|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:28 pm
I am a hardcore Evolutionist. While Evolution may just be a theory, I think it has a better chance then Creationism or ID of being proven one day.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:27 pm
Ultraviolett1127 I am a hardcore Evolutionist. While Evolution may just be a theory, I think it has a better chance then Creationism or ID of being proven one day. I completely agree! 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:33 pm
I think that evolution is a fact, and the way that it happens is the theory.
One of my teachers had us read this really interesting article...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:12 pm
I believe in micro evolution - adaptation to change.
I don't believe in macro evolution - species evolving so much that they become another species entirely. If you believe, (which it appears many of you do, strongly so), that's fine for you. I have my reasons, just as I'm sure you have yours, and am not interested in discussing or arguing them. <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:43 am
No opinion. Asking if I 'believe' in evolution strikes me as an absurd question. Absurd like asking if I 'believe' in gravity, 'believe' in cars, or 'belive' in sleeping. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:06 am
Starlock No opinion. Asking if I 'believe' in evolution strikes me as an absurd question. Absurd like asking if I 'believe' in gravity, 'believe' in cars, or 'belive' in sleeping. ninja When the world ends...
please explain.
If this is a witty way to try to make an opinion a fact, I would rather not listen, but I will give you a chance.
There is no scientific proof that fully supports evolution, but the other way around isn't true either. It comes to a fact of believing what you believe in or not.
... I will still be singing my song.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:56 am
Where have you been? There is scientific proof that evolution is a fact. The way that it happens is a theory. Or are you just saying that there isn't any scientific proof that supports it 100%?
I posted a link to an article a few posts up, you should read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:30 am
dark_angel_32189 Where have you been? There is scientific proof that evolution is a fact. The way that it happens is a theory. Or are you just saying that there isn't any scientific proof that supports it 100%? I posted a link to an article a few posts up, you should read it. Benefit of the doubt: he's saying there isn't any proof that supports it 100%. But that is true of absolutely everything. Evolution. Gravity. The internal combustion engine. They all sure the hell seem to work though. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:45 am
Yeah, that was why I added the "or are you just saying that there isn't any scientific proff that supports it 100%" part... because I know that there are a lot of people who believe that if it can't be proved 100%, then it can't be a fact... but I don't think that it's necessarily the case.
In any case, microevolution, is a fact... or I guess maybe it depends on how you look at it. The adaptations that species make to survive in their environment (such as birds and the length or curviness of their beaks) is what I consider to kind of be evolution, because the species has evolved. Whether you consider that to be evolution, or just simply adaptation, is up to you. But they're pretty much the same in my opinion.
As far as macroevolution goes, I'm a little iffy... that goes into the whole humans evolved from monkies thing. While the similarities are quite noticeable... I'm not sure how it'd be possible. Because, if we really did evolve from monkies, then wouldn't monkies still be evolving into humans today? Why would it have stopped? That's what confuses me about that part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:05 pm
dark_angel_32189 As far as macroevolution goes, I'm a little iffy... that goes into the whole humans evolved from monkies thing. While the similarities are quite noticeable... I'm not sure how it'd be possible. Because, if we really did evolve from monkies, then wouldn't monkies still be evolving into humans today? Why would it have stopped? That's what confuses me about that part. As I understand it, it's not that there is evidence to support the theory that we evolved from monkeys, but rather that we had a common ancestor. That's why monkeys aren't evolving into humans now; they, just like us, reached the end of that evolutionary branch. The tree analogy works really well: We had a common ancestor (picture a tree trunk) but somewhere along the way, we spilt off onto our own branch while apes and monkeys went in another evolutionary direction. If ever you can catch the Discovery channel program "Walking With Cavemen", they explain the stages really well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:55 am
LadySorcha dark_angel_32189 As far as macroevolution goes, I'm a little iffy... that goes into the whole humans evolved from monkies thing. While the similarities are quite noticeable... I'm not sure how it'd be possible. Because, if we really did evolve from monkies, then wouldn't monkies still be evolving into humans today? Why would it have stopped? That's what confuses me about that part. As I understand it, it's not that there is evidence to support the theory that we evolved from monkeys, but rather that we had a common ancestor. That's why monkeys aren't evolving into humans now; they, just like us, reached the end of that evolutionary branch. The tree analogy works really well: We had a common ancestor (picture a tree trunk) but somewhere along the way, we spilt off onto our own branch while apes and monkeys went in another evolutionary direction. If ever you can catch the Discovery channel program "Walking With Cavemen", they explain the stages really well. That and it wasn't 'monkeys.' It'd be a bit more precise to say 'apes' with chimps being our closest relative. You're right that we did not evolve FROM either of these; it's about common ancestry. No species that exists now did we evolve 'from' - we diverged somewhere in the past to be seperate species. It's rather easy to concieve of how these changes happen if you stop looking at this from the narrow perspective of the human life time. We're talking about thousands upon thousands of generations going into these changes. Which translates into tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands... millions of years. Plenty of fun examples of speciation already exist and are documented. Happens in plants all the time through hybridizatinon of two species which creates a new one. Or through polypoloidy... the mechanism that produced most of our food crops. Speciation events have also been observed in the fruit fly. Since science is new, most of the solid evidence we have is only for organisms that have a short life span. Short life span = more observable generations within the human life span = we can directly observe it within a single human life span. You won't get that for most organisms we 'care' about (aka, charismatic megafauna).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:05 pm
Yeah, my Western Civ. (who is also my Religions in America teacher) teacher explained that today (about the whole monkey/human relation). I think where I was getting that idea from that we came straight from monkies (or apes, whatever) is from seeing the pictures where the show a monkey evolving into a man. Such as this one: 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:54 am
Well, it is a 'progression' but the illustration is mostly just an illustration. Damned amusing at that too. rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:36 am
Personally, i would like to quote "Mock the Week" here.
"Either way, we still know, if there is a God, he's a builder. Whether he built the world or not. Think about it... yeah, he said it was done in seven days but the original due date was two and a half. Yeah, he finished the world, but parts of it were very shoddily done... and he said he'd be back, but he's never given us an actual date..."
Barely relevant, but it made me laugh. I treat matters of pre-life the same as matters of after-life.
There's no way we're ever gonna know for sure, as theres no empirical evidence (ie- we can't experience it for ourselves, and if we do then its too late to tell anyone about it). Its best not to spend your life fretting over where you came from and where you're going, and look at whats important- where you are.
And if that sounded too cheezy, feel free to throw sponges at me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:12 am
Mad Madam Mimm Personally, i would like to quote "Mock the Week" here. "Either way, we still know, if there is a God, he's a builder. Whether he built the world or not. Think about it... yeah, he said it was done in seven days but the original due date was two and a half. Yeah, he finished the world, but parts of it were very shoddily done... and he said he'd be back, but he's never given us an actual date..." Barely relevant, but it made me laugh. I treat matters of pre-life the same as matters of after-life. There's no way we're ever gonna know for sure, as theres no empirical evidence (ie- we can't experience it for ourselves, and if we do then its too late to tell anyone about it). Its best not to spend your life fretting over where you came from and where you're going, and look at whats important- where you are. And if that sounded too cheezy, feel free to throw sponges at me. May I just throw a sponge for the hell of it. @ everyone else. I meant in saying it is not fully supported, it is not 100% proven. Besides that, even with all the proof in the world, people would not believe it. They do not like to face things that make them look like asses on a platter. I also kinda got side tracked and I feel that I was being an unreasonable a*****e when I wrote it, so I am sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
