The Truth About Evolution

[Reason]

I've noticed many discussions on this website devolve into bickering when the topic of evolution rears its head. Why? Because most people don't understand it, and they fear the very word out of ignorance.

This is an attempt to set the record straight and de-clutter the discussions, because the same old myths keep popping up when people start arguing.

I do not take credit for all of this. Much of it is pulled from an essay by Mark Isaak.

Five common misconceptions about evolution

1. Evolution has never been observed.

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years.

This rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild.

This (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) includes a list of observed examples.

2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

"The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."

Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often corresponds to notions of disorder or randomness.

It is often misinterpreted to mean things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still?

Life is irrelevant to the 2nd law. Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.

3. There are no transitional fossils.

There are many transitional fossils.

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two.

There are many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

Here is a nice list (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) of some.

4. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by randomness or accident or chance.

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution.

Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance.

Mutations (errors in copying genetic code) provide genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.

Mutations can come from smoking cigarettes, being in the sun, or just faulty replication of the code in DNA when one cell becomes two.

Variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors, like claws or gills, are retained, and less successful variations, like neon orange fur, are weeded out. Of course, both claws and neon fur wouldn't just spontaneously form, the process would be gradual.

When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected. Claws may not offer an advantage anymore. Orange fur might be useful in the desert.

This leads eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) was not the result of chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties.

In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules.

Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

It is important to note that evolution and the origin of life are different scientific pursuits, and evolution need not explain how life originated to be a working and observable phenomenon.

At some point, human beings will create life from non-life in a lab by approximating the conditions of an early Earth (we are very close), and this argument will forever be closed.

5. Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency) over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.

Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too.

However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context.

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary].

In other words, a theory is the sum of the findings of many scientists over a long period of time which all point to a specific way of understanding how something works.

Some theories, like the theory of gravity, are very certain. Others, like string theory, are hotly contested. Evolution is very certain.

The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, economics, biology, psychology and others.

If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. If you can do that, science will oblige by reworking the theory or refuting it, but the chances of that happening with the theory of gravity, relativity or evolution are slim to none.

What evolution is not.

Evolution is not the idea that people descended from monkeys.

Humans and apes share a common ancestor, and that ancestor is a recent one. We also share a common ancestor with dogs, sheep, carrots, grasshoppers and algae.

Evolution is not complex forms arising form simpler forms.

Evolution can lead to creatures more complex, less complex, and equally complex. Evolution is a tinkerer with no goal in mind other than winning the competition for limited resources, not getting eaten and reproducing. So animals can and do devolve into lesser, simpler forms.

Evolution is the opposite of creationism.

Evolution describes the manner in which modern organisms took their form. There is nothing in the theory that makes it impossible for a creator to have designed the system or put it in motion.

Science deals with the directly observable and the testable. A heavenly creator is neither, so science makes no claims as to the possibility of a designer. It doesn't refute it either.

Intelligent design/creationism is not a scientific theory. One could suggest a flaming pickle created the universe, and it would be no weaker an argument. Also, a creator implies there must have been another creator to create the creator, and so on. This is unprovable, untestable and unobservable.

It might be true, but it isn't science, and thus, cannot be a scientific theory.

Using the Book of Genesis to argue against evolution is pointless. The two have nothing to argue about.

Further explanation

I can't stress enough how valuable and important the following video is.

This details an experiment where a simple program given limited resources, competition, predators and the ability to reproduce and mutate will evolve to be darker or lighter depending on what the predators are looking for.

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SeTssvexa9s&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

[ruckus]

This thread has no future...

[Reason]

It is here for reference. So I don't have to keep repeating myself.

[Conveyor Belt]

:zelfmoord

[ruckus]

It is here for reference. So I don\'t have to keep repeating myself.

I can dig it. But expect a less than positive response. Evolution is the work of the devil, ya know.

[dollfus46]

I can dig it. But expect a less than positive response. Evolution is the work of the devil, ya know.
I'd be surprised if you get any response from Christians. We've heard it all before. This is just evolutionist support info I would imagine. Nothing a Christian would buy into. But, as I told Reason, believe what you will. It's good to believe in something rather than nothing I suppose. But that doesn't make you nor Reason, nor any of several people on MH, evil. They are,actually, quite likable and decent people. But, I don't intend to read it. Then there are some who disrespect anyone who doesn't belive as you do. Some were so intolerant that they got drummed right off of MH althogether.;)

[ruckus]

I believe in the primordial ooze theory about as much as the Adam & Eve thing. It\'s all really baseless and pointless, in my uneducated view.

[Reason]

But, I don't intend to read it.

Therein lies the problem.

I believe in the primordial ooze theory about as much as the Adam & Eve thing. It\'s all really baseless and pointless, in my uneducated view.Believe what you will, but I don't think the search for knowledge and truth is pointless.

I'd be surprised if you get any response from Christians.Not my intention. I did this so people like Conveyor Belt will stop whining. If you don't want to sit through it, now you don't have to. I can just reference the thread.

[Conveyor Belt]

Don't feed the trolls, man... don't feed the trolls...

Analyze that, buddy.

[Reason]

Don't feed the trolls, man... don't feed the trolls...

Analyze that, buddy.

Just messin' with you.

[dreamhippy]

Huse, Scott M. (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Scott_M._Huse), The Collapse of Evolution, Chick Publications (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Chick_Publications).
Contains the following claims:

Radiometric dating gives unreliable results (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Radiometric_dating_gives_unreliable_results)
2nd law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics_prohibits_evolution)
Entire geological column doesn't exist (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Entire_geological_column_doesn%27t_exist)
Natural gas escapes too fast to allow for long ages (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Natural_gas_escapes_too_fast_to_allow_for_long_age s)
High pressures in oil fields would have bled off if earth were old (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/High_pressures_in_oil_fields_would_have_bled_off_i f_earth_were_old)
Earth's rotation is slowing, indicating a young earth (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Earth%27s_rotation_is_slowing%2C_indicating_a_youn g_earth)
Mississippi delta could have formed in 5000 years (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Mississippi_delta_could_have_formed_in_5000_years)
Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_uni verse)
Earth's magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Earth%27s_magnetic_field_is_decaying%2C_indicating _a_young_earth)
Geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Geologic_column_is_based_on_the_assumption_of_evol ution)<!-- Saved in parser cache with key joe:pcache:idhash:1566-0!1!0!!en!2 and timestamp 20071216112200 -->Retrieved from "http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_Collapse_of_Evolution (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_Collapse_of_Evolution)"
Category (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Special:Categories)

