do u believe that we evolved from monkeys?

do you believe that we evolved from the ancestors of monkeys?

yes	55.8%	[ 241 ]
no	35.4%	[ 153 ]
not sure because you dont know anything at the matter of this topic	8.8%	[ 38 ]
Total Votes:			[ 432 ]

[jamesandapril]

lol this topic always makes me laugh...everyone gets so mad about it... lol
i dont know what to believe and whoever did create humans or whatever we evolved from was a cool person/thing/whatever it is. hehe heart

LOVE EVERYONE

[vipr230]

jamesandapril

lol this topic always makes me laugh...everyone gets so mad about it... lol
i dont know what to believe and whoever did create humans or whatever we evolved from was a cool person/thing/whatever it is. hehe heart

LOVE EVERYONE

My advice, believe the evidence.

[Golden Dysprosium]

jamesandapril

lol this topic always makes me laugh...everyone gets so mad about it... lol

Well, it's frustrating in much the same way that I'm sure Germany is getting tired of being associated with the Nazis and genocide.

[IronySandwich]

For all practical purposes, humans still are monkeys.

[Anima De Arcana]

. . . We're stupid in general. If we were not this forum wouldn't exist. Was that on the chart Ms. Patella?

[Golden Dysprosium]

Anima De Arcana

. . . We're stupid in general. If we were not this forum wouldn't exist. Was that on the chart Ms. Patella?

I should stop unequiping my gun. People seem less patronizing when you're packing heat. neutral

[dragonmatt5]

I think it is chimpanzees not run of the mill monkeys that we are only 1% different from. Still we are closely related to monkeys as well.

Just an aside here, it would probably help get evolution more accepted if it was as segregated as possible from religion, abiogenesis, the big bang and most other ideas lumped together in the general view of it. Granted people will follow the idea to the conclusion (that if evolution exist, when did it start and if god didn't make man as is as said in the bible, what else is wrong). It always tends to end up with one side or the other dragging the argument into other fields and doing little to convince others who see their personal ideas being threatened and thus they dig in and ignore what they are being told. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, that's all. It isn't telling people how we started on earth. It isn't evidence for or against god's existence. It certainly isn't related to how the universe started. It has been observed, and is relied upon for various sciences, more likely then not including medicine you have used to stay or become healthy. To that effect it is just like gravity in that that too has been observed and has undoubtedly effected you. It is fact that it exist just like it is fact gravity exist (though evolution itself may not be fact, it's existence is...Kinda hard to explain that.

[Golden Dysprosium]

dragonmatt5

It has been observed, and is relied upon for various sciences, more likely then not including medicine you have used to stay or become healthy.

Not to my knowledge, and that's my field. neutral Stuff like aceteminophen is actually drawn from traditional remedies. However, we've become more adept at using chemistry, so we can better isolate the catalysts. Good example: Snake oil was once used as an anti-inflamitory, but the local snakes weren't as good as the Chinese ones. That's were the phrase "peddling snake oil" comes from.

Quote:

To that effect it is just like gravity in that that too has been observed and has undoubtedly effected you. It is fact that it exist just like it is fact gravity exist (though evolution itself may not be fact, it's existence is...Kinda hard to explain that.

Really? I found Evolution to be a far more plausible Theory than gravity.

[dragonmatt5]

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

It has been observed, and is relied upon for various sciences, more likely then not including medicine you have used to stay or become healthy.

Not to my knowledge, and that's my field. neutral Stuff like aceteminophen is actually drawn from traditional remedies. However, we've become more adept at using chemistry, so we can better isolate the catalysts. Good example: Snake oil was once used as an anti-inflamitory, but the local snakes weren't as good as the Chinese ones. That's were the phrase "peddling snake oil" comes from.

Quote:

To that effect it is just like gravity in that that too has been observed and has undoubtedly effected you. It is fact that it exist just like it is fact gravity exist (though evolution itself may not be fact, it's existence is...Kinda hard to explain that.

Really? I found Evolution to be a far more plausible Theory than gravity.

