So, I'm bored.. Who doesn't accept Evolution?

[Greatsilverwyrm]

And why not?

[Kiriyama]

Those who don't believe in Evolution, are generally religious and believe in creation.

 

 

 

However, I think thats there more to prove the theroy of evolution than the myth of creation.

[EdgedThesis]

Nobody. Everybody accepts evolution.

 

 

 

Because if they didn't, they wouldn't believe in the very cornerstone of Biology.

 

 

 

I doubt people would dare to undermine the science that's aiding the Earth in its recovery--as well as individual humans.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm, I came off as an [wagon] there. But hey, whatever gets the point across.

[misterxman]

Colbert put it in a great way: If it's a fact, why do you have to "believe" in it?

 

 

 

People shouldn't talk about evolution as something to believe in, it should just be: do you accept the facts and data or not?

[justin_m23]

Nobody. Everybody accepts evolution.

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

*waits for endless debate to begin*

[Nenga]

Well it's all theory but I think it's a little bit more explainable then creationism. If you watch a child from the time they're born to the time they die, they change over time. The human race should be able to do that as well.

[thrash-boy]

Well it's all theory but I think it's a little bit more explainable then creationism. If you watch a child from the time they're born to the time they die, they change over time. The human race should be able to do that as well.

 

 

 

exactly what i think. The human race grows up to, just like everything that is alive

[How2PK]

I do. I believe that God has made a simple base, and that we've came out of that trough evolution.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Well it's all theory but I think it's a little bit more explainable then creationism. If you watch a child from the time they're born to the time they die, they change over time. The human race should be able to do that as well.

 

 

 

What's your definition of theory in this context?

[blushenka]

Yeah, I do too. Meh. *sits down next to everyone and waits for someone with entirely different views to show up*

[Lenticular_J]

Colbert put it in a great way: If it's a fact, why do you have to "believe" in it?

 

 

 

People shouldn't talk about evolution as something to believe in, it should just be: do you accept the facts and data or not?

 

That is a good way to put it. Like gravity.

 

 

 

Okay, blu, want some crazy views? Let's pull a 2001: A Space Odyssey up in this ma'.

 

 

 

Evolution is artificial. Man-apes three million years ago were taught how to use tools by aliens, actually creating what we know now as evolution. And there will be a stone that tells these aliens we're good at spacing when we dig up the moon.

 

 

 

^_^

[blushenka]

There are actually people who believe that ^

 

 

 

And the 'evidence' they have is the drawings that resemble spaceships from million years ago discovered on the walls of caves.

 

Yeah...

 

However, that doesn't explain why the appearance and anatomical details (for lack of a better term) has changed dramatically since then. Not to mention why animals evolved (and continue to evolve) as well.

 

 

 

What I like about the evolution theory is how simple it is and how elegantly it describes a bunch of natural phenomena that would otherwise be thought of as bloody weird.

[BlueLancer]

The Vatican and former pope John Paul also supported the scientific method of thinking, even less of a reason for the ultra conservatives to keep claiming "evolution and science are hoaxes"...

 

 

 

 

Link to article

 

 

 

VATICAN CITY (AP) - A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

 

-

 

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

 

 

 

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

 

 

 

You'd think the Vatican knows a bit more about the Bible than a random tinfoil-hat guy, they don't find any contradiction in both faith & science

[Greatsilverwyrm]

The Vatican and former pope John Paul also supported the scientific method of thinking, even less of a reason for the ultra conservatives to keep claiming "evolution and science are hoaxes"...

 

 

 

 

Link to article

 

 

 

VATICAN CITY (AP) - A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

 

-

 

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

 

 

 

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

 

 

 

Most of the people who disagree with evolution think that Catholics are heretics, so, that doesn't really help.

[BlueLancer]

Catholicism is overwhelmingly the most adhered christian sect, the only one coming even nearly close is protestantism, which is a sect usually followed in very secular countries such as in northern Europe/England...

 

 

 

Not that personally the word of the Pope/Vatican means much to me either, but what basis do sects mostly invented in the 1700-1800's have to call heretic something that has existed for so much longer?