[hendrixfreak70]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is exactly what I was pointing out, entropy. Evolution, even according to 'science' (not all realms, perhaps?) but this one proves it untrue. My understanding of evolution is that as things progress they get better and adapt to their surroundings. Surely if this is true then shouldnt we be 800 feet tall, we have only grown an inch overall in 100 years. If this is the rate wow we should be tall, like Manute Bol tall. :) Im not a mathmatical kinda guy but however old scientists claim the human race is we should be tall. Im not trying to anger anyone I am interested in different interpretations.

[wilebill]

Big and tall things seem to die off, except for giraffes, who eat tree leaves. Maybe if we started eating more tree leaves we'd get taller in a hurry. Come to think of it, if you eat more salads at Crescent City it would probably have the same effect.

[ruckus]

Believe what you will, but I don't think the search for knowledge and truth is pointless. I agree. But trying to determine the "true beginning" is pretty pointless. There's simply no way of ever knowing. We can hypothesize and speculate until Noah brings the dinosaurs back, but there's no truth to be found. The truth is that we'll always latch onto what we're taught to believe or the theory that makes the most sense to us. That's not truth. That's wasted effort...and tax dollars.

[dollfus46]

Therein lies the problem.



My not reading it is THE problem? What problem? I'm not aware of any "problem", much less THE problem.

[dreamhippy]

I can honestly say that I believe that I evolved from my mother`s one-celled ovum to the man that I am today. Beyond that....

[Reason]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is exactly what I was pointing out, entropy. Evolution, even according to 'science' (not all realms, perhaps?) but this one proves it untrue. My understanding of evolution is that as things progress they get better and adapt to their surroundings. Surely if this is true then shouldnt we be 800 feet tall, we have only grown an inch overall in 100 years. If this is the rate wow we should be tall, like Manute Bol tall. :) Im not a mathmatical kinda guy but however old scientists claim the human race is we should be tall. Im not trying to anger anyone I am interested in different interpretations.

Did you read my post? I explained this and your misinterpretations of it. Evolution does not make things progress or get better. Entropy means nothing here because we do not live in a closed system. It's all up there in the original post.

My not reading it is THE problem? What problem? I'm not aware of any "problem", much less THE problem.I have no desire to attack you, but if you disagree with someone about a particular issue it behooves you to educate yourself on the topic. The problem arises when kneejerk defense of your beliefs aren't tempered by scientific literacy, and you fall into the same old misinterpretations which castrate your arguments.

Huse, Scott M. (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Scott_M._Huse), The Collapse of Evolution, Chick Publications (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Chick_Publications).
Contains the following claims:
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Radiometric_dating_gives_unreliable_results)
2nd law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics_prohibits_evolution)
Entire geological column doesn't exist (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Entire_geological_column_doesn%27t_exist)
Natural gas escapes too fast to allow for long ages (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Natural_gas_escapes_too_fast_to_allow_for_long_age s)
High pressures in oil fields would have bled off if earth were old (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/High_pressures_in_oil_fields_would_have_bled_off_i f_earth_were_old)
Earth's rotation is slowing, indicating a young earth (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Earth%27s_rotation_is_slowing%2C_indicating_a_youn g_earth)
Mississippi delta could have formed in 5000 years (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Mississippi_delta_could_have_formed_in_5000_years)
Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_uni verse)
Earth's magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Earth%27s_magnetic_field_is_decaying%2C_indicating _a_young_earth)
Geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Geologic_column_is_based_on_the_assumption_of_evol ution)<!-- Saved in parser cache with key joe:razz:cache:idhash:1566-0!1!0!!en!2 and timestamp 20071216112200 -->Retrieved from "http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_Collapse_of_Evolution (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_Collapse_of_Evolution)"
Category (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Special:Categories)Most of this has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with young earth proponents, who have an awful grasp of science.

All of these are old arguments, and all of them have been shown to misinterpretation and easily refutable. Ken Hovind and other kooks often employ these arguments because they seem scientific and use a lot of scary rhetoric, but it's all bunk. Shall I go through them one by one?
This is a good breakdown of the misunderstanding about radiometric dating (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1)
I already covered the second law of thermodynamics in my original post.
This explains the geologic column misunderstanding. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html)
Natural Gas and Oil Fields - Oil and gas do a lot of migrating, and the oil accumulated in a given reservoir may have recently migrated there from another reservoir. Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there for millions and millions of years. A recent geological shift in the rocks might also increase the leakage of the primary oil pool, which had been hitherto sealed for millions of years. Thus, the mere existence of leaky trapping rocks does not prove that a pool of oil and gas was recently created. Thus, the primary migration of oil from its place of origin will take far longer than the mere 6000 years or so creationists allow for the age of the earth. Creationists have tried to dance around that figure by quoting special cases of secondary migration or by simple smoke screen tactics, but the problem remains. - Dave Matson
Earth's Rotation - Yes, the Earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year. So, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, that equals a 14-hour day. This corresponds well to the findings of many scientific disciplines For instance, 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. So, this argument is particularly lousy, because it supports an old Earth.
Mississippi Delta - This is irrelevant. If it took three days to form, it has no bearing on the age of the Earth.
Moon - This one is especially week. Based on the present rate of lunar recession, the Moon was within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. Some creationists say the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year, which it isn't. But, if it was, and we we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth, or 95 miles. Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, it means nothing. The Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles already.
Magnetic Field Decay - This argument is base on the 1971 research done by Thomas G. Barnes. Modern science considers him a crackpot whose work lacked scientific integrity, competence, and judgment. Read more here. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html)
Geologic Column and Evolution - This is a very week argument because the geologic column was worked out by creationist scientists before Darwin posited his famous theory. The principles of stratification were recognized as early as 1669. The "Principles of Geology," the essential text on the geologic column, came out in 1830.In summary, "The Collapse of Evolution," similar books, and the arguments contained within are a mixed bag of shit.

