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

[Range_This11]

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.

 

 

They were not a "breed" of moths, and they did not become extinct either. They evolved and adapted to their surroundings. It's like saying someone with black hair is a different species than a person with blond hair. Those particular moths had a different TRAIT and since that TRAIT made them superior to the white moth, they survived.

 

 

 

I really cannot wait until you go to a University. That kind of thinking is going to really get you in trouble.

 

 

 

And as a side note, I absolutely hate Biology as well, but it's a good thing to be a well rounded student in all the subjects. Even if you don't like it, you can still learn a great deal from it, which is what you quite obviously need.

[stan18]

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.

 

 

 

be careful there, using analogies in science is very dangerous, and the birth of a child analogy is not evolution, it is simply following genetic code then dying off.

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

They're just chemical properties. You make it sound so difficult and special, but seriously, a creature that can produce an acid is nothing special. A creature that can produce something that does not react with acid is nothing special, either. you put up some mythical facade over acid as if its some biologically impossible thing, but its not.

 

 

 

The best part about your argument is that production of specific substances that react in certain ways is chemistry, not biology. The aiming is instinct, we can do it too. Look, I'm doing it right now, typing without looking at my keyboard! But, alas, thats in the psychology and physics department, not the bio department. Shooting in bursts? Its almost as if they had control over themselves! Too bad we can't do that. Oh wait, yes we can... we have muscles! And bones, and tendons, and the capacity to use them. Hell, we can even shoot things out of our [wagon]! We can even control the speed of the projectile and the intervals it can come out! NO WAY, ARE WE THE BUG YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?

 

 

 

It seems like the only way to satisfy you is to show a creature that is so evolutionally unsophisticated that every function it has is inefficient. I'd say there would be no such thing, because such a thing would never survive any change in environment.

 

 

 

But then i'd also say you could look at the bottom of the deepest of seas, where you can find fish that haven't been anywhere close to sunlight and a change in environment for millions of years, but you wouldnt listen anyways, since you're too afraid to take even a biology course.

 

 

 

Oh, and heres the bug, so you can tout this to other people who believe in evolution:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/422599.stm

[ThurinEthir]

Eh, I skimmed the last few posts, too long and have too many big words and concepts I don't understand. :|

 

So chances are this has already been said. But whatever. Evolution is not exactly the same as human evolution. They follow the same principals, yes, but just because I believe that humans did not necessarily evolve, does not mean that I reject evolution that has been proven in the case of some animals.

 

I suppose I agree with How2PK on this one. I don't really accept nor reject human evolution, but I accept evolution in general. I mean...It happened on Pokemon.

[Lenticular_J]

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.

 

It's still pretty bloody wierd. Sucks about our minds; too large of a scale to really understand it fully and what actually causes it, all that good stuff.

[Blingkachi50]

Whenever I meet someone that doesn't believe in evolution, I pick up a fossel and wave it in their face. - Lewis Black.

[demonfirzen]

Nobody. Everybody accepts evolution.

 

Oh, if only.

 

Quote from fstdt:(most recent fstdt at the time of this post)

 

ok so you admit nothing is 100% certain in science. So don't go claiming that evolution is the reason why were here today. Because we evolved from a fish . Don't go claiming this [cabbage] to be fact, cause its not.

 

 

 

According to you evolution takes thousands and billions of years to happen, but sadly the human life span is nowhere close to that.

 

 

 

In science don't you have to be able to observe something to actually say its fact and run tests. Not have some [cabbage] written down a piece of paper on how we "THINK" it happens. You guys are quick to call believers in God arrogant and blind and all this garbage.

 

 

 

When in turn you guys say we started from a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM. HAHAHAHAHAHHA honestly thats really funny. Like im laughing just thinking of that.

 

Wasn't it like 40% of north americans don't agree with evolution?

[warren211]

I'm Catholic. I believe in evolution. The Catholic Church cannot deny the cornerstone of Biology. It's the fundamentalists who tend to disagree. I was taught by a rather liberal priest that Genesis was mostly symbolism. The whole "create 6 days, rest the 7th" was based on the Israeli work days. If you're God, you really don't need a break.

