Evolution & Atheism... Is it really more plausible?

[Clashero]

Evolution, explained excessively simply by Clashero:

Once upon a long, long time ago, there were two kinds of giraffe. One of them had a short neck, the other had a long neck. The ones with the long necks were able to eat more, since they could reach high branches, the others starved since all their food was taken from their long-necked brothers. Therefore, only the superior, long-necked giraffes get to live and fuck and have little long-necked baby giraffes (awww)
So, that example is not true, but it sums up evolution. There's been evidence of fossiles looking like humans that get more human-like as the date of their death gets closer to the present day.

Also, why do you think some people are born without their wisdom teeth? Because they're evolving. Biology realizes they don't need them.

 

[Xanadu84]

Yes. It is more plausible. Far more plausible like, up there with gravity. Ask anyone in the field of science, they will tell you. It would be difficult to name a field of human knowledge that does not provide overwhelming evidence for evolution. If Fundamentalists what to argue, at least back away from evolution and go to Abiogenisis. I mean, there still is a much stronger scientific case for Abiogenesis, but at least there's a debate there.

 

[grimsprice]

Disproved? By who? I'm pretty sure they're still held in regard by scientists, or do you mean 'disproved' by your pseudoscientific creationist buddies because they were inconvenient? Now it's YOUR turn to prove something to me by showing me evidence that they have been discredited and by real scientists, so no links to the Discovery Institute, okay? But thanks for telling me before hand that you won't take any proof of mine seriously as long as it contradicts your preconceived notions. How scientific of you.

The op spends most of his time here

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

.

Your avatar bugs me (no pun intended)

2. if we are to assume Darwinism is correct in the beginning every one of the billions of species on the planet had equal opportunity to evolve to the same intellectual levels as mankind so why are we the only ones driving cars and going to the moon?

Because evolution is not targeted. It does not go from simple to complex for complexity's sake.
If a single-celled organism is effective at survivng, there's no need to change the strategy. This is why a lot of ancient organisms still exist today.

A fine answer to be sure. But, you forgot one thing. Time.

Lets say we've had multi-celled organisms capable of evolving into intelligent life for 1 billion years. (i pick that because its very even and easy to calculate with). Now, humanity in all its forms has been around maybe 100,000 years. That means we have been around for .01% of the time life has been here.

Out of the entire history of this planet, a single species, and the only one we know of, that was in the right environment, at the right time, with some way to manipulate its environment (thumbs), was in an environment that reproductively promoted intelligence. a hundredth of a percent. The chances that another species would evolve intelligence along side us (i mean a species completely different like squid or bears) is so absurdly remote. Maybe if we leave the planet and come back in a few million years we might see the planet of the apes style world, or maybe octopi will fallow us. The statistical chance of a parallel species is absurdly remote. .01% isn't much to gamble on.

 

[skitzo van]

I love how the Atheists always say "we have more proof" when more and more things from the bible are found to be true (like Jericho).

 

[Lavi]

There is a simple problem in the OP being described. It is called, "They're as fundie as the people they don't like.'

Nothing makes perfect absolute truths, so you need to teach your kids the good and bad to let them actually have a choice. Teach them that evolution is a good theory, but it has holes that need filling. Encourage them to fill holes or make a better theory entirely. Fundies teach their kids one way and one way only (according to the context of the OP cause obviously fundamentalism involves other characteristics).

EDIT: Yes, there ARE holes in the evolutionary theory. The biggest one would be the starting point. How do random chemicals organize into life? This has no solution that works so encourage everyone to think about it

You know what you get when you teach a kid like this? A kid figuring out how sex works from genetics and anatomy books (aka, I did that).

 

[somekindarobot]

Disproved? By who? I'm pretty sure they're still held in regard by scientists, or do you mean 'disproved' by your pseudoscientific creationist buddies because they were inconvenient? Now it's YOUR turn to prove something to me by showing me evidence that they have been discredited and by real scientists, so no links to the Discovery Institute, okay? But thanks for telling me before hand that you won't take any proof of mine seriously as long as it contradicts your preconceived notions. How scientific of you.

The op spends most of his time here

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

And not a single source on that page. Figures. But I wanted to see what the OP had to say, and watch what happens when he gets a taste of his own medicine.

 

[James Raynor]

[/quote]

I love how the Atheists always say "we have more proof" when more and more things from the bible are found to be true (like Jericho).