[Furah]

I don't and never will, and also there are others than theists who don't believe in evolution, I have several friends who niether believe in a God, nor evolution. I have found it to be flawed in many ways, one example is this species of insect (can't seem to find it's name) shoots some firey substance (may be an acid substance) from its abdomen. The weird thing about this is not that it can do that, but if it fired it in a fully automatic way, it would kill the insect too, yet if shoots it in bursts, leaving itself unharmed. Now for this animal to have evolved it would have had to have developed this substance (highly unlikely), have the insides immune to the substance (even more unlikely) then learn how to aim it correctly (would take too long to calculate the possibilty of it happening) then, be able to shoot it in bursts so as not to kill themselves, they would have to learn before using it (calculate that possibilty, using your logic)

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Catholicism is overwhelmingly the most adhered christian sect, the only one coming even nearly close is protestantism, which is a sect usually followed in very secular countries such as in northern Europe/England...

 

 

 

Not that personally the word of the Pope/Vatican means much to me either, but what basis do sects mostly invented in the 1700-1800's have to call heretic something that has existed for so much longer?

 

 

 

Doesn't make much sense, but it's true.

[warri0r45]

Of course you can gel together evolution and religious beliefs.

 

 

 

It's only fundamentalist types whose beliefs are contradicted by evolution who are so adamantly against it. If it weren't for them, the whole evolution/creation thing wouldn't even be an issue.

 

 

 

Obviously, all the science and research done over the decades has supported the conclusions of evolution. It's no more "theory" than atomic theory. Both use masses of data in a logical framework to generate testable precepts which explain and contextualise the data.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

I don't and never will, and also there are others than theists who don't believe in evolution, I have several friends who niether believe in a God, nor evolution. I have found it to be flawed in many ways, one example is this species of insect (can't seem to find it's name) shoots some firey substance (may be an acid substance) from its abdomen. The weird thing about this is not that it can do that, but if it fired it in a fully automatic way, it would kill the insect too, yet if shoots it in bursts, leaving itself unharmed. Now for this animal to have evolved it would have had to have developed this substance (highly unlikely), have the insides immune to the substance (even more unlikely) then learn how to aim it correctly (would take too long to calculate the possibilty of it happening) then, be able to shoot it in bursts so as not to kill themselves, they would have to learn before using it (calculate that possibilty, using your logic)

 

 

 

Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked many times.. Just because something is bizarrely complex doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved through completely natural and gradual means.

[megakiller32]

Although this is from the funny pictures thread, its relavent:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also to those who don't believe in evolution: Ever been to a Natural History museum?

[Range_This11]

I don't and never will, and also there are others than theists who don't believe in evolution, I have several friends who niether believe in a God, nor evolution. I have found it to be flawed in many ways, one example is this species of insect (can't seem to find it's name) shoots some firey substance (may be an acid substance) from its abdomen. The weird thing about this is not that it can do that, but if it fired it in a fully automatic way, it would kill the insect too, yet if shoots it in bursts, leaving itself unharmed. Now for this animal to have evolved it would have had to have developed this substance (highly unlikely), have the insides immune to the substance (even more unlikely) then learn how to aim it correctly (would take too long to calculate the possibilty of it happening) then, be able to shoot it in bursts so as not to kill themselves, they would have to learn before using it (calculate that possibilty, using your logic)

 

So what do you have to say about moths during the 19th century in England? Well I'll tell you that they evolved pretty well. During the industrial revolution in England, there was a certain species of moth that was normally white winged. However, there was a genetic mutation in which the wings would be gray or charcoal colored. Well, when the industrial revolution came around, a lot of things were covered in soot, dirt, and grime from the local factories producing pollution. Most of this dirty pollution covered walls of houses and other buildings in the city. As you can imagine, being a pure white moth against a gray or black background makes you immensely easy to see from far away. Birds feasted on these unfortunate white moths. Gray moths on the other hand were not so easy to spot. Through breeding and survival techniques developed by these moths, there are no more white moths left in England of that particular species, just gray moths.

 

 

 

Now in your argument you state that you do not believe in evolution because all of these complex things are "highly unlikely". It's as if you are implying that the actual animal is consciously thinking about evolving. Animals, as well as humans, have a survival instinct. When you have adrenaline pumping through your veins, you can do some pretty crazy stuff. Animals do not try to evolve, it just happens. I think you really need a Biology 101 course.

[Furah]

I think you really need a Biology 101 course.

 

 

 

meh, no thanks, I hate biology, so glad I can drop it next year \

 

 

 

and you point about the moths is not evolution, it is just an example of that breed of moths becoming 'extinct' in that area, due to an abnormal growth in death by birds.