 

 

 

And of course, the Genesis "day" can mean any period of time. Day one could have lasted 30 seconds The day with the creation of animals and people could have lasted all 64 million years, enough for evolution to take place. No one said evolution and creationism couldn't go hand in hand (unless they are blatantly against creationism).

[Lenticular_J]

Wasn't it like 40% of north americans don't agree with evolution?

 

Probably more along the lines of 4%. Although I wouldn't be surprised if 40% didn't exactly understand it. Not that anybody really does.

 

 

 

Stupid Space Odyssey is making me think some cosmic visitors gave us a helping hand. I don't think we'd be able to evolve that fast into us humans.

[iLootChests]

rofl i would like to say about 60% of "true facts" are jus wat hasn't been proven wrong every year there is about 10-20 things tht is "provin" wrong but all in all most things are like widly ranged guesses so as far as evolution goes ima have to say we eloved from a rock bcuz no one can prove me wrong or right so pce

[iLootChests]

Wasn't it like 40% of north americans don't agree with evolution?

 

Probably more along the lines of 4%. Although I wouldn't be surprised if 40% didn't exactly understand it. Not that anybody really does.

 

 

 

Stupid Space Odyssey is making me think some cosmic visitors gave us a helping hand. I don't think we'd be able to evolve that fast into us humans.

sorry to double post but no ur wrong its about 50-70% of us north americans tht dont belive in fact i belive in the band Korn better then scintists on evolution as there song which is Korn - Evolution makes more since to me cuz in fact people may say we came from gorillaz or something like tht but the have no proof it is all 1 big guess all bcuz we have close DNA a fly can have close DNA to a misquito but dosnt meen tht a fly was once a misquito

[Lenticular_J]

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.

 

That isn't the best example to use. That's more of an adaptation than what I'd assume the OP is referring to by evolution, which is full-fledged-we-used-to-be-fish-olution.

 

 

 

sorry to double post but no ur wrong its about 50-70% of us north americans tht dont belive in fact i belive in the band Korn better then scintists on evolution as there song which is Korn - Evolution makes more since to me cuz in fact people may say we came from gorillaz or something like tht but the have no proof it is all 1 big guess all bcuz we have close DNA a fly can have close DNA to a misquito but dosnt meen tht a fly was once a misquito

 

Do you know where North America is?

[demonfirzen]

sorry to double post but no ur wrong its about 50-70% of us north americans tht dont belive in fact i belive in the band Korn better then scintists on evolution as there song which is Korn - Evolution makes more since to me cuz in fact people may say we came from gorillaz or something like tht but the have no proof it is all 1 big guess all bcuz we have close DNA a fly can have close DNA to a misquito but dosnt meen tht a fly was once a misquito

 

Obvious troll.

[EdgedThesis]

Wasn't it like 40% of north americans don't agree with evolution?

 

Probably more along the lines of 4%. Although I wouldn't be surprised if 40% didn't exactly understand it. Not that anybody really does.

 

 

 

Stupid Space Odyssey is making me think some cosmic visitors gave us a helping hand. I don't think we'd be able to evolve that fast into us humans.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, there's no constant time-frame for evolution. It's all based off of random mutations, which can happen, well, randomly. Million years or 1000 years. Though the latter is unlikely, It's plausible. 'Specially in animals with really short lifespans.

 

 

 

Cosmic visitors would've been cool. Just because I have a small hope at the back of my head that they'll show up again and we'd get a jump in tech.

[iLootChests]

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.

 

That isn't the best example to use. That's more of an adaptation than what I'd assume the OP is referring to by evolution, which is full-fledged-we-used-to-be-fish-olution.

 

 

 

sorry to double post but no ur wrong its about 50-70% of us north americans tht dont belive in fact i belive in the band Korn better then scintists on evolution as there song which is Korn - Evolution makes more since to me cuz in fact people may say we came from gorillaz or something like tht but the have no proof it is all 1 big guess all bcuz we have close DNA a fly can have close DNA to a misquito but dosnt meen tht a fly was once a misquito

 

Do you know where North America is?

no of course not i live in it but dont kno where it is at... ;) its kinda common since that i kno where im at :lol:

[aquariusman]

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?

