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 ]

[Turrican]

My goodness, because it's far more likely we were created by a bored bearded deity 6000 years ago, and spread by gross and systematic inbreeding from two humans, the latter of which was grown from a discarded rib bone. No, wait, I'm wrong. Adam and Eve had two sons. Obviously through divine magic those sons succesfully procreated, and- No, I'm wrong again. One of them killed the other, and-

Er...

Yeah. Biblical lore makes so much more sense than your basic theory of evolution.

[vipr230]

Jennivieve

I've never understood why people feel that it must be one or the other. Here's one way that it can be merged.

The Bible says that the Earth and all the life on it was created in 6 days. (The 7th day was a day of rest.) The geologic record says that the Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old. The theory of relativity could be applied there. Say that one of God's days equals millions of years here on Earth. This could well provide enough time for evolution to occur on the same schedule as the Bible says.

O_o I... don't think you understand the theory of relativity.

Lady Antu

*puts on her Anthropologist (one who studies the human species) nerd cap*

1. As many have pointed out, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from the great ape branch of the primate family tree. Remember monkeys have tails, apes do not. Monkeys also have much smaller, less complex brains while great apes have much larger more complex brains.

2. Chimps (an ape, not a monkey!) have 98% similar DNA to the modern human.

3. We didn't go straight from ape to human. There were many branches of our evolutionary tree, many which died out, before humans. Our evolutionary ancestor that we shared with the great apes lived over 7 million years ago. Educate thyself of our ancestors.

4. Darwin's theory is just that a theory. Put it simply, he saw that when 2 groups of one species where seperated for a long period of time, the one species changed into completely different species because of different environments. He then stated that the same could have happened with the human species. At no time did Darwin state "LOL monkeys=humans!"

Personally I believe you can't take the bible at face value. It makes no mention of dinosaurs or megafauna, it's historically inacurrate, and it is believed to be written by at least 5 different people over 500 years.

Don't use the word "theory" in a pejorative sense.
"just that, a theory" is misleading, theory in science is the highest obtainable status. You wouldn't say "atoms are just that, a theory" or "cells are just that, a theory" or "gravity is just that, a theory" or "plate tectonics are just that, a theory" or "photons are just that, a theory", or "germs are just that, a theory" would you?

So why say that about evolution?

Theory is an explanatory body, it is the highest status any explanatory body can take in science, and while I know you believe in evolution, you really shouldn't use "theory" in a colloquial pejorative sense.

[Anima De Arcana]

These posts have points from both Bible and Modern Science. Where is Islam with the Qur'an? Hindu? The view point of those still following just the old testiment? Shinto would be interesting. I am simply wondering why an argument that only seems to be big in America is causing such heat? The seat of the Church is in the Vatican but even they aren't hitting this as hard as the "Good Ol' Boy" types. This become even more eccentric since many evolutionary scientist are Cristians, Muslims, and Judeans; all of which believe in Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh (Why there are different names for the same being who talked to Noah is beyond me.) Also, Evolution is a theory becasue they have not proven the RATE in which it occurs, that there is evolution has already been proven many a time.

[Lady Antu]

vipr230

Don't use the word "theory" in a pejorative sense.
"just that, a theory" is misleading, theory in science is the highest obtainable status. You wouldn't say "atoms are just that, a theory" or "cells are just that, a theory" or "gravity is just that, a theory" or "plate tectonics are just that, a theory" or "photons are just that, a theory", or "germs are just that, a theory" would you?

So why say that about evolution?

Theory is an explanatory body, it is the highest status any explanatory body can take in science, and while I know you believe in evolution, you really shouldn't use "theory" in a colloquial pejorative sense.

I wasn't using it in a pejorative sense. I was just stating that Darwin had no physical traits, other than observable traits, of birds, by the way, and made an assumption of all species. I was just pointing out that when he made that observation it was a simple theory. He gets a lot of bad press when it comes to this arguement because somewhere along the line people began to believe he stated "Humans came from monkeys" with all kinds of scientific information. I was just stating that fact. Sorry if it came across different.

It's like me seeing a litter of puppies that are half brown and half black. I make an assumption that one parent must have been brown and the other black, with out seeing either parent. I have a theory, no actual proof.

Out of the things you listed gravity is the only theory. We have physical proof of cells, germs, photons, atoms, and tectonic plates, so you can't state that they are a theory, they are fact.

[Anima De Arcana]

Darwin did suggest it. Last ten or so pages says that this mechanism could theoretically could work on humans too. Considering that he was a very serious christian and only published his work after letting it sit for ten years because Wallace had discovered the same thing a little later and wasn't stoned to death, he didn't want to admit it also worked on humans. The creator of natural selection was its biggest critic but refused to let his beliefs muddy the facts. Leave Darwin alone, he was a bigger person than most of the people you've ever met.

[Layra-chan]

Lady Antu

Out of the things you listed gravity is the only theory. We have physical proof of cells, germs, photons, atoms, and tectonic plates, so you can't state that they are a theory, they are fact.

We have "physical proof" that objects are solid, and yet we also know that most objects consist of a sparse cloud of tiny nuclei and tinier electrons with most "solid" things actually being empty space.

