth', but that's just a theory. There's no evidence!

[Kimyko]

Vryko Lakas

MetalHead4Jesus777

Think about it, if we came from apes, dont you think apes would still be turning into men right now?

No. Apes are going down their own evolutionary path that is distinct from ours, because both branches split off millions of years ago from a common ancestor. I would NOT expect modern apes to become more humanlike.

Quote:

They have no physical proof of it.

HUR HUR HUR I DON'T WANT TO READ THE LAST TWO PAGES OF THE THREAD!
The have plenty of physical proof.

TrueSacredRahXephon

Proof:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

Direct observation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Uhm, may I say something here? I have an idea of maybe why people aren't taking that as proof. I'm certainly not going to question it because, to be perfectly honest - though not disrespectful - I really am too lazy to read all those links. Now...perhaps the reason people are ignoring them is because you provided it all on one site (except for wikipedia). Most people I know don't listen to evidence provided unless they are given from two different sources. It shows that the claims can be backed up, I believe. After all, any site can make claims and all that stuff...but I suppose if there were to be two or three that listed the exact same thing, people might take more notice? I don't actually know. It was just a suggestion.

Anyway, on to my own, personal opinion. I believe that evolution is a very interesting concept that it could very well be true. However, I don't think it has enough backing to stand alone without something else to support it.

I don't question evolution, but neither do I believe it. My opinion is that there has to have been something there before...the cliched "something can't come from nothing" argument. Evolution only explains how humans came to be, but it doesn't explain how we actually got here and that is why I don't believe in evolution - at least not yet.

Most people I meet are under the impression that religion and evolution can't exist together, that if one is true, the other can't be. However, I think that it's perfectly logical that God, or some god, created a beginning and let the rest work on its own.

I suppose I'm saying that the theory of evolution is like starting a book right in the middle. The knowledge you get from it is limited, and though you could probably piece some things together and be correct, you might not understand it unless you read the beginning as well.

Anyway, that entire post was pretty much a whole lot of beating around the bush. Basically, I flip-flopped around and said I don't know if evolution is real or not, though I, personally, don't believe it. And that it'd probably be better, and evolution would be more viable, if people focused more on how we actually came to be starting from the very beginning. Oh, and that it's wrong to assume that if evolution is correct, then religion isn't and vice versa.

Of course, this is all just my opinion - which haven't even been made concrete in my mind.

[Angra-Mainyu]

Kimyko

Now...perhaps the reason people are ignoring them is because you provided it all on one site (except for wikipedia). Most people I know don't listen to evidence provided unless they are given from two different sources. It shows that the claims can be backed up, I believe. After all, any site can make claims and all that stuff...but I suppose if there were to be two or three that listed the exact same thing, people might take more notice? I don't actually know. It was just a suggestion.

Talk.Origins is the web archive of the talk.origins Usenet discussion group. It contains referenced articles by multiple authors. It is as a matter of convience that such a website exists. If I pulled multiple papers from Nature would you complain that I was only using a single source?

[Dekku]

Angra-Mainyu

Kimyko

Now...perhaps the reason people are ignoring them is because you provided it all on one site (except for wikipedia). Most people I know don't listen to evidence provided unless they are given from two different sources. It shows that the claims can be backed up, I believe. After all, any site can make claims and all that stuff...but I suppose if there were to be two or three that listed the exact same thing, people might take more notice? I don't actually know. It was just a suggestion.

Talk.Origins is the web archive of the talk.origins Usenet discussion group. It contains referenced articles by multiple authors. It is as a matter of convience that such a website exists. If I pulled multiple papers from Nature would you complain that I was only using a single source?

Are you aware of a term called bias? Just curious.

[applegater42]

you know the best thing about evolotion, we have evidence,
you guys dont have any evidence of divine power of any form

[Tahpenes]

Kimyko

My opinion is that there has to have been something there before...the cliched "something can't come from nothing" argument. Evolution only explains how humans came to be, but it doesn't explain how we actually got here and that is why I don't believe in evolution - at least not yet.

==snip==

I suppose I'm saying that the theory of evolution is like starting a book right in the middle. The knowledge you get from it is limited, and though you could probably piece some things together and be correct, you might not understand it unless you read the beginning as well.

Evolution =/= abiogenesis

In fact, they almost have nothing to do with each other, except in so far as they both deal with living organisms.

Moreover, evolution describes a general process and not the specific history of how the current species on Earth came about. Determining the ancestry of modern humans or other species is a fun thing you can do using evolution science, but it isn't the goal or purpose or even the main focus of the science. Studying evolution is nothing like "starting a book right in the middle," and a book analogy is worse than useless when dealing with the science of evolution; that's like saying that because we don't know very much about the IndoEuropean language that influenced the Greeks and the Indian subcontinent the entire field of linguistics is faulty.

Or, even more directly related, that's like claiming that we don't understand how to properly breed dogs and chickens because we don't know all about the species that were around prior to domestication.



We know evolution is absolutely true because it is, in essence, the Grand Unifying Principle of the biological sciences. Biologists generally understood anatomy and generally understood reproduction and generally understood populations and generally understood inherited traits and generally understood similarity of species...and then you plop down the process of evolution into the middle and all of a sudden everything makes sense.

After evolution, pretty much everything else in the biological sciences is just filling in the corners. Biology IS evolution.

[FS]

Kimyko

I suppose I'm saying that the theory of evolution is like starting a book right in the middle. The knowledge you get from it is limited, and though you could probably piece some things together and be correct, you might not understand it unless you read the beginning as well.