 

The definition of theory is usually a claim that has not be definitively proved with scientific backing. Evolution and Creation are theories.

[OldJoe]

Agnostic as i am, i accept it.

 

Never believed in god, never will.

 

 

 

but i do understand people get comfort in praying to "a higher form". especially in difficult times.

[Nadril]

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?

 

The definition of theory is usually a claim that has not be definitively proved with scientific backing. Evolution and Creation are theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

 

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

 

 

 

I have to copy/paste this so many times in these debates that, honestly, it gets old.

[Lenticular_J]

The definition of theory is usually a claim that has not be definitively proved with scientific backing. Evolution and Creation are theories.

 

I like Created/Accelerated Evolution. That God made it or sped it up or something along those lines. Yeah, it's my own theory.

 

 

 

Agnostic as i am, i accept it.

 

Never believed in god, never will.

 

Don't exactly understand why everyone but monotheistic folks can believe in it.

[fastortoise]

Okay tip.it, here's the thing about Science...

 

It's vocabulary is much different than general vocabulary. If I said "this is a fact", that would be the highest statement possible. However, in Science, facts are pocket change. You can't buy a popsicle with a dozen facts because facts NEED to be backed up with evidence.

 

 

 

Theories, in science, are the highest possible statement. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution. It SOUNDS like you have the choice to believe in it or not, but really it's a well established scientific "fact". Language used by people of a certain subject it extremely important if you want to start debating about it.

 

 

 

Also, Science theories must always be able to be proven wrong. So let's say one guy proves fossils are just fancy rocks, it would destroy the entire theory of evolution. This is why Intelligent Design does not work and shouldn't be taught in high school science classrooms. If it was science, we should be able to have the option to prove it wrong. And since Intelligent Design cannot be contested, it's not considered a science. I mean, how the hell are we supposed to prove that there isn't a giant dude living in an imaginary dimension creating human life with his mind.

[OldJoe]

The definition of theory is usually a claim that has not be definitively proved with scientific backing. Evolution and Creation are theories.

 

I like Created/Accelerated Evolution. That God made it or sped it up or something along those lines. Yeah, it's my own theory.

 

 

 

Agnostic as i am, i accept it.

 

Never believed in god, never will.

 

Don't exactly understand why everyone but monotheistic folks can believe in it.

 

 

 

I don't believe in that "humans just popped up of nowhere". Come one, humans aren't a supreme race, altho we act like one. Why would we be created from a god, who thinks that the human-kind is supreme. If we were to be supreme, then we'd been gifted with a far better brain. Seeing all the troubles going on today, i would never believe (i won't anyways) that another lifre-form created us.

 

People have different believes, i accept that. But i'm not gonna swing with the god theory just because of that.

[iLootChests]

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)

i 160% agree as there is no strong proof and there is many flaws in the thery also i think i would belive it the same if they said we came from a rock bcuz there is as much proof that we come from a rock as there is from the thery that states we come from a monkey which is none no proof at all also i dont belive in god either im supposed to belive he is my savior when i have never had to be saved... yet this religion startd from jesus who was spreading the religion of jewish ppl and all u ppl may think jesus christ is is name well its not they made tht up about 2 years after he died it was infact jesus of nazereth christ is just a name that happened to become there and 1 last thing i am supposided to belive he ra9se from the dead and his body dissapeared umm.... im preety sure it is against any religion to dig up a dead body especilly from someone famous bcuz jesus was a famous speaker from spreading jewish religion and a main flaw i have found in the christian/chaolic religion is that bcuz talked about the religion a differnt way they made it another differnt religion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......................................................................................and can i ask anyone here do u belive in a manbearpigzebrafish bcuz if u dont y would u belive in god u have never seen either bcuz in fact both are made up fictional charicter the only differnce is god was made up about 1900 years ago and manbearpigzebrafish i just made up