All things that science says are falsifiable, meaning that at best we can say that something hasn't been disproven yet. This is what separates science from religion. Read Karl Popper's work on the subject.

Tectonic plates are a theory; no one has actually seen a tectonic plate, and while there is plenty of evidence for tectonic plates existing, this does not mean that they definitively exist in the form that we think they do. It could be that what we think are tectonic plates are actually something else, say, giant turtles, that only look like tectonic plates in the situation that we tend to observe them in, at the scale that we observe them from. A giant turtle, once removed from the earth, would look very different from a tectonic plate, but when it's buried underneath us and moving only very slowly, it might look like a tectonic plate..
Similarly for cells; they might also be tiny, translucent turtles that are too small for us to distinguish from actual cells. Germs might also be turtles, and maybe atoms are also turtles, and photons might be turtles as well; it's turtles all the way down.

The point of all this is, no matter how much evidence we have, there is always the chance that we're wrong, that what we're looking at is something that looks identical in the situations that we observe but that acts differently in situations that we haven't examined yet.
Cells are a theory. Germs are a theory. Atoms are theory. Photons are a theory. They all have plenty of evidence (and we have plenty of evidence for gravity), but "proof" is a lie spread by those who don't understand science..

[Boo-Boo-Ah-Chu]

We evolved from Apes not monkeys.

[1w1uwuu1]

No. Dogs make dogs, foxes make foxes, lions make lions. They aren't going to make anything else.

Even if you claim they could, it would take a heck of a lot longer than billions of years to get physical features like a woodpeckers beak, a hummingbirds flying ability, and even the way sea horses look. And that's only scratching the surface... I could also cite the beating heart or eyeball and other body parts as things that, in all probability, could never happen without a Creator.

Do you even know how tiny a one-cell is? It's far tinier than a hair on your arm. Compare that to giraffes over 10 feet tall or animals or people. If you ever see wild animals (excluding pets) it's not hard to see the hand of God made them... they are amazing looking creatures a lot of them, like elephants.

Evolution doesn't exist. God made everything on earth.

[Turrican]

1w1uwuu1

No. Dogs make dogs, foxes make foxes, lions make lions. They aren't going to make anything else.

Even if you claim they could, it would take a heck of a lot longer than billions of years to get physical features like a woodpeckers beak, a hummingbirds flying ability, and even the way sea horses look. And that's only scratching the surface... I could also cite the beating heart or eyeball and other body parts as things that, in all probability, could never happen without a Creator.

Do you even know how tiny a one-cell is? It's far tinier than a hair on your arm. Compare that to giraffes over 10 feet tall or animals or people. If you ever see wild animals (excluding pets) it's not hard to see the hand of God made them... they are amazing looking creatures a lot of them, like elephants.

Evolution doesn't exist. God made everything on earth.

Wolves made Dogs. You have made a spectacular failure to argue. Now you must go on an epic journey of self-discovery until you find enlightenment and redeem yourself.

I know, I know. I should pick apart the rest of your post instead of just the first sentence. It's all just so painfully ignorant that I wouldn't know where to begin. Actually LOOK AT the opposing argument before you claim you know better, Brain.

[Xiam]

Turrican

1w1uwuu1

No. Dogs make dogs, foxes make foxes, lions make lions. They aren't going to make anything else.

Even if you claim they could, it would take a heck of a lot longer than billions of years to get physical features like a woodpeckers beak, a hummingbirds flying ability, and even the way sea horses look. And that's only scratching the surface... I could also cite the beating heart or eyeball and other body parts as things that, in all probability, could never happen without a Creator.

Do you even know how tiny a one-cell is? It's far tinier than a hair on your arm. Compare that to giraffes over 10 feet tall or animals or people. If you ever see wild animals (excluding pets) it's not hard to see the hand of God made them... they are amazing looking creatures a lot of them, like elephants.

Evolution doesn't exist. God made everything on earth.

Wolves made Dogs. You have made a spectacular failure to argue. Now you must go on an epic journey of self-discovery until you find enlightenment and redeem yourself.

I know, I know. I should pick apart the rest of your post instead of just the first sentence. It's all just so painfully ignorant that I wouldn't know where to begin. Actually LOOK AT the opposing argument before you claim you know better, Brain.

It's funny because he doesn't get biology. blaugh

(Then again, he looks like a troll...)

[Daumier]

Lady Antu

vipr230

Don't use the word "theory" in a pejorative sense.
"just that, a theory" is misleading, theory in science is the highest obtainable status. You wouldn't say "atoms are just that, a theory" or "cells are just that, a theory" or "gravity is just that, a theory" or "plate tectonics are just that, a theory" or "photons are just that, a theory", or "germs are just that, a theory" would you?

So why say that about evolution?

Theory is an explanatory body, it is the highest status any explanatory body can take in science, and while I know you believe in evolution, you really shouldn't use "theory" in a colloquial pejorative sense.