And even more has been proven wrong.

EDIT: Yes, there ARE holes in the evolutionary theory. The biggest one would be the starting point. How do random chemicals organize into life? This has no solution that works so encourage everyone to think about it

Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis, lrn2science.

 

[Notsomuch]

EDIT: Yes, there ARE holes in the evolutionary theory. The biggest one would be the starting point. How do random chemicals organize into life? This has no solution that works so encourage everyone to think about it

You know what you get when you teach a kid like this? A kid figuring out how sex works from genetics and anatomy books (aka, I did that).

Evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate theories and you are wrong on both accounts. It is demonstrative that it is possible for Amino acids and proteins to form from non living matter. Think about it, or better yet, do some research on the subject.

 

[grimsprice]

The op spends most of his time here

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

And not a single source on that page. Figures. But I wanted to see what the OP had to say, and watch what happens when he gets a taste of his own medicine.

I'll bet you a box of cookies he doesn't respond.

 

[somekindarobot]

The op spends most of his time here

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

And not a single source on that page. Figures. But I wanted to see what the OP had to say, and watch what happens when he gets a taste of his own medicine.

I'll bet you a box of cookies he doesn't respond.

NO! Not my cookies! *Om nom nom*

 

[VanityGirl]

We evolved from single cell organisms (supposedly). My question, where did the single cell organisms come from? That had to be there at some point.
I'm trying to help out the other side here, also I don't like the idea of being evolved from apes, because it doesn't make sense for apes to still exist today. (Why didn't they evolve? )

 

[TunaKing]

I can't be bothered to read through people trying to prove evolution wrong so if anyone has already posted this, apologies.

There are MANY reasons why there is life on earth and not others, please research how our planet was formed and WHY life exists on it.

I actually want to believe in god because i don't much like the idea of death. But i find myself unable to believe in god because there is absolutely no evidence on him(that is not some one's interpretation). Correct me if I'm wrong but he managed to convince several people to believe he was real back in the days so much so they wrote a fucking book about him. So why does he find it so hard to convince the rest of the world when some people(me) want to believe in him but are not going to go on faith alone because that's just unintelligent.

 

[King of the N00bs]

I would rather follow the path of science and logic than something that cannot be proven. I don,t think that it is a coincidence that certain creatures have certain abilities that assist them in their enviroment specifically. Mainly because in the bible, every creature was created as they are today. Obviously we don,t see chipmunk fossils, we see some type of rodent who has a different bone structure.If you are wondering why I suggested that the bible says that god created all of the animals as they are today here is my evidence.

GENESIS 1:26 Then God said "Let us make MAN in our image,in our likeness,and let them rule over FISH of the sea and the BIRDS of the air,over the LIVESTOCK,over all the Earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

My point; Men,Birds,Fish,and Livestock have not existed that long according to the fossil record. (and by men i mean homo sapien)

 

[King of the N00bs]

Neanderthals have bigger skulls than we do... Another 20 bucks agrees with that box of cookies

 

[grimsprice]

We evolved from single cell organisms (supposedly). My question, where did the single cell organisms come from? That had to be there at some point.
I'm trying to help out the other side here, also I don't like the idea of being evolved from apes, because it doesn't make sense for apes to still exist today. (Why didn't they evolve? )

You're very lucky vanitygirl. I'm a 'nice' man, so i don't have the ability to get angry at any woman. I've already explained this to several people so here goes...

Evolution is not a linear path from a single celled organism to 'us'. Evolution is a tree, every time groups of animals move into different habitats, environment changes, new predators/competition come along, successful traits change. For example: most primates live in forests, hence the long arms for swinging and climbing. Several million years ago, a common ancestor between humans and apes moved out of the forest and into a different habitat. A habitat where traits like intelligence and planning, and eating meat became the predominately successful traits. Animals with these traits lived longer/better and reproduced more; Spreading these traits.

Apes did evolve. They evolved out of a common ancestor that isn't around any more. If an animal lives in the exact same environment then different traits never have the opportunity to influence the reproductive success of the animals. Hence they don't change very much as they evolve.

Look at what we've done to dogs through selective breeding. If you believe that we created all those breeds of dogs out of their common ancestor (the wolf) then you believe in evolution. Just replace 'humans picking and choosing traits' with 'survival of the fittest' and bang, you've got evolution.