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--edit: also 1 more true fact god was made up around 100-200 years after jesus rose up from the ground so wat does that say most ppl say jesus did notmake those religons when he so called "rose" its an idea that some one came up with all bcuz jesus had 2-3 differnt ideas about the jewish religion

 

 

 

 

 

--edit: if we came from gorillaz where did they come from where did dinosaurs come from ahh so explain tht ppl god diddnt make anything in fact all "god" made is a religion which was probily some 87 year old guy thinkin of a name for his grandchild

[EdgedThesis]

The definition of theory is usually a claim that has not be definitively proved with scientific backing. Evolution and Creation are theories.

 

I like Created/Accelerated Evolution. That God made it or sped it up or something along those lines. Yeah, it's my own theory.

 

 

 

Agnostic as i am, i accept it.

 

Never believed in god, never will.

 

Don't exactly understand why everyone but monotheistic folks can believe in it.

 

 

 

I don't believe in that "humans just popped up of nowhere". Come one, humans aren't a supreme race, altho we act like one. Why would we be created from a god, who thinks that the human-kind is supreme. If we were to be supreme, then we'd been gifted with a far better brain. Seeing all the troubles going on today, i would never believe (i won't anyways) that another lifre-form created us.

 

People have different believes, i accept that. But i'm not gonna swing with the god theory just because of that.

 

 

 

Don't be so quick to turn this into a religious argument. I can already see people trying to rebut you by saying that we are being tested.

 

 

 

This is more of an education for people who don't understand the fundamentals of evolution. Because, as someone has said before, there is nothing to 'believe'. For all intents and purposes, this 'theory' is basically 'fact'. This is an informative topic.

 

 

 

For example, I never knew about that moth adaptation--and now I'm just a little bit more enlightened.

[warri0r45]

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?

 

The definition of theory is usually a claim that has not be definitively proved with scientific backing. Evolution and Creation are theories.

 

 

 

Not quite, mate. A theory in a scientific context is a body of experimental evidence and data used to explain a group of natural phenomena. A theory is about understand something, it's not one step below "proven". Theories can be very rigorous and consistent explanations by virtue of all the data and evidence in favour of them and the predictions they make. Atomic theory is an example of a very solid theory. So is the theory of evolution.

 

 

 

In actuality, the notion that we share common ancestry with other organisms is considered fact by biologists. There's really a lot of very good evidence for that concept and nothing that's contradicted it. The theory of evolution is mostly dealing with the understanding of how it happened/happens.

 

 

 

Creationism is a religious belief. It's nowhere near a scientific theory.

 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

Mage, your understanding of evolution is seriously lacking.

 

 

 

Let me use your example and actually represent evolution correctly:

 

 

 

A population evolves when the individuals pass on mutations or non-mutated alleles to their offspring in a disproportionate number.

 

 

 

Say for example there's this country, called Reality. In Reality, everyone has blue eyes except for one person, with brown eyes. In Reality, the allele for brown eyes will only spread throughout the population if there is a reproductive advantage to having brown eyes. The process of disproportionate survival according to reproductive advantage of certain traits is called natural selection. The resulting change in allele frequency over time is called evolution. An allele is a variation of a gene.

 

 

 

We know that this process happens. It's the process by which bacteria gain antibiotic resistance in hospitals - the few that have a gene for antibiotic resistance (on a piece of DNA called an R-plasmid) will survive more often than those that don't, and therefore they will spread their genes to future generations in a disproportionate number. If you want to know more about the process involved, just google "conjugation."

 

 

 

I don't actually expect you to agree with facts or reality, but I like talking about biology anyway, so hopefully some other people got something out of this explanation.

[Zierro]

Isn't there an island somewhere with remains of really small people (to match the limited amount of food the island has) - which pretty much proves evolution itself?

[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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Wow, why do people immidiately think that I pay no attention when we do Bio courses? Infact, the only reason I don't know too much about evolution was due to school changing and stuff, right when the old school was starting a topic on it.

 

 

 

It is worth it, because I see it as false, just as you see God as false.