I wasn't using it in a pejorative sense. I was just stating that Darwin had no physical traits, other than observable traits, of birds, by the way, and made an assumption of all species. I was just pointing out that when he made that observation it was a simple theory. He gets a lot of bad press when it comes to this arguement because somewhere along the line people began to believe he stated "Humans came from monkeys" with all kinds of scientific information. I was just stating that fact. Sorry if it came across different.

It's like me seeing a litter of puppies that are half brown and half black. I make an assumption that one parent must have been brown and the other black, with out seeing either parent. I have a theory, no actual proof.

Out of the things you listed gravity is the only theory. We have physical proof of cells, germs, photons, atoms, and tectonic plates, so you can't state that they are a theory, they are fact.

You're kind of missing the point of what they said because you are using it in a pejorative sense. The way you use the word theory makes it sound like it is something trivial. A scientific theory as it is used in science has a completely different definition than the way the layman uses theory. A theory in the everyday use of the word equates it with speculation, a guess, a shot in the dark unsupported by facts.

A scientific theory (taken from my astronomy textbook) is "when a powerful yet simple model makes predictions that survive repeated and varied testing." It is only by having a large compelling body of evidence that an idea can become a theory. There is nothing in science that is higher than it. Cell Theory, Atom Theory, Gravitational Theory, and Germ Theory are all considered theories because they have physical proof and are as good as fact.

[Lady Antu]

Daumier

You're kind of missing the point of what they said because you are using it in a pejorative sense. The way you use the word theory makes it sound like it is something trivial. A scientific theory as it is used in science has a completely different definition than the way the layman uses theory. A theory in the everyday use of the word equates it with speculation, a guess, a shot in the dark unsupported by facts.

A scientific theory (taken from my astronomy textbook) is "when a powerful yet simple model makes predictions that survive repeated and varied testing." It is only by having a large compelling body of evidence that an idea can become a theory. There is nothing in science that is higher than it. Cell Theory, Atom Theory, Gravitational Theory, and Germ Theory are all considered theories because they have physical proof and are as good as fact.

You are missing the point. Using your textbook definition "a powerful yet simple model makes predictions that survive repeated and varied testing." Darwin didn't do any testing, repeated or varied, when he came up with his theory. He used observation of birds on one island. It was as you said "speculation, a guess, a shot in the dark unsupported by facts." We have added his name to the theory of Evolution, which is scientific theory.

I was stating his orginal theory was not a scientific theory, just an observation. His original observations lead to future studies by anthropologists who actually formed the "theory of evolution".

[CornBursts]

Oh My Master

evolution is just a modernized version of spontaneous generaton the belief that living things, (humans) can come from non-living things (energy or sludge)

its the most primitive and unsupported belief of them all.

Evolution as seen in modern science today is actually a mostly a field of biochemistry which largely deals with DNA, RNA and genetics. There is substantial evidence for it throughout the ages of earth's history in the form of transitional fossilized lifeforms as well as biochemical research done in numerous existing species. Evolution is even witnessed in live experiments with bacteria as well as the so-often-studied fruit fly. Evolutionary biology well describes much of what we see in our natural world in terms of biological diversity.

Abiogenisis is the biochemistry field of theories on the origin of life. Aside from the evidence for the large amount of biological matter present in our universe as well as on earth (including during the times before there was anything actually alive yet) there are many reasonable theories and even experimental live observations of self-replicating RNA.

I am afraid that it is simply not true that evolution and abiogenisis have no scientific evidence to support their claims, my friend. I hope this helps. =)

If you would like some links to scientific articles relating to these ideas, feel free to ask!

[Infinite Fugue State]

No.

[Turrican]

Xiam

Turrican

1w1uwuu1

No. Dogs make dogs, foxes make foxes, lions make lions. They aren't going to make anything else.

Even if you claim they could, it would take a heck of a lot longer than billions of years to get physical features like a woodpeckers beak, a hummingbirds flying ability, and even the way sea horses look. And that's only scratching the surface... I could also cite the beating heart or eyeball and other body parts as things that, in all probability, could never happen without a Creator.

Do you even know how tiny a one-cell is? It's far tinier than a hair on your arm. Compare that to giraffes over 10 feet tall or animals or people. If you ever see wild animals (excluding pets) it's not hard to see the hand of God made them... they are amazing looking creatures a lot of them, like elephants.

Evolution doesn't exist. God made everything on earth.

Wolves made Dogs. You have made a spectacular failure to argue. Now you must go on an epic journey of self-discovery until you find enlightenment and redeem yourself.

I know, I know. I should pick apart the rest of your post instead of just the first sentence. It's all just so painfully ignorant that I wouldn't know where to begin. Actually LOOK AT the opposing argument before you claim you know better, Brain.

It's funny because he doesn't get biology. blaugh
(Then again, he looks like a troll...)

It's actually far worse than you think. He's using the Blind Watchmaker argument, in that an eye is too complex to come into being on its own. If you let him, he'd point that half an eye can't function.

The sad part is that it's such an old argument that it's been picked apart ages ago. It hasn't got a leg left to stand on, and that's being nice. Not only doesn't this guy understand biology, but he's using outdated rhetoric.

Get updated, guy!