Two principles, if you believe in both, then you have to believe in evolution. There isn't any magic about it, no mysterious ether force. Just these two principles.

1: Kids take the traits of their parents, with occasional slight differences.

2: The fit survive more often than the un-fit.

BANG. Evolution.

Oh, and as several people have already said, evolution doesn't deal with the origin of the single celled organism. It just deals with the process that turned it into everything you see around you. You want to look into Abiogenesis.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Keep all of this Civil, please. I'd hate to have to play God.

I do recommend 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins to the thread creator, however. It answers a lot of the questions you're asking reasonably and understandably, and clears up a lot of the misconceptions and false assumptions I can see in your posts.

 

[Gritimo The Odd]

When people get asked about evolution there should be a qualifier about what kind of evolution you are talking about. There is Micro evolution, which boils down to specific traits and features that can transfer and shift from parents to offspring that gradually creates different species, which is what Darwin actually documented on his trip. The other is Macro evolution, which is the whole goo to the zoo to you theory which is what most people think of today. Micro evolution is well documented, and reasonably observable, and in some cases recrateable and forced, as in the case of various breeds of dogs, horses, cows and other animals. Macro Evolution on the other hand has a few problems for me. One there is a distinct lack of transition speicies, both now and in the fossil record that are clearly both one major type and another. Im not talking mixture of breeds of dogs but half fish half reptile or half reptile half mammal kinda critter. The generational timeframe that would require should have left relatively larger amounts of fossils for those types of critters than for the confirmed fossil ancestry of other animals we do have, such as the horse and ryhno which we can see clear ancestral relations through the various fossil records we do have. If anybody says that the lack of known fossils does not mean they are not there then the same argument could be used regarding several religions as well.


My other major doubt with Macro evolution is one described best by a book called Darwins Black Box by Michael J. Behe who (at the time of writing it back in 1996 anyway) was an associate professor of Biochemestry at Lehigh University. The book ascribes to the point that there are somethings that are irriducibly complex in order to work. a basic example is a mousetrap that is composed of the spring, catch, hammerbar, holding bar and base. You need all these parts for the mouse trap to work becuase with out any one of them the mousetrap won't work. He then goes on to describe how Biochemically there are parts of anything that need everything to be there in order for them to work as they do and diagrams examples like eyes of animals from jelly fish up to us, and bacteria parts in single cell organisms. Each of these objects had to have all the parts that make them work there at the same time as the difference in the stages would have been to prohibitive and detrimental to the function of the part in question to have occured one stage/part at a time.
Hopefully this will give people some things to think on.

 

[Skeleon]

the part about Occam's razor is an interesting way to look at things, but in my personal opinion a slightly flawed one seeing as how it is not always the simplest answer that is correct.

That's what my example about Zeus and lightning was for. Glad you liked it.
I agree that one should apply such a stance in general, not just philosophical or religious issues. No matter what situation you're in, coming to the simplest and often wrong conclusions may lead to very bad results.

i was simply saying that all in all its pretty amazing.

Again, I fully agree with you on this.
Some people say "evolution detracts from the uniqueness of our lives" or something along those lines.
But if you consider all the struggles through hundreds of millions of years life had to endure to reach this point, I'd say we're pretty amazing without some supernatural reason.
And aren't we humans still unique?

 

[Skeleon]

A fine answer to be sure. But, you forgot one thing. Time.

Ah, yes. Given enough time, there could be a new species rivaling our own sophistication.

Yes, we need:
Mutation for animals to be able to change...
Reproduction so that animals can pass down these changes...
External conditions for selection and...
A lot of time for evolution to unfold...
Anything I forgot?

EDIT: Sorry for double-post.

 

[Lukyo]

Good night then. But with all due respect you have a very odd notion of happiness.

And with all due respect, stop trolling.

This isn't worth arguing. Micro-Evolution is a bloody fact, and is about as deniable as gravity and Newton's First Law. Macro-Evolution admittedly has holes, but its still the best guess we've got as to how things came about.

Either way. Everyone can have their own beliefs about it, it's not like bickering over the internet is going to change anyone's opinion.

This coming from a Christian Deist.

I never disagreed with micro-evolution. Even a hard nosed fundamentalist can acknowledge that it happens. Of course if by evolution you mean coping errors due to heat and radiation, then I don't agree by any means.

A Christian Deist? There's contradiction in terms.