What are the proofs for evolution? Go to a chemist, or microbiologist might be even more handy. There have been tapes of microscopic organisms, over time, clearly becoming more advanced in terms of ability to cope with environment and the weak being “naturally selected.”
Or, go to any of the millions of horse (or other livestock) farms in the world, where mankind has been doing nothing more than expediting the process of evolution. Bigger horses, fatter cows - how do you think it’s accomplished? Magic?
Oreagan,
just read up on Darwin. You can view a thread with relevant information on the topic, go to the Science Forum and look for the EVOLUTION thread and read through the posts.
FACT: Over time, an insect population will build up a resistance to a pesticide used on it. This is because those few members of the population who are genetically able to survive the pesticide will live and pass those genes to their offspring, while those who are susceptible will die and not reproduce. This is called natural selection.
FACT: Evolution is not a mechanism, it is a series of changes. One of the mechanisms through which these changes occur is called “natural selection”, described above.
FACT: Evolution of life forms happens, through a variety of mechanisms.
It’s kinda funny. I was reading this pamphlet based around the debate against evolution that I got from my mall. Basically some lady was singling out kids and preaching to them about why they should believe in god. The pamphlet portrays people who believe in evolution as mindless raiving sheep. The professor of the class is the best. He comes off the same way the first poster “TheRichDude3” does because… obviously everyone who believes in evolution is irrational. But anyway the thing actually produces some good points. I don’t know how much their “proof” will hold up though which is why I’m bringing it up.
First they bring up the chart showing the evolution of prehistoric man to modern man. Each stage kinda offers a little bit of contradictory evidence against evolution. The first few stages state that the models were built up from pieces that turned out to be either other animals or mistaken for some other reason. The later ones like neanderthals and later are just mistaken for modern humans. I don’t really care all that much for their judgement on that but if you want to argue it go ahead.
Later they go on to attack carbon dating. To quote it “Dr. Melvin Cook said that if oil in the earth was as old as geologists claim (80,000,000) it’s pressure would have dissipated long before this - the present pressure of oil indicates not over 10,000 yeras.* *Chapters 12-13 of Prehistory and Earth Models by Melvin A. Coook, Max Parrish and Company, 1966.” Also it says that “scientists working in a lab produced a barrel of oil from one ton of garbage in only 20 minutes.” I don’t know if that’s true but the point is brought up to prove that the earth isn’t as old as it’s said to be. But it just goes against logic. If we could make oil that fast… what the hell are we doing buying it from other countries. I’d like to see how they prove that though. Not only for my own interest but because they basically attack science all together with their next one.
“Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons ni the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space.” That one makes perfect sense but if that’s true what scientific proof of anything can we trust? Also they complete forget that they’re using other scientific laws to prove it.
Then they bring up the infamous moth arguement which I’ve grown to hate mostly because there are so many arguements against it that I just don’t care anymore. They claim the moth is the same species. The reason the black one became more popular is because birds were eating more of the white ones. I mean yea that would make sense but that is the idea of evolution is it not? The more physically apt to survive will.
Another part of the pamphlet brings up the subject of scientists creating life. The kid who is argueing for the christians (did I mention he fits the perfect description of an aryan?) says that the thing that scientists created doesn’t fit the definition of “life”. That make sense too but the definition of life is always under criticism.
Annnnyway. The pamphlet ends with the profesor trying to resign from his position as scientist but there’s one last twist to add even more exciting drama to an already annoying debate. His boss whoever he is degrades him further by insulting him and throwing him out of the college for questioning science.
It’s pretty ridiculous but if you’re interested in being frustrated with peoples arrogance then I suggest you check out their website at chick.com
By the way I’m posting in here because It’s not really like I’m contributing to the debate so I figured I’d keep it seperated.
THe attitude most Christians have adopted is that God works through science. Thus evolution would be the process through which God guided man from ape to what he is today. So God DID design us, man. In fact a lot of scientists are backing the intelligent design theory now (there was an article in either Atlantic Monthly, or Crisis magazines… I’m too tired to remember).
Yep, you’re right he created us. Just the same as he created evolution
—This is addressed to cba1067950 about the pamphlet. Although it is true that piltdown man was a fake (coming from orangutang and human bones), almost all human fossils have never been debunked and thus still remain valid windows to the past.
— After they invalidate carbon 