I agree. But trying to determine the "true beginning" is pretty pointless. There's simply no way of ever knowing. We can hypothesize and speculate until Noah brings the dinosaurs back, but there's no truth to be found. The truth is that we'll always latch onto what we're taught to believe or the theory that makes the most sense to us. That's not truth. That's wasted effort...and tax dollars.It took the same amount of money American women spend on cosmetics in one year to fund every aspect of the lunar landing. Research is comparatively cheap next to most of the holes our government throws money down.

Science admits there is no way of ever knowing anything for sure - at all. Only math can be proved. Everything else depends on elements being disproved. The more disproved, the better we understand.

I suppose some people latch on to what they are taught to believe without ever questioning their beliefs, but that's sad and disappointing.

The effort will not be wasted when science is able to create life from non-life by approximating the conditions of the "primordial ooze."

[dreamhippy]

Do you suppose the Biblical Patriarchs from the anti-diluvian era lived so long in years because the days were shorter in hours....? Hmmmmm

[Reason]

Do you suppose the Biblical Patriarchs from the anti-diluvian era lived so long in years because the days were shorter in hours....? Hmmmmm

Heh, I suppose you could make that argument work somehow. My short answer is no.

[Ted]

. . . . . . .
Entropy means nothing here because we do not live in a closed system.

. . . . . . . . :smt023 :clap:

You got it. :smt001
2LoT only applies to closed systems.

[ComputerDude]

I have no problems subscribing to the theory of evolution. Take it as far back as the big bang theory and I'm okay with it.
But somebody had to set it all off, right? Somebody had to create those few ingredients that lead to the big bang. Scientists can't explain that part (or simply won't explain that part because it requires faith).

[dollfus46]

Reason says: I have no desire to attack you, but if you disagree with someone about a particular issue it behooves you to educate yourself on the topic. The problem arises when kneejerk defense of your beliefs aren't tempered by scientific literacy, and you fall into the same old misinterpretations which castrate your arguments.
You're assuming I haven't educated myself or I'd have to agree with you. Do I subscribe to the Evolutionary Daily News? Nope. Am I so interested that I take a course in college? Nope. Have I read both sides of the argument? Yep. Yet you're assuming that had I done all this I'd surely have to agree with you. Not so. There are some really, really bright scientists who don't buy into the Theory of Evolution. Are they uninformed? Do they just not understand? Is their scientific study and report just a mixed bag of shit? I doubt it. If evolution is a fact, then God did it, not blind luck. I do not believe luck could cause a creature as perfect as the human body to evolve. Nor can I look at a perfectly balanced ecosystem and think natural selection caused it. But you believe what you will.

[dollfus46]

I have no problems subscribing to the theory of evolution. Take it as far back as the big bang theory and I'm okay with it.
But somebody had to set it all off, right? Somebody had to create those few ingredients that lead to the big bang. Scientists can't explain that part (or simply won't explain that part because it requires faith).

There's something about "Big Bang" that gives me pause.:-D

[Remington]

I didn't read all of that first post because I have read it all already. I've seen all of the arguments for evolution. I hate to be told that if I don't subscribe to the THEORY of evolution, it means that I just don't understand it or haven't read it. There are also mountains of evidence that prove evolution couldn't have happened but maybe those who believe in evolution just don't understand it or haven't read it.

[Conveyor Belt]

I didn't read all of that first post because I have read it all already. I've seen all of the arguments for evolution. I hate to be told that if I don't subscribe to the THEORY of evolution, it means that I just don't understand it or haven't read it.

Yeah, I hate when people do that about religion, too.

[dollfus46]

Thank you for your kind words, butterball. I somehow just think, and God knows I could be wrong, but I think evolutionists are more interested in disproving God because they don't have the peace we "believers" do and it bothers the daylights out of them. I'd really hate to think this life on earth is all there is. What's the purpose? Seems hopeless to me. Call me simple-minded, but I believe what I believe.

[Reason]

If evolution is a fact, then God did it, not blind luck.

I covered the whole luck thing in the first post.

I have no problem with people who think God put evolution into motion. It can't be investigated or proved. Science has no say about it.

Yeah, I hate when people do that about religion, too.Me too.

There are also mountains of evidence that prove evolution couldn't have happened.No, there aren't. Instead of saying nuh-uh, and me saying yeah-huh, pull out some of this evidence and post it.

I hate to be told that if I don't subscribe to the THEORY of evolution, it means that I just don't understand it or haven't read it.I covered the whole "it's a theory" misconception in the first post.

But somebody had to set it all off, right?No. Of course, it's possible, but, that question is not a scientific one, and any discussion of the matter is pure conjecture and philosophic mental masturbation. After all, if someone had to start it/design it, then someone had to bring the designer into existence too, which leads to an infinite string of Gods designing themselves.

There's something about "Big Bang" that gives me pause.Agreed.

Of course, when you run back the clocks, it's hard to deny at some point all was one. But, the idea of a speck of unfathomably dense matter and energy spontaneously appearing into the void is not very scientific.

They call such an event a singularity, and it seems like a cop out to me.

I think evolutionists are more interested in disproving God because they don't have the peace we "believers" do and it bothers the daylights out of them.I have no interest in disproving God, and neither does the scientific community at large. That is a position a lot of Christians take, and I just don't know why.

I'd really hate to think this life on earth is all there is. What's the purpose? Seems hopeless to me.There is always the possibility of life beyond Earth. Actually, the probability is quite high, unfortunately, the probability of contacting them is quite low.

As far as purpose goes, well that's a philosophical question, one science would never touch. Being human is difficult and confusing. Our big brains generate consciousness, and that's hard to wrestle with. That's why we have religion, to give us a sense of belonging, so some people can stare into the void and not feel hopeless. Which is fine as long as they understand science is not their enemy.

