So, um...Clearing the Eye said:
I'm not sure if you're trying to be oddly ironic by parodying the OP or if you're trying to be witty by copying the OP to make the same argument for religion.
As awkward as it is, I sincerely hope it's the former.
Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not sure if you're trying to be oddly ironic by parodying the OP or if you're trying to be witty by copying the OP to make the same argument for religion.
As awkward as it is, I sincerely hope it's the former.
While this is all fair and true, the OP here states "evolution is real." Which, to me at least, seems to mean he thinks it's a fact. Which it clearly is not. We can say that evolution is currently the best explanation, but we cannot say that it is real. Because honestly, someone could come out tomorrow with an entirely new theory that blows evolution out of the water.chimeracreator said:
Isn't that the intelligent design theory in a nutshell?TheMightyAtrox said:
I was mocking the zeal and general tone of the OP by comparing it to outspoken Christians.Vigormortis said:
Exactly, I would invite anyone who uses "its just a theory" as an argument against evolution, to jump off a building since gravity is also a theory.SomeLameStuff said:
OP: Evolution is true. It is observable and quantifiable. As my biochemistry professor put it:
"There are 3 theories on the origin of life on this planet.
1) Life evolved over a long period of time here
2) Life was brought over and evolved on this planet
3) A mystical superpower created the world and every person
2 of those are studied by scientists. Guess which?" With a sarcastic grin on his face
Creationists don't win. Social critics with a dash of comedy win.Syzygy23 said:Ah HA! I gotcha now! Humans aren't monkeys, we're APES! You were wrong, therefore, evolution is wrong! Creationists win!evilneko said:Why are there still monkeys?
Because my friend, we are monkeys.
Also,
This thread will reach 20+ pages.
Captcha: foul play. Something is amiss, Captcha...
I always had a problem with this especially with the dinosaurs. I read that the ones that walked on four legs had 'bird-like hips' while the ones on two legs had 'lizard-hips'. Scientists believe that birds emerged from dinosaurs but not from the ones that obviously resemble birds.Mimsofthedawg said:
Actually, speciation has been observed in a variety of circumstances and the time required for speciation is better measured in generations than years. This is why it is easiest to observe in short lived organisms like fruit flies which reproduce very rapidly[footnote]Read: Drosophila melanogaster can lay 100 eggs per day, and they reach sexual maturity in just over a week. This allows for the rapid study of the way mutations accumulate over the course of generations.[/footnote]Imat said:
See, that doesn't exactly work in science. You don't get to choose whether or not to believe in Germ Theory, you don't get to choose whether or not to accept a Copernican model of the Solar system, you don't get to choose whether or not you accept Atomic Theory, Gravitational Theory (which is distinct from and explains the Law of Gravity), nor cell theory, collision theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory, etc. Science doesn't care about opinions, it cares about results. And theories by definition produce reliable results. To treat science as if one can reject anything that doesn't mesh with your preexisting ideas is not only detrimental to students of the field, it can be downright dangerous in practice.Imat said:
Eh, that's actually a contradiction in terms. Creationism literally defines itself by its rejection of Evolution[footnote]Nominally treated as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, but there is a distressing tendency within creationists to refer far more often to Lamark's model or a fabricated variant instead[/footnote]. While it is possible to be religious and accept evolutionary theory, it is not possible to be a creationist and accept evolution, at least not without first redefining the terms in question.Imat said:
Can somebody with more knowledge help me out with a random thought? Is the diversification and man-made genetical engineering that happened to our plants from the onset of agriculture to today, from which hundreds of different kinds of grains and vegetables spawned, also evolution? Barley, Wheat and Rhye are related and, as far as I remember, did have a common ancestor that humanity cultivated into those strains.
If this is all a little wobbly or I used the wrong words, it's 7 in the morning and I haven't slept, so please don't bash me for lack of knowledge.
If this is all a little wobbly or I used the wrong words, it's 7 in the morning and I haven't slept, so please don't bash me for lack of knowledge.