Here's the thing: a scientific theory does not work like a book. A theory is meant to describe one observation at a time. Don't ask a plumber to explain which factory created the pipe he's working on, just let him do his job. Heck, plate tectonics doesn't explain how the big ball of dirt in the sky we're sitting on came to be, it just tells us how the continents are the way they are, and that's okay, because that's all it was meant to tell us. It works the same thing with evolution. If you want to know how the microbe was formed, or how the planet was formed, or how the entire universe was formed, go research the theories that involve those things. Abiogenesis, big bang, whatever.

Evolution was meant to describe the change of the frequencies of alleles in a population over time, and it does a damn good job of it.

This is why reading links is helpful.

[Vryko Lakas]

Kimyko

Uhm, may I say something here? I have an idea of maybe why people aren't taking that as proof. ...
Now...perhaps the reason people are ignoring them is because you provided it all on one site (except for wikipedia).

Dekku

Are you aware of a term called bias? Just curious.

TalkOrigins is a repository for various articles and FAQs written by many, many different people from all walks of life. Some of them are degree scientists, some of them are philosophers of science, some are just very knowledgible laymen. But accusing me (or TSRX) of just using a SINGLE source is like saying that our cites are invalid because we use articles from the Encyclopedia Britainica. The fact is that, despite being hosted on a single website, this is far more than ONE source.
As for bias, TO is a site set up explicitly to explain mainstream science, especially in regards to Creationism. However, it often has links to Creationist articles and especially Creationist responses. Anybody accusing TO of being biased is obviously not looking closely at the links.

Quote:

I'm certainly not going to question it because, to be perfectly honest - though not disrespectful - I really am too lazy to read all those links.

I think that's a better explanation.

Quote:

Evolution only explains how humans came to be, but it doesn't explain how we actually got here and that is why I don't believe in evolution - at least not yet.

Evolution isn't supposed to explain where everything came from. Evolution only explains what life did once it was here. Evolution assumes the existence of life. There are separate theories about where Life, the Universe, and Everything came from.

[songsparrow]

Dekku

songsparrow

Akanishi Makoto

Axioma

Nuri

TeddyBearsark

Evolution is true to a degree, but humans didn't evolve from monkeys

Nor does evolution make that claim.

eek
You mean popcuture LIED TO ME???

My God sits in the back of the limousines...

Here's how evolution happened:

Non-life goo --> Archaeobacteria --> Eukarya --> Protista --> Animalia --> Ancient Primates --> Humans

Correct me if I'm wrong, any of you biologists out there.

Please point me to proof that this is true. I'm looking for something that says that there is no other way that we could have been formed, not even creation.

Heh. This is what it always boils down to. Obviously, as there could not have possibly been eye witnesses to the creation of life according to evolution, nobody can say for sure that it really happened. But they can provide enough evidence for it to beyond a shadow of a doubt in one side's favor, if you abandon your bias and consider the information. The stance you just presented is one of ignorance; There is an abundance of proof, you simply choose to hide behind the universal scientific law that states that nothing can be proven.

That's a cop out. With all the evidence there is still doubt. What do we have that can show difinitively that humans evolved from some form of bacteria? Please post a link showing a study that makes the connection clear.

[Vryko Lakas]

songsparrow

That's a cop out. With all the evidence there is still doubt. What do we have that can show difinitively that humans evolved from some form of bacteria?

We didn't evolve from bacteria, we actually share a common ancestor with bacteria (animals, plants, and fungi branch off of the Eucarya line). The proof is in the genes and the structure of our cells.

[xXDita-ChanXx]

FromFirstToLast_Rock

Try to back up your idea... mrgreen

Are you trying to ask for evidence when your religion is all about faith?

[songsparrow]

Deep Vermillion

songsparrow

Granted I don't have the study, but do you have the study that says otherwise? where is the evidence for evolution?

Here.

Ok, so I read it and it was very informative. Thank you. I do have a couple of points to make though.

1) Creationism is ruled out as a theory because it does not fit the scientific definition of what a theory is. This leaves no room for consideration of the possibility and therefore leave evolution to explain the origins of life. This is a bias against creationism that leaves those of us who believe in it be ridiculed as some kind of idiot.

2)"...the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it." These people wouldn't be working on evolution if they didn't already stand behind the theory, thus another bias.

Anyone who says that science is unbiased simply does not understand human nature.

[songsparrow]

Vryko Lakas

songsparrow

That's a cop out. With all the evidence there is still doubt. What do we have that can show difinitively that humans evolved from some form of bacteria?

We didn't evolve from bacteria, we actually share a common ancestor with bacteria (animals, plants, and fungi branch off of the Eucarya line). The proof is in the genes and the structure of our cells.

Study please

[Angra-Mainyu]

songsparrow

Vryko Lakas

songsparrow

That's a cop out. With all the evidence there is still doubt. What do we have that can show difinitively that humans evolved from some form of bacteria?

We didn't evolve from bacteria, we actually share a common ancestor with bacteria (animals, plants, and fungi branch off of the Eucarya line). The proof is in the genes and the structure of our cells.

Study please

http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1

Not a study itself, but it lists its references if you want to debunk them.

[Maze1125]

songsparrow

Vryko Lakas

songsparrow

That's a cop out. With all the evidence there is still doubt. What do we have that can show difinitively that humans evolved from some form of bacteria?

We didn't evolve from bacteria, we actually share a common ancestor with bacteria (animals, plants, and fungi branch off of the Eucarya line). The proof is in the genes and the structure of our cells.

Study please

Let's see a study that gives evidence for creationism and such first.