[Remington]

You have your "proof" and I have mine. But there is no need for me to post link after link after link to prove my beliefs when you would no sooner believe what my "proofs" are than I would believe what your "proofs" are. For you to say that there is no evidence that proves evolution couldn't have happened and to say that evolution is not a theory but fact tells me that your mind is made up, even though it is a general consensus in the scientific community that evolution IS a theory. Those that believe the earth is no older than 10,000 have plenty of evidence to prove their theory, just like you have to prove your's.

I have come to believe that through the internet or the many books out there, you can find evidence to support any belief that you want. I strongly believe that there is no catastrophic man-made global warming and could cite lots of evidence to support that. Al Gore has his evidence to support his beliefs. But I know what evidence I choose to believe and you can choose to believe in the evidence that supports your beliefs. But there can be consequences in beliefs. I believe in God, but if I'm wrong, no big harm done. I'll just live out my life believing that and then die and rot away. But if you don't believe in God and you are wrong, well....

[fuzzis]

I believe in God, but if I'm wrong, no big harm done. I'll just live out my life believing that and then die and rot away. But if you don't believe in God and you are wrong, well....

We'll rot in hell for eternity. Yay! :clap::clap::clap:

[dollfus46]

In the end, we all get our just reward.

[58ford]

I thought this was a thread about Harley engines.

[58ford]

We'll rot in hell for eternity. Yay! :clap::clap::clap:
Not me, buddy, I've made arrangements to have myself stuffed.
I'm gettin' taxidermied with those glass eyes like they put in deer.

[aaron]

Any new members can look through our evolution thread (http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17946) for evidence pointing towards either side. It's already all been posted, and discussed. Most of the anti-evolution crowd is of the mindset that micro-evolution can be proven (wolf to dog), but not macro-evolution (rock to dog).

[Fish-Bait]

I am having Valkhorn flashbacks.

[58ford]

I have no problems subscribing to the theory of evolution. Take it as far back as the big bang theory and I'm okay with it.
But somebody had to set it all off, right? Somebody had to create those few ingredients that lead to the big bang. Scientists can't explain that part (or simply won't explain that part because it requires faith).
I'd like to propose that at one time (in the beginning) all the energy & mass in the universe was at a single point and that that much energy & mass could not exist without something being aware of it's existence (if nothing were aware of it then it would not exist) yet it was so massive & powerful that it could actually force an awareness into existence because it couldn't exist without it & & could not, not exist. This universal awareness (God) was forced into existence by the fact of it's existence......y'all can take it from here.

[Fish-Bait]

I'd like to propose that at one time (in the beginning) all the energy & mass in the universe was at a single point and that that much energy & mass could not exist without something being aware of it's existence (if nothing were aware of it then it would not exist) yet it was so massive & powerful that it could actually force an awareness into existence because it couldn't exist without it & & could not, not exist. This universal awareness (God) was forced into existence by the fact of it's existence......y'all can take it from here.

Can you explain that?:-D I got a headache just readin' it.

[CircusRide]

If man evolved from apes, WTF do we still have apes? Can we not get them up to speed with the rest of humanity?
Birds evolved from dinos? Seems that would be reverse evolution. Certainly a chicken would be.
It's like global warming to me.....I'm just not onboard.

[ruckus]

I can honestly say that I believe that I evolved from my mother`s one-celled ovum to the man that I am today. Beyond that....

That's about as far back as I can go as well. I assume those old people who raised me were actually my grandparents, but I can't prove it at this point.

[ruckus]

I have no problems subscribing to the theory of evolution. Take it as far back as the big bang theory and I'm okay with it.
But somebody had to set it all off, right? Somebody had to create those few ingredients that lead to the big bang. Scientists can't explain that part (or simply won't explain that part because it requires faith).

But where did that somebody come from? If that somebody came from somebody else, then... This is the song that never ends. It just goes on and on, my friend.

[Luvia]

If man evolved from apes, WTF do we still have apes? Can we not get them up to speed with the rest of humanity?
Birds evolved from dinos? Seems that would be reverse evolution. Certainly a chicken would be.
It's like global warming to me.....I'm just not onboard.

Refer to initial post...

"What evolution is not.

Evolution is not the idea that people descended from monkeys.

Humans and apes share a common ancestor, and that ancestor is a recent one. We also share a common ancestor with dogs, sheep, carrots, grasshoppers and algae."

[dollfus46]

Refer to initial post...

"What evolution is not.

Evolution is not the idea that people descended from monkeys.

Humans and apes share a common ancestor, and that ancestor is a recent one. We also share a common ancestor with dogs, sheep, carrots, grasshoppers and algae."

:hitit:Okay....which one is the man and which is the sheep?:bowrofl:

[Ted]

. . . . . . . . We also share a common ancestor with dogs, sheep, carrots, grasshoppers and algae."Thank you!! :smt023

Indeed, every living organism on this planet has a common ancestry and we are all coded from the same four nucleotide bases combined with a sugar molecule and a molecule of phosphoric acid -
- and adenine always pairs with thymine, and guanine always pairs with cytosine. :smt001

[Ted]

Can I request that the AB consider a moratorium or something on all future evolution threads? We've beaten this horse so much that it has now evolved into a migraine. :laugh: heh heh heh

Suits me, Doc. ;)
These MH Forums really aren't well suited, nor intended, for these type discussions.

I kinda wearied of these debates nearly four decades ago.
I try to stay out of the Creation/Evolution tangles - politics and religion too - but sometimes I just can't resist throwing a bit of empirical data into the mix.

[ruckus]

We've beaten this horse so much that it has now evolved into a migraine. So...evolution is real? Well, that settles it. Case closed.

[CircusRide]

Refer to initial post...

"What evolution is not.

Evolution is not the idea that people descended from monkeys.

Humans and apes share a common ancestor, and that ancestor is a recent one. We also share a common ancestor with dogs, sheep, carrots, grasshoppers and algae."

Again........Global Warming.

[Fish-Bait]

As my dad always used to say, the best way to lose a friend is to discuss politics, religion, or money with them.


You got that right!

[Conveyor Belt]

As my dad always used to say, the best way to lose a friend is to discuss politics, religion, or money with them.

I think that's the best way to find out who your true friends are. The ones you can discuss with and you're okay in the end, those are the keepers.