Actually, monkeys are evolving... just like everything else. Every time any life-form reproduces there will be mutations that might eventually lead to a new species. Also, humans are not "more" evolved than apes... they're just differently evolved. They haven't changed the way that humans did, but they have changed, and could theoretically become more like humans... or go off in a completely different direction! There is more genetic variation in one small tribe of chimpanzees than in the entire human race!Doclector said:Y'know, that does bring up an interesting point. What if the monkeys one day start catching up? A group of "the missing link" shows up in a jungle somewhere. The societal changes once they gain communication and mental skills could be massive.subtlefuge said:Finally. You would think that nobody thought this whole evolution thing out at all.Elate said:
'Course, I never claimed to be a scientist, so I suppose there could be some reason they will never evolve further.
Sorry, but we're using the word 'theory' in the technical sense, not the colloquial one. A scientific theory differs from scientific law only in subject matter. Evolution will never "progress" from being a theory in the same way that gravity won't either.EcoEclipse said:
Stating that it's "only" a theory is like stating that it's "only" a fact.
Derp.
Evolution happens? Yes.
The main problem in communication that absolutely bloody no one can bridge is "Is evolution the reason we are here?" Many non-evolutionists ask that question, say no, and then claim evolution doesn't exist. Many evolutionists ask that question, say yes, and then lambaste non-evolutionists regardless of if they believe it exists or not.
I, personally, say that yes, evolution happens, but it's not adequate to explain how we came to be. Lots of niggling little questions I have, be they "Where'd the first incidence of life come from, and how did it come up with a method of reproduction over one lifespan?", "Where are the millions of missing links?", "How did the universal constants end up so finely tuned?" and "How, exactly, does a species evolve a wing without becoming excessively clumsy, and thus die?" have gone either unanswered or answered by an unrefined hypothesis. Sure, there's hilarious amounts of evidence for evolution in the past, but I still can't see it being singularly accountable for our existence. That's like saying "Because there's much evidence that the victim was shot to death, we can conclude that a gun shot him," without concerning who was holding it. I believe there had to be intervention, divine or otherwise.
OT: I've met someone who told me that if you lose too much calcium, your bones become soft and then begin bending and twisting, turning you into a jellyfish-like thing.
THAT'S NOT HOW OSTEOPOROSIS WORKS!
Evolution happens? Yes.
The main problem in communication that absolutely bloody no one can bridge is "Is evolution the reason we are here?" Many non-evolutionists ask that question, say no, and then claim evolution doesn't exist. Many evolutionists ask that question, say yes, and then lambaste non-evolutionists regardless of if they believe it exists or not.
I, personally, say that yes, evolution happens, but it's not adequate to explain how we came to be. Lots of niggling little questions I have, be they "Where'd the first incidence of life come from, and how did it come up with a method of reproduction over one lifespan?", "Where are the millions of missing links?", "How did the universal constants end up so finely tuned?" and "How, exactly, does a species evolve a wing without becoming excessively clumsy, and thus die?" have gone either unanswered or answered by an unrefined hypothesis. Sure, there's hilarious amounts of evidence for evolution in the past, but I still can't see it being singularly accountable for our existence. That's like saying "Because there's much evidence that the victim was shot to death, we can conclude that a gun shot him," without concerning who was holding it. I believe there had to be intervention, divine or otherwise.
OT: I've met someone who told me that if you lose too much calcium, your bones become soft and then begin bending and twisting, turning you into a jellyfish-like thing.
THAT'S NOT HOW OSTEOPOROSIS WORKS!
mateushac said:
Evolution is actually fact. The "theory" is about how exactly it "works", so-to-speak.EcoEclipse said:
We know it happens. Hell, we've forced it on several species. However, the intricacies of "how" or "why" it happens are not fully understood. That's why it's still called "the theory of evolution". Not because we aren't sure it happens.
A better phrasing would be "our current explanation on how evolution operates". Well, maybe not better, as it's ludicrously long, but it would certainly clear up the aggravatingly high number of occurrences wherein people misunderstand what is meant by "theory of...".
Well said. And, your post brings up the biggest problem with this whole discussion.Ultrajoe said:
That being the utter lack of knowledge on the topic on the part of both parties. It generally goes without saying that most people against "the theory of evolution" are usually the least knowledgeable on the topic. Yet, I've met quite a lot of people who support "the theory of evolution" who honestly don't have a clue what it is they're actually defending.