A. Don't you use the fact that viruses change and can become resistant to certain medicines to better address and improve upon current ones? Granted I have little knowledge in the field I just thought that dealing with changing and evolving microscopic crap would be related. Maybe that is a different field, I don't know for sure sweatdrop

B. I find it more plausible as well, yet both are observable occurrences in nature. Living organisms will change over many generations with pressure introduced into their habitat creating a situation were certain traits will have a better chance at survival. And the ball I drop falls. Both just were given fancier names xd

[vipr230]

dragonmatt5

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

It has been observed, and is relied upon for various sciences, more likely then not including medicine you have used to stay or become healthy.

Not to my knowledge, and that's my field. neutral Stuff like aceteminophen is actually drawn from traditional remedies. However, we've become more adept at using chemistry, so we can better isolate the catalysts. Good example: Snake oil was once used as an anti-inflamitory, but the local snakes weren't as good as the Chinese ones. That's were the phrase "peddling snake oil" comes from.

Quote:

To that effect it is just like gravity in that that too has been observed and has undoubtedly effected you. It is fact that it exist just like it is fact gravity exist (though evolution itself may not be fact, it's existence is...Kinda hard to explain that.

Really? I found Evolution to be a far more plausible Theory than gravity.

A. Don't you use the fact that viruses change and can become resistant to certain medicines to better address and improve upon current ones? Granted I have little knowledge in the field I just thought that dealing with changing and evolving microscopic crap would be related. Maybe that is a different field, I don't know for sure sweatdrop

B. I find it more plausible as well, yet both are observable occurrences in nature. Living organisms will change over many generations with pressure introduced into their habitat creating a situation were certain traits will have a better chance at survival. And the ball I drop falls. Both just were given fancier names xd

An instance of "will a ball drop if I let go" is a simply display of gravity, we've got plenty examples of that regarding evolution, but the theory of gravity itself, that is, general relativity is FAR more messy than evolution.

See, evolution we have no major problems with, it neatly explains the diversity of life via natural selection and genetic drift. We've seen instances and confirmed it over and over.

General relativity neatly explains gravity, we've confirmed it as well over and over. But, quantum mechanics and general relativity fundamentally disagree with each other on the gravity picture, (there is no quantum picture of gravity) and as such our two main areas of physics don't quite fit together. This makes gravity and any theory explaining it much harder to work with and consider valid than evolution, which only disagrees with a 2000 year old religious doctrine.

[Golden Dysprosium]

dragonmatt5

A. Don't you use the fact that viruses change and can become resistant to certain medicines to better address and improve upon current ones? Granted I have little knowledge in the field I just thought that dealing with changing and evolving microscopic crap would be related. Maybe that is a different field, I don't know for sure sweatdrop

That would be mutation, not Evolution. Stuff like AIDS and Cancer are big fans of mutation. Those two and the flu are probably the worst, because they like to change sporatically. Chem is more along the lines of med production. If we had as many cancer research centers as meth labs, we'd have a cancer vaccine by now. sweatdrop

Quote:

B. I find it more plausible as well, yet both are observable occurrences in nature. Living organisms will change over many generations with pressure introduced into their habitat creating a situation were certain traits will have a better chance at survival. And the ball I drop falls. Both just were given fancier names xd

What he said. The best illustration I have in my mind is from my "Conceptual Physics" book with Chuck Norris Steve What's-his-name. It has different sizes of spheres, and says that the size relation is somewhat responsible for gravity.

[dragonmatt5]

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

A. Don't you use the fact that viruses change and can become resistant to certain medicines to better address and improve upon current ones? Granted I have little knowledge in the field I just thought that dealing with changing and evolving microscopic crap would be related. Maybe that is a different field, I don't know for sure sweatdrop

That would be mutation, not Evolution. Stuff like AIDS and Cancer are big fans of mutation. Those two and the flu are probably the worst, because they like to change sporatically. Chem is more along the lines of med production. If we had as many cancer research centers as meth labs, we'd have a cancer vaccine by now. sweatdrop

Quote:

B. I find it more plausible as well, yet both are observable occurrences in nature. Living organisms will change over many generations with pressure introduced into their habitat creating a situation were certain traits will have a better chance at survival. And the ball I drop falls. Both just were given fancier names xd

What he said.