[Bluesman]

I think that's the best way to find out who your true friends are. The ones you can discuss with and you're okay in the end, those are the keepers.
Either that or it shows you if they are really paying attention to you or not. Silence is not always a sign of acceptance. They could just be ignoring you and brushing it off.

[big john]

never monkey with another monkeys monkey

[Bluesman]

The whole thing kinda sounds like monkey business to me.;)

[dollfus46]

I think that's the best way to find out who your true friends are. The ones you can discuss with and you're okay in the end, those are the keepers.
I"d be glad to discuss any issue with you. I just either never understood your question, or I don't have an answer. It was a legitimate question.:confused:

[Reason]

Can I request that the AB consider a moratorium or something on all future evolution threads? We've beaten this horse so much that it has now evolved into a migraine.

What is the point of having a forum if you're going to close topics off? Just don't participate in the discussion if it gives you a headache.

You have your "proof" and I have mine. But there is no need for me to post link after link after link to prove my beliefs when you would no sooner believe what my "proofs" are than I would believe what your "proofs" are.Not so. If you can provide scientific evidence to the contrary, the kind that has sustianed rigorous peer review, I will alter or change my opinion.

For you to say that there is no evidence that proves evolution couldn't have happened and to say that evolution is not a theory but fact tells me that your mind is made up, even though it is a general consensus in the scientific community that evolution IS a theory.The theory misconception is covered in the original post.

Those that believe the earth is no older than 10,000 have plenty of evidence to prove their theory, just like you have to prove your's.None of young Earth evidence holds up to scientific scrutiny. The majority of the old Earth evidence does.

I have come to believe that through the internet or the many books out there, you can find evidence to support any belief that you want.This is irrelevant. I'm talking about scientific fact and theory, not beliefs and opinions.

I strongly believe that there is no catastrophic man-made global warming and could cite lots of evidence to support that. Al Gore has his evidence to support his beliefs. But I know what evidence I choose to believe and you can choose to believe in the evidence that supports your beliefs.Again, I'll go with the prevailing scientific consensus based on peer-reviewed research.

But there can be consequences in beliefs. I believe in God, but if I'm wrong, no big harm done. I'll just live out my life believing that and then die and rot away. But if you don't believe in God and you are wrong, well....This was covered in the initial post. A belief or non-belief in Zeus, Jesus or Frodo has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

[Fish-Bait]

Told you. It's Valkhorn all over again.

[Bluesman]

Gerald Schroader gives all the proof I need. He has proven that both science AND the Bible are correct and has the necessary facts, proof, and research to support his claims. He is a Physicist and a Biologist, and now more recently has become a Christian. He tackles the subject from a neutral point of view and is very straightforward. He does an excellent job of allowing the readers to develop their own opinions...

I made a reference to him and his website/books in the Scripture Help thread that Circusride started (I think it was C.R. anyway.)

[Reason]

Gerald Schroader gives all the proof I need. He has proven that both science AND the Bible are correct and has the necessary facts, proof, and research to support his claims. He is a Physicist and a Biologist, and now more recently has become a Christian. He tackles the subject from a neutral point of view and is very straightforward. He does an excellent job of allowing the readers to develop their own opinions...

I made a reference to him and his website/books in the Scripture Help thread that Circusride started (I think it was C.R. anyway.)

You know he's Jewish right?

His work is also widely criticized by the scientific community.

[Fish-Bait]

Dang! a Pop by the Doc!

[Chichiguita]

I think that's the best way to find out who your true friends are. The ones you can discuss with and you're okay in the end, those are the keepers.

I think that was quite possibly the wisest thing I have read on this thread so far! Thanks.


...and this from a guy with a girly avatar...:smt023

[CircusRide]

I couldn't care less about evolution, one way or the other. Does it occur? Sure it does. Is that how life was created? I don't believe so.
Again, I don't argue beliefs. Everybody has theirs and are entitled to that.

[Chichiguita]

I dunno.

Folks on this forum might have discussed this before. Not all of us have been here for the duration and sometimes people's mindset changes and they have fresh input.

I also think it is kind of helpful for Reason to have compiled the data that is the basis for his belief in the Evolution theory. I think it might have helped clear up some areas of missunderstanding--and like he said--he wanted to have the thoughts compiled in one post.

I like to talk about a lot of things that interest me...they may not interest everyone--I don't think its a bad thing for someone to post a thread about something they have a passion for and enjoy discussing.

Having said that, I hardly think Reason--(or many others) will be overjoyed by my latest thread idea "how many shoes are too many"...but I hope you will all be kind and gracious either way...;)

[Reason]

Does it occur? Sure it does. Is that how life was created? I don't believe so.

Thank you. Evolution does not describe how life originated, and that's an important and difficult point to get across to people.

[Bluesman]

You know he's Jewish right?

His work is also widely criticized by the scientific community.
Sooooo, What's your point? Jesus was a Jew too. Jews can be Christians and still be of Jewish heritage. There are those in the scientific community that would argue with a brick just for the sake of arguing. There are also several in the scientific community that have embraced his revelations and theories on the origin of the world and how science and the Bible coincide.

[Reason]

Sooooo, What's your point? Jesus was a Jew too. Jews can be Christians and still be of Jewish heritage. There are those in the scientific community that would argue with a brick just for the sake of arguing. There are also several in the scientific community that have embraced his revelations and theories on the origin of the world and how science and the Bible coincide.

He's an Orthodox Jew. He is not a Christian, last I checked, and that was my point.

After a small amount of research into the man you can find that his research is WIDELY criticized, as I already noted. This means as far as the scientific community at large is concerned, the man is a sloppy scientists with an agenda, and when his assumptions go through peer review, they fail.

I could list them here, and then list all the ways they have been torn to pieces if you want.

[Bluesman]

He's an Orthodox Jew. He is not a Christian, last I checked, and that was my point.

After a small amount of research into the man you can find that his research is WIDELY criticized, as I already noted. This means as far as the scientific community at large is concerned, the man is a sloppy scientists with an agenda, and when his assumptions go through peer review, they fail.