If more people understood all of this, then we could actually have decent discussions on the topic. Likewise, more people would realize the folly of denying "evolution".
A highly intelligent girl at my high school thought that evolution was "far fetched". She had a fantastic grasp of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, and also understood evolution.Jacco said:
But she rejected the conclusions that these sciences lead to in favour of the religious dogma she was brought up to believe.
That taught me that people could understand science and still reject it.
Not as bad as coming up with bullshit about crocoducks but still.
it's ok they found the missing link!Doclector said:Y'know, that does bring up an interesting point. What if the monkeys one day start catching up? A group of "the missing link" shows up in a jungle somewhere. The societal changes once they gain communication and mental skills could be massive.subtlefuge said:Finally. You would think that nobody thought this whole evolution thing out at all.Elate said:
'Course, I never claimed to be a scientist, so I suppose there could be some reason they will never evolve further.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html
Ah. Fair enough. Well played sir. You certainly had me going.Clearing the Eye said:
And, you do bring up a good point. Acting so zealous, on either side of the topic, gets no one anywhere. This matter will only be resolved through tempered discourse and shared knowledge.
Personally, religious theory and since really only interact if someone forces them to. because of infinite regress since is unable to give an final why for anything. Religion on the other hind starts with a why and any theory after that is unnecessary for their fundamental beliefs to remain intact. Most of the conflict between since and religion that has been going on since the enlightenment is because of people like Sr Thomas Aquinas,(mix master) forcing the two together.
One very important thing to remember though is that almost all our scientific data is fairly new, and even the oldest recorded testing of any kind cannot be that old compared to the assumptions made by any scientific theory of origin. As you get father and father away from current testing methods, than before that human life, small mistakes become more amplified, and we have less and less reason to believe that the very laws of reality remain the same. As being, as far as we can tell, static for a few thousand years gives no indication to how they can change over millions.
One very important thing to remember though is that almost all our scientific data is fairly new, and even the oldest recorded testing of any kind cannot be that old compared to the assumptions made by any scientific theory of origin. As you get father and father away from current testing methods, than before that human life, small mistakes become more amplified, and we have less and less reason to believe that the very laws of reality remain the same. As being, as far as we can tell, static for a few thousand years gives no indication to how they can change over millions.
You, sir, are correct! The varieties of grain you mentioned all came from controlled evolution: selective breeding. See also: The lettuce/cabbage family, Horses, Cows, Dogs. Carrots used to come in all kinds of fun colors, but Humans decided they liked the orange ones best, so that's what everybody grows. These are all examples of human beings controlling evolution... thousands of years before scientists even knew evolution was a thing!GrimSheeper said:
I don't know... I honestly don't know if we can say that. The word 'Evolution' carries rhetorical and historical weight, it means to move forword, to be self generated in some way. We haven't been looking for evolutionary development in creatures long enough to substantiait a claim like that. Just the other day I was talking to this guy who held a threoy of de-evolution. He said that the evidence we have for evolution could also be pluged into a model for a kind of 'devolution' of life. That the world is noticlibly loseing genetic info in the form of biodiversity. and that the clock is running down for life. He linked this to Christian ideas about the fall of Eden and sin, how sin somehow broke the perfect harmony of the world leading to the need for compation in the first place. What we think of as the best speciase, or the most evolved, are the ones that are passing thorugh the incrisingly finer sift that is providence. He sounded ligit.Jonluw said:
But I guess thats the problem right? It sounds ligit. It all sounds ligit. I mean, people tell me that the moon is round and far off. I've never been there. But I do know photoshop. from where I'm standing I've got very little hard evidence that what i've been told about the moon isn't a fake and i've got plenty of expirince in making Illusions in phtoshop.
You mirror my thoughts exactly, friend!Vigormortis said:Ah. Fair enough. Well played sir. You certainly had me going.Clearing the Eye said:
And, you do bring up a good point. Acting so zealous, on either side of the topic, gets no one anywhere. This matter will only be resolved through tempered discourse and shared knowledge.
I don't like this attitude some people have coming into this debate, where they "know" they are right and try to go about proving the opposition is stupid. When you have both parties claiming they "know" they are right and treating each other like unenlightened fools, you end up with two sides worth of zealots.