 

 

 

Also one thing I don't understand, is how when something evolves it ends up causing it's offspring to have it's traits, at a high enough rate to cause all of the species to have it. Like (say for example) there is a country, lets call it Place. Now in Place everyone has blue eyes, except one person, who has brown eyes. Now according to evolution theories, everyone is Place could end up with brown eyes, yet my reasoning and logic tell me it can't!

[BlueLancer]

 

Also one thing I don't understand, is how when something evolves it ends up causing it's offspring to have it's traits, at a high enough rate to cause all of the species to have it. Like (say for example) there is a country, lets call it Place. Now in Place everyone has blue eyes, except one person, who has brown eyes. Now according to evolution theories, everyone is Place could end up with brown eyes, yet my reasoning and logic tell me it can't!

 

 

 

Dominant and recessive traits in biology don't work like that.

 

 

 

Even if a "place" was populated with 10,000 people with blue eyes, 2,000 with green eyes, 500 with brown eyes... The genetic makeup wouldn't change much over a few centuries.

 

 

 

Just like in real life, you probably know families with all sorts of hair and eye colours. It doesn't really matter that in theory, only brown hair, black eyes & dark skin should prevail. In reality, if all sorts of traits appear, darker complexes are just favoured, not a rule.

 

 

 

A normal human family with all kinds of genes in the family would have approximately equal chances of having green, brown, blue-eyed kids, same with hair color. Brown is a slight favourite, by some 25%. So even if parents with blue/brown eyes had 4 kids, statistically 2 would have brown eyes and 2 would have green/blue. None of the traits actually disappear.

[Rebdragon]

I think you really need a Biology 101 course.

 

 

 

meh, no thanks, I hate biology, so glad I can drop it next year \

 

 

 

and you point about the moths is not evolution, it is just an example of that breed of moths becoming 'extinct' in that area, due to an abnormal growth in death by birds.

 

 

 

This is why these debates are useless, yet hilarious; those against evolution don't really have much of any idea what they're talking about. [That's why he told you to take a Bio course you twit].

 

 

 

Proving to anyone that evolution is "wrong" is about as possible as proving them that gravity is "wrong". It's not even worth calling it stupid anymore.

 

 

 

Also one thing I don't understand, is how when something evolves it ends up causing it's offspring to have it's traits, at a high enough rate to cause all of the species to have it. Like (say for example) there is a country, lets call it Place. Now in Place everyone has blue eyes, except one person, who has brown eyes. Now according to evolution theories, everyone is Place could end up with brown eyes, yet my reasoning and logic tell me it can't!

 

What...? Yes, everyone could, or more likely the brown eye strain will not spread very far/possibly "die out". You're using "could" in the sense of "anything above 0% possibilty", and in the same sentence confusing it to mean "probable". That is, if I'm reading what the hell you're saying right, which I probably am not.

[Ginger_Warrior]

and you point about the moths is not evolution, it is just an example of that breed of moths becoming 'extinct' in that area, due to an abnormal growth in death by birds.

 

If you're going to argue with science, at least understand it. A growth of deaths in the bird population would lead to a rise in the prey's population (the moths). Logic doesn't follow your conclusion.

 

 

 

It is an example of evolution. You might not agree that evolution exists, or that if it does, it's God's plan, but that is an example of evolution.

 

 

 

The white pepper moth could previously camouflage against the bark of a tree. The Industrial Revolution comes along, and makes the bark darker, so the moth no longer camouflages. This leads to the population of the moth declining due to a rise in predation. Somewhere along the line, a moth has by chance made a genetic mutation which develops a protein that causes its wings to be darker so it does camouflage. This moth is more easily able to camouflage and is therefore not predated as much as the white moth, which cannot cope with the change in its circumstances.

 

 

 

Through natural selection, the black peppered moth survives and passes on its alleles to the next generation, while the white moth does not survive and does not reproduce to pass on its alleles. The frequency of black peppered moths increases.

 

 

 

What exactly is hard to understand there?

 

 

 

Also one thing I don't understand, is how when something evolves it ends up causing it's offspring to have it's traits, at a high enough rate to cause all of the species to have it. Like (say for example) there is a country, lets call it Place. Now in Place everyone has blue eyes, except one person, who has brown eyes. Now according to evolution theories, everyone is Place could end up with brown eyes, yet my reasoning and logic tell me it can't!

 

Unless one of the blue-eyed population has a recessive (unexpressed) brown allele, there is no chance this population could be anything other than blue eyed unless there was a mutation.

 

 

 

Also, watch your language. A person does not 'evolve' like a Pokémon - the genetic code mutates. They are different terms