I could list them here, and then list all the ways they have been torn to pieces if you want.
Is this the same scientific community that embraced the idea of global cooling and said we would be in another ice age by 1990, then by 1990, all of a sudden we were looking down the barrel of global warming... Now, we have evidence to the contrary but many in that same scientific community ignore that said evidence and insist upon furthering the scare tactics of the "global warming frenzy" that is nothing more than a "feel good" cause for the elite and famous? What about the scientific community that argued that the world was flat and that voyagers were going to fall off the edge of the world? Evidence was presented to the contrary there and the "peers" would not have it. Sun revolves around the world was the common belief at one time in the past. When it was presented otherwise it was shot down, those that tried to argue that the earth was what was actually rotating around the sun were shunned and ridiculed.

I think what would be a more important question in my opinion would be WHY are we here? rather than how did we get here?

What can we do as individuals to make our existence meaningful? What kind of legacy can we leave behind? Will our actions be deemed worthy of our existence? These are the ones I believe should be the ones that soul searching is done on a personal basis for. Yes, I believe in God, Yes I believe in Jesus, and yes I understand that the scientific community would probably reject ME during a peer review. I trust and believe blindly with faith that although I may not be perfect, I will strive to be the best I can and when I falter, I know that the blood will cleanse me and I will in the end be accepted by the father. I am a scientific man and have been educated in biology/biochemistry/zoology/etc. I know what I have learned and accept it. I do understand speciation and have no problem accepting it. I also have no problem with the notation that over time things change, however, I will stop short of believing that I "evolved" from a common ancestor with a frattlin monkey/ape/gorilla/orangutang/baboon/ etc. There may have been a species similar to a man present but I tend to believe that until God breathed the breath of life into man and created a soul within him with a conscience and understanding to eventually be able to know right from wrong, and have the ability to reason, until that happened, there was NO MAN AT ALL but a mere shell the probably existed out of sheer instinct rather than knowledge.

I probably should just stop here fore I get Tim4Jesus fired up (where has he been by the way?) and he starts preaching hell fire and damnation. I enjoy these philosophical discussions you present here Reason, and hope that in no way you take anything I say or have said personally, for it is only my opinion and my belief and if you don't agree with me that is fine for I respect your beliefs and opinions and as long as we can keep it on that level I will continue to respond to your posts from time to time.

[dollfus46]

Thank you. Evolution does not describe how life originated, and that's an important and difficult point to get across to people.
So you DO believe that God created all things and that evolution of the species began at that time? If so, I can go along with you on that.:clap:

[Reason]

Is this the same scientific community that embraced the idea of global cooling and said we would be in another ice age by 1990, then by 1990, all of a sudden we were looking down the barrel of global warming... Now, we have evidence to the contrary but many in that same scientific community ignore that said evidence and insist upon furthering the scare tactics of the "global warming frenzy" that is nothing more than a "feel good" cause for the elite and famous? What about the scientific community that argued that the world was flat and that voyagers were going to fall off the edge of the world? Evidence was presented to the contrary there and the "peers" would not have it. Sun revolves around the world was the common belief at one time in the past. When it was presented otherwise it was shot down, those that tried to argue that the earth was what was actually rotating around the sun were shunned and ridiculed.

This is a common criticism of science, and it always baffles me as to why people bring it up.

People believed all sorts of erroneous and laughable things until steady scientific investigation disproved those beliefs or superstitions.

Science is a self-correcting system. Science is always trying to break down every hypothesis and theory to the core, and as such, the mission of science is not to make assumptions and prove them, but to make assumptions and disprove them. When something withstands the attack of scientific investigation long enough, science begins to lend credit to the idea.

When science is wrong, it corrects and moves forward. Back when science was done by bored rich guys with lots of unused basement space, yeah, it was sloppy and haphazard. Today, it is far more rigorous and scrutinized. Not to say there still aren't sloppy scientists with agendas doing laughable research, but they tend to get weeded out rapidly these days.

The global cooling scare you spoke of, and I am no expert on this, was not supported by the scientific community at large, but it got a lot of media attention in the 1970s because there had been a cooling trend for three decades.

You must understand, science has advanced exponentially since the 1970s. I mean, just look at computers and medicine. As you might guess, climatology and meteorology have also advanced quite a bit, thanks to those computers. Still, we can't predict where exactly the hurricanes are going to form or where they will go. We still have a long way to go.

As far as global warming caused by carbon-based emissions - that's a science fact. I mean, it is happening. There is no debate.

Is it going to spell our doom? Is it reversible? Well, that IS debatable. Currently, there are more people on the "yeah, we're screwed" side than not, but unfortunately, the science may not be complete before we suffer the consequences of inaction.

It's the media that keeps blowing shit out of proportion by trying to scare people to death so they'll tune in and watch commercials for cars and hair-care products.

As far as the flat Earth stuff, the Greeks knew the Earth was round by the time of Homer. That's well before modern science with telescopes and whatnot.

Concerning the Earth at the center of the universe, it was science that made that determination and the church who oppressed it.

I think what would be a more important question in my opinion would be WHY are we here? rather than how did we get here?Sure, it's a great question. But, science can't answer it, and it doesn't try to.

I enjoy these philosophical discussions you present here Reason, and hope that in no way you take anything I say or have said personally, for it is only my opinion and my belief and if you don't agree with me that is fine for I respect your beliefs and opinions and as long as we can keep it on that level I will continue to respond to your posts from time to time.Of course I take no offense. I'm just trying to be a good ambassador for science literacy.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks in any discussion of this nature is the muddling of thoughts concerning BELIEF, FAITH and OPINION with those of scientific exploration.

Good science should be devoid of all three, and any philosophical debate that depends on discussing those three is therefore outside the realm of science.

You can believe in science, or believe science will find the answer. You can have opinions about science. You can even have faith in things that are not yet scientifically proven, believe they will be, and have the opinion that it will be great. But, science itself will not include any of those sorts of emotional tangents.

Too often, deeply religious individuals think they must inject their religious values into science, or use science to interpret their faith, when the two just shouldn't mix. Issues of spirituality are non-empirical. You wouldn't need faith if science could prove or disprove the existence of God or His deeds.

So you DO believe that God created all things and that evolution of the species began at that time? If so, I can go along with you on that.I concede that this is one of many possibilities.

