Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!

[Mau95]

Don't be completely short sighted, evolution is only a theory.

If it were real, and we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? You can't explain that.

Next you'll be claiming that the world is round like that dude in the other thread. What's wrong with you people, has the world gone mad.

I'd just like to let you know I made a twenty minute response with basics of evolution to you, simply because I didn't bother to read your last two sentances, proving your stance was sarcastic... What is wrong with me?

Evolution is what's wrong with you. Bam, disproven!

 

[Mage of Doom]

In regards to the whole 'why are there still mankeys/monkeys' question, evolution does not tend towards one path of inherited traits. If certain traits can keep several offshoots of a progenitor alive, then multiple forms of it will exist in the future. The monkeys/apes that exist today are not the same as the progenitor apes that spawned them and us.

 

[Suave Charlie]

You must be a nice, friendly individual anyone would be glad to know.

Ridiculous beliefs can quite justifiably be ridiculed. Unless you think no one should ever be offended by anyone?

 

[JambalayaBob]

They call it a theory because that's how they refer to these things. Like how they still say "Theory of Gravity".

You never ever ever ever say "evidence to PROVE" in science, only "evidence to support", even if there's overwhelming evidence that the theory is, in fact, fact.

Saying "the theory of gravity" isn't the best example because gravity is 100% observable and always has been. Yeah, we know a lot more about gravity now than when we were all nomadic tribes, but in a sense, the theory has always existed. I'd say a better way of explaining it to someone would be to talk about something like the heliocentric theory or the theory of plate tectonics, just so they can more easily see how ideas evolve over time to give us a better understanding of the universe.

 

[Mau95]

In short, stop calling people stupid because they don't believe in what you do.

This isn't about one belief versus another belief. This is about one belief versus proven facts.

If someone said that 2+2=5, and you show them the proof that 2+2=4, and they still persist, then you have to wonder about them.

2+2=fish. And 2+2 can be 5 if 5 is the sign we use to refer to four.

 

[Suave Charlie]

Saying "the theory of gravity" isn't the best example because gravity is 100% observable and always has been. Yeah, we know a lot more about gravity now than when we were all nomadic tribes, but in a sense, the theory has always existed. I'd say a better way of explaining it to someone would be to talk about heliocentric theory or the theory of plate tectonics, just so they can more easily see how ideas evolve over time to give us a better understanding of the universe.

Yeah but the thing is that the current theory of evolution is far and away more comprehensive than the current theory of gravity.

 

[Mau95]

http://9gag.com/gag/4623527

I can completely understand why people would be against this sort of thing.

 

[Zeraki]

I feel this video is at least somewhat relevant do this discussion.

 

[runic knight]

If I recall correctly, because of how we group species, and because of how we used labels shared with current species to apply to species that existed in the past, humans are technically monkeys. It is like, all humans are apes, since apes came first and at no point did we ever stop being apes when homo-sapiens formed as an independent species rather then a subset of ape. The traits of an ape are still descriptive of mankind (mammal, thumbs, social culture, etc.). Going further back then the apes is where apes and modern monkeys branched paths. The creatures at that time were smaller mammals that are often described as monkey-like and had a lot of characteristics that are STILL shared in humans, monkeys and apes (forwards facing faces, detached, free hanging penises, covered in fur, all basic mammal traits, etc.). We even still retain the capacity to have a tail. The reason we are still monkeys is because at no point did we stop being monkeys. We just became specialized in a different way. The lack of tail doesn't make us less of a monkey then our fellow apes (look at the manx cat about the importance of a tail in relation to being part of a species).

I recall a video about this a while back, I'll see if I can't find it.

-----------------


here we go. seems the vid from the origional channel was delted by flagging campaign. Here is a mirror of it though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT4Gnt1Ku4Y

 

[runic knight]

They call it a theory because that's how they refer to these things. Like how they still say "Theory of Gravity".

You never ever ever ever say "evidence to PROVE" in science, only "evidence to support", even if there's overwhelming evidence that the theory is, in fact, fact.

Saying "the theory of gravity" isn't the best example because gravity is 100% observable and always has been. Yeah, we know a lot more about gravity now than when we were all nomadic tribes, but in a sense, the theory has always existed. I'd say a better way of explaining it to someone would be to talk about something like the heliocentric theory or the theory of plate tectonics, just so they can more easily see how ideas evolve over time to give us a better understanding of the universe.

The theory of evolution has always existed. Go way the hell back to the introduction of animals and farming, and you'll find it. Any degree of selection made for a better yield or better quality animal represents a base understanding of how evolution works at a one generation to the next level. The comparison is very fitting for gravity, as it is an explanation of a natural occurrence that most people, to one degree or another, inherently understand. Indeed, it seems the primary reason it gets rejected is religious based.

 

[burningdragoon]

Okay people, why can't we discuss much less heated things like whether or not 0.9 repeating = 1?

>.>

 

[evilneko]

I don't really find that an answer. I understand what you are saying and maybe with your next reply you can re-educate me (not sarcastic or something). I know the proposed design of the 'first' single cell organisms. I'm talking about getting from a few amino acids and bases to those first single cells. Even though they are laughably simplistic compared to modern bacteria they are still very complex compared to a single adenosine molecule. You understand what I mean? How do we get from a pile of bricks to a house, even a simple house, by pure chance. How did the first RNA come into existence. And how did the first proteins needed to interact with that RNA come into existence. And all of this confined by a membrane built out of lipids.

Yea you are probably right about the flagellum thing. I saw it with the tail of spermatozoon. They are pretty much the same but in a way bacterial flagellum makes more sense. Sorry.

Have you seen cdk007's abiogenesis video? Have a look, it's great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

And before the "hypocritical" idea is brought in that says "So why do you blindly follow Jesus?" Because it's called a fuckin' faith. Believing. You know, something you put out as a risk.

There's a difference between faith and accepting the conclusions of scientists. Faith is an unsupported assertion of stoic conviction which is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. Meanwhile sciences is...pretty much the opposite.

The smarter Intelligent Design supports I've come across are the ones who don't deny the Theory of Evolution in its entirety. They acknowledge micro-evolution, that being that individual species can adapt and improve over time, but they deny macro-evolution, that being that an organism can become an all-new species.

They're actually able to make a case for this that I've understood to be reasonable.

I'm no scientist, so I prefer not to discuss these things. Any argument I make will be one based more on ignorance than knowledge, but I thought raising this point would be interesting for discussion's sake.

Those guys are wrong too. No such thing as macro vs. micro exists. If it did, there would have to be some mechanism to prevent micro from becoming macro, and there isn't.

If I recall correctly, because of how we group species, and because of how we used labels shared with current species to apply to species that existed in the past, humans are technically monkeys. It is like, all humans are apes, since apes came first and at no point did we ever stop being apes when homo-sapiens formed as an independent species rather then a subset of ape. The traits of an ape are still descriptive of mankind (mammal, thumbs, social culture, etc.). Going further back then the apes is where apes and modern monkeys branched paths. The creatures at that time were smaller mammals that are often described as monkey-like and had a lot of characteristics that are STILL shared in humans, monkeys and apes (forwards facing faces, detached, free hanging penises, covered in fur, all basic mammal traits, etc.). We even still retain the capacity to have a tail. The reason we are still monkeys is because at no point did we stop being monkeys. We just became specialized in a different way. The lack of tail doesn't make us less of a monkey then our fellow apes (look at the manx cat about the importance of a tail in relation to being part of a species).

I recall a video about this a while back, I'll see if I can't find it.

That would probably be the AronRa video I posted several pages back. Turns out we DID come from monkeys.

 

[Overusedname]

Don't be completely short sighted, evolution is only a theory.

If it were real, and we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? You can't explain that.

Next you'll be claiming that the world is round like that dude in the other thread. What's wrong with you people, has the world gone mad.

I'm so sorry, first thing that came to mind. Had to do it.

OT: While I do think that evolution is real, you've definitely taken a more... Confrontational approach to the discussion than I would have.

The way I see it, folks can believe what they want. I couldn't care less if you believe in evolution, intelligent design, Scientology, or the Nine Divines. Whatever floats your boat.

Bill O'reily comes to mind in general when arrogance comes about.

And I agree. As long as your believes don't make you irrationally hate/kill groups of innocent people, I don't care what people think really.

 

[Conn1496]

It's not a question of 'views'. It's a question of 'fact' versus 'fiction', 'provable truth' vs 'unprovable belief'. To say that evolution is wrong, to deny the proof, is to be ignorant.

I still don't think you get it. Evolution makes sense to us, right. But to people who believe it, creationism makes sense to them. If I was to give you 2[]2=4, and tell you to fill the blank, there would be plenty of options to making it work, however, we don't know what needs to go in the blank space. There is no genuine fact here, only theory and logic. We weren't there when people evolved or were created, or whatever happened, happened, so we can only take an educated guess at what happened. If I said that we were all dropped onto earth by aliens, and we turned into humans because we went so fast it morphed us this way, it would make just as much sense. We weren't there, so we cannot say that it didn't happen is the point I'm trying to push. This is one of life's greatest mysteries, and we are still no-where near to explaining it.

 

[aattss]

The problem is that, when someone believes something, he tends to Google similar things that support his view, when the true way to find what is correct would be to Google the opposite.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Don't be fooled people! The illuminati is trying to keep you from the truth, fellow escapians! Mankind all came from outer space, on a spacerock flying with spacespeed from a different space-solar system! In space!

 

[Conn1496]

Okay people, why can't we discuss much less heated things like whether or not 0.9 repeating = 1?

>.>

0.9 reccurring = 0.99999999999999999999999999... not 1. It's close, but no cigar.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

The problem is that, when someone believes something, he tends to Google similar things that support his view, when the true way to find what is correct would be to Google the opposite.

Ah, the famous internet bubble. Funny thing is, did you also know that sites such as google narrow your search through their engine based on previous searches? it basically means that google will make a habit out of picking things you want to see, instead of the truth.