Alright, mutation. Still, they haven't change into a new classification before? Not sure if you'd call it a new species of virus but that is pretty much what I am going for in terminology here. Granted that would probably be called micro-evolution (ignore the pun, it isn't intentional) but that would still be evolution correct?

[vipr230]

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

A. Don't you use the fact that viruses change and can become resistant to certain medicines to better address and improve upon current ones? Granted I have little knowledge in the field I just thought that dealing with changing and evolving microscopic crap would be related. Maybe that is a different field, I don't know for sure sweatdrop

That would be mutation, not Evolution. Stuff like AIDS and Cancer are big fans of mutation. Those two and the flu are probably the worst, because they like to change sporatically. Chem is more along the lines of med production. If we had as many cancer research centers as meth labs, we'd have a cancer vaccine by now. sweatdrop

Quote:

B. I find it more plausible as well, yet both are observable occurrences in nature. Living organisms will change over many generations with pressure introduced into their habitat creating a situation were certain traits will have a better chance at survival. And the ball I drop falls. Both just were given fancier names xd

What he said. The best illustration I have in my mind is from my "Conceptual Physics" book with Chuck Norris Steve What's-his-name. It has different sizes of spheres, and says that the size relation is somewhat responsible for gravity.

Well, the more important thing to determine gravity would be mass, the larger the mas the more space time is distorted the more gravity an object exhibits.

Edit: Hence the breakdown of physics, black holes have giant masses but are small enough so that quantum mechanical effects are important, so we would need a quantum picture of gravity andddd we don't. The two branches of physics break down there ^^;

[Golden Dysprosium]

dragonmatt5

Alright, mutation. Still, they haven't change into a new classification before? Not sure if you'd call it a new species of virus but that is pretty much what I am going for in terminology here. Granted that would probably be called micro-evolution (ignore the pun, it isn't intentional) but that would still be evolution correct?

AIDS is still AIDS (well, first it starts off as HIV, but that's besides the point). You could call it that, but there'd be a few raised eyebrows. Evolution typically involves >2 organisms passing on genes, but since cells produce asexually by mitosis, evolution isn't quite the right term for the job.
Let's put it this way: I mix Hydrogen and Oxygen. It can become H2O (water) or H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), or some other crap, but that too is besides the point. It really doesn't change the fact that I've mixed 2 gases and we're still relying on O and H for the nomenclature.
EDIT: looking back, that was a horribly retarded explaination. xp To put it as simply as I can, you can call it that to put it into layman's terms, but it wouldn't be correct.

[dragonmatt5]

Golden Dysprosium

dragonmatt5

Alright, mutation. Still, they haven't change into a new classification before? Not sure if you'd call it a new species of virus but that is pretty much what I am going for in terminology here. Granted that would probably be called micro-evolution (ignore the pun, it isn't intentional) but that would still be evolution correct?

AIDS is still AIDS (well, first it starts off as HIV, but that's besides the point). You could call it that, but there'd be a few raised eyebrows. Evolution typically involves >2 organisms passing on genes, but since cells produce asexually by mitosis, evolution isn't quite the right term for the job.
Let's put it this way: I mix Hydrogen and Oxygen. It can become H2O (water) or H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), or some other crap, but that too is besides the point. It really doesn't change the fact that I've mixed 2 gases and we're still relying on O and H for the nomenclature.

I was more referring to the mutations building up over time so that the new virus wasn't similar enough to the old to be called the same type of virus. Mutations are an important part of evolution after all. I am lacking in this field so I have no examples to pull up at the moment, yet I'll try to look some up after this post. I could have sworn I heard something about a virus changing enough to be considered an example of evolution.
Anyways as for your example, it seems it could apply to a carbon based lifeform changing and yet it still is pretty much the same as it still is a carbon based lifeform. Little vague..