[ruckus]

So...what role did the flying spaghetti monster play in all this?

[dollfus46]

So...what role did the flying spaghetti monster play in all this?
He/she/it flew up from Hades, obviously. Sheeeeeh.:smt118 Remember, debit left, credit right. Angel good, monster bad. This is elementary stuff.:-D

[dollfus46]

This is a common criticism of science, and it always baffles me as to why people bring it up.

People believed all sorts of erroneous and laughable things until steady scientific investigation disproved those beliefs or superstitions.

Science is a self-correcting system. Science is always trying to break down every hypothesis and theory to the core, and as such, the mission of science is not to make assumptions and prove them, but to make assumptions and disprove them. When something withstands the attack of scientific investigation long enough, science begins to lend credit to the idea.

When science is wrong, it corrects and moves forward. Back when science was done by bored rich guys with lots of unused basement space, yeah, it was sloppy and haphazard. Today, it is far more rigorous and scrutinized. Not to say there still aren't sloppy scientists with agendas doing laughable research, but they tend to get weeded out rapidly these days.

The global cooling scare you spoke of, and I am no expert on this, was not supported by the scientific community at large, but it got a lot of media attention in the 1970s because there had been a cooling trend for three decades.

You must understand, science has advanced exponentially since the 1970s. I mean, just look at computers and medicine. As you might guess, climatology and meteorology have also advanced quite a bit, thanks to those computers. Still, we can't predict where exactly the hurricanes are going to form or where they will go. We still have a long way to go.

As far as global warming caused by carbon-based emissions - that's a science fact. I mean, it is happening. There is no debate.

Is it going to spell our doom? Is it reversible? Well, that IS debatable. Currently, there are more people on the "yeah, we're screwed" side than not, but unfortunately, the science may not be complete before we suffer the consequences of inaction.

It's the media that keeps blowing shit out of proportion by trying to scare people to death so they'll tune in and watch commercials for cars and hair-care products.

As far as the flat Earth stuff, the Greeks knew the Earth was round by the time of Homer. That's well before modern science with telescopes and whatnot.

Concerning the Earth at the center of the universe, it was science that made that determination and the church who oppressed it.

Sure, it's a great question. But, science can't answer it, and it doesn't try to.

Of course I take no offense. I'm just trying to be a good ambassador for science literacy.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks in any discussion of this nature is the muddling of thoughts concerning BELIEF, FAITH and OPINION with those of scientific exploration.

Good science should be devoid of all three, and any philosophical debate that depends on discussing those three is therefore outside the realm of science.

You can believe in science, or believe science will find the answer. You can have opinions about science. You can even have faith in things that are not yet scientifically proven, believe they will be, and have the opinion that it will be great. But, science itself will not include any of those sorts of emotional tangents.

Too often, deeply religious individuals think they must inject their religious values into science, or use science to interpret their faith, when the two just shouldn't mix. Issues of spirituality are non-empirical. You wouldn't need faith if science could prove or disprove the existence of God or His deeds.

I concede that this is one of many possibilities.

OMG. I just had a funny tingling in my loins. Like a whole covey of quail flying out of my a$$! ;)

[ruckus]

I flunked elementary. http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/bagman.gif

[dollfus46]

I flunked elementary. http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/bagman.gif
:laugh::laugh:

[Bluesman]

Yes, the global cooling idea was embraced by many scientists cause I was one of the kids that was forced to watch to boring documentarys by PBS and N.Geographic when I was in elementary school. It was widespread gloom and doom and everybody was blaming carbon emissions just as they are now claiming that carbon emissions are the root of global warming. In all of the scientific data that has been presented one fact remains constant. That fact is that the earth is dynamic and everchanging. Dramatic climatic changes have been occuring since the dawn of time and no one really has an answer. Everything seems to run in cycles just like El Nino comes roughly every four years but for some reason it remains ellusive to prediction. We can neither predict when it will occur or the severity of it, however we know it WILL occur just has it always has in the past. You know at one time Mississippi was part of an ocean? That's right, freakin whale bones and little sea creatures fossils have been found all over. I don't suppose the cave men were running around wondering if their carbon emissions caused the enlargement of the polar ice caps and thereby causing a global condition of sea water depth recession.

[Remington]

I'm still waiting on the science to correct itself on the catastrophic global warming and evolution front. Although there is none to support evolution and very little to support catastrophic global warming and tons of evidence to denounce both, the self correcting is coming along mighty slow.

The problem is that "science" isn't really "science" anymore. Too many are just after research grants and will hop on any bandwagon to get those big grants or to be applauded by a gullible media. A true scientists should be looking for the holes in their theory and holding it up for criticism. Now, it's forbidden to criticize the global warming and evolution theories and you constantly hear things like "the debate is over" or that it's a "consensus". The debate has never been over and there has never been a consensus on either of those theories.

Any scientist will be harshly criticized for showing the fallacy of believing in catastrophic global warming or evolution. Most scientists that don't believe in either have been forced to keep their mouths shut to protect their careers. The media has been the cause of this. Once the media has latched onto any theory like these, true pursuit of science is out the window.

[ruckus]

Sounds a lot like religious groups who care more about tax exemption, profit margin, and celebrity status.

Jus' sayin'.

[dollfus46]

Heh heh heh. Seems the SC Board of Education is going to review a high school biology book some evolutionist is trying to foist on the students. A retired biology professor at Clemson U. has challenged the validity of the author's claims. It's now caused a huge bruhaha. The Monkey Trials, Part II. I love it.

[Fish-Bait]

What did regular monkeys come from? Littler monkeys? Like those spider monkey ones?

[dollfus46]

What did regular monkeys come from? Littler monkeys? Like those spider monkey ones?
No no no. Regular monkeys came from Azaleas, I think. That or Monkey Grass. One of those. I'm always getting them confused with Giant Condors.:smt023

[ruckus]

I think they evolved from Republicans...

[Remington]

I think I'm going to retire from this thread. Don't think I'm going to change anyone's opinion and they certainly aren't going to change mine! :)

[dollfus46]

I think they evolved from Republicans...

Yep. And you think like Parker's dog.

[Fish-Bait]

bagels evolved from donuts...no,,,,,donuts evolved from bagels. Yeah,.....dispute that......bagels...the concrete donuts...yep....

[ruckus]

Donut holes aren't really holes at all. Mindboggling, isn't it?

[Fish-Bait]

JustWynn may disagree on that one.....maybe. Maybe they are whole holes.

[Beauregard's Daddy]

Next time someone says nothing is impossible ask them to dig half a hole.

[Fish-Bait]

Next time someone says nothing is impossible ask them to dig half a hole.


I am gonna' use that. Prolly tomorrow. Thank you.

[Beauregard's Daddy]

One of my pet peeves is that ole "nothing is impossible" schtick.

Try to dribble a football, pointy end down.
Try going thru a revolving door with a pair of cross country skis over your shoulder.
Try to open a bar in Petal.

[Engelbert Humperdinck]

Not sure if anyone's posted this or not, but here goes:


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EuLrS-qvAro&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EuLrS-qvAro&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Reason]

I'm still waiting on the science to correct itself on the catastrophic global warming and evolution front. Although there is none to support evolution and very little to support catastrophic global warming and tons of evidence to denounce both, the self correcting is coming along mighty slow.

The self-correcting system is what gave us the current science on climate change and evolution.

Every aspect of biology depends on the theory of evolution in the same way medicine depends on the germ theory and physics depends on theories like gravity and relativity.

The problem is that "science" isn't really "science" anymore. Too many are just after research grants and will hop on any bandwagon to get those big grants or to be applauded by a gullible media.

Science is a word that encompassing a gigantic number of people researching a gigantic number of topics. As such, there are plenty of examples of people just going for research grants. This fact does not diminish the theory of evolution.

The media is usually very sloppy and prone to fear mongering when it comes to reporting on science.

A true scientists should be looking for the holes in their theory and holding it up for criticism.

Yes.

Now, it's forbidden to criticize the global warming and evolution theories and you constantly hear things like "the debate is over" or that it's a "consensus".

The debate is never over among scientists.

The debate has never been over and there has never been a consensus on either of those theories.

Yes.

Any scientist will be harshly criticized for showing the fallacy of believing in catastrophic global warming or evolution. Most scientists that don't believe in either have been forced to keep their mouths shut to protect their careers.

This is not true, not even close. Scientists are consistently and fervently critical of other scientists and never stop whittling away at established theories.

What did regular monkeys come from? Littler monkeys? Like those spider monkey ones?

This has been answered several times in this thread. Regular monkeys and humans come from a common ancestor, but we are both equally evolved along different paths.

[dollfus46]

Regular monkeys and humans come from a common ancestor, but we are both equally evolved along different paths.
Speak for yourself, John Alden.:laugh:

[Reason]

Speak for yourself, John Alden.:laugh:

I am certainly far afield.

[my_shade_of_gray]

One thanks wouldn't be enough for this thread, Reason.

Here's 4.5 billion thanks. : )

[Baloo]

My personal feelings about evolution are that those who think that they "evolved" from monkeys or dirt are propably right and they really haven't managed to "grow" out of their origins yet, so I just overlook it... :mrgreen:

[wilebill]

http://sciam.vo.llnwd.net/o16/60s/8de6c_chuck%20norris%20evolution.jpg

[Southern_Belle]

you and aaron are too much alike.

[wilebill]

you and aaron are too much alike.Can't be, we evolved from different branches.

[aaron]

Can't be, we evolved from different branches.

You must mean we hit different branches on the way down.

[Reason]

In honor of the new movie, "Expelled," I offer this list of:


Shared misconceptions:

Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13615-evolution-myths-everything-is-an-adaptation.html)

Natural selection is the only means of evolution (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13616-evolution-myths-natural-selection-is-the-only-means-of-evolution.html)

Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13617-evolution-myths-natural-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity.html)

Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13640-evolution-myths-evolution-produces-perfectly-adapted-creatures.html)

Evolution always promotes the survival of species (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13687-evolution-myths-evolution-promotes-the-survival-of-species.html)

It doesn't matter if people do not understand evolution (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13621-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-do-not-understand-evolution.html)

"Survival of the fittest" justifies "everyone for themselves" (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves.html)

Evolution is limitlessly creative (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13639-evolution-myths-evolution-is-limitlessly-creative.html)

Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html)

Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13688-evolution-myths-creationism-is-an-alternative-to-evolution.html)
Creationist myths:

Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13695-evolution-myths-the-theory-is-wrong-because-the-bible-is-inerrant.html)

Accepting evolution undermines morality (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13696-evolution-myths-accepting-evolution-undermines-morality.html)

Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13689-evolution-myths-evolutionary-theory-leads-to-racism-and-genocide.html)

Religion and evolution are incompatible (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13722-evolution-myths-religion-and-evolution-are-incompatible.html)

Half a wing is no use to anyone (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use.html)

Evolutionary science is not predictive (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13677-evolution-myths-evolution-is-not-predictive.html)

Evolution cannot be disproved so is not science (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved.html)

Evolution is just so unlikely to produce complex life forms (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13694-evolution-myths-evolution-is-just-so-unlikely.html)

Evolution is an entirely random process (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random.html)

Mutations can only destroy information, not create it (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html)

Darwin is the ultimate authority on evolution (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13633-evolution-myths-all-biologists-are-darwinists.html)

The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html)

Yet more creationist misconceptions (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13717-evolution-myths-yet-more-misconceptions.html)

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13720-evolution-myths-evolution-violates-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics.html)

(This list comes from New Scientist magazine)

[g8rfan]

:zelfmoord

:zelfmoord

[Conveyor Belt]

Please don't start this shit up again... We're beating a dead horse on this one...

:zelfmoord:

[Bluesman]

Please don't start this shit up again... We're beating a dead horse on this one...

:zelfmoord:
Unless someone has evidence that the above mentioned dead horse will indeed evolve into a more complex and adaptable creature. Otherwise it just may rear its ugly decaying corpse of a head:smt118

[JimmyJam]

Evolution makes absolutely NO mention of raising horses from the dead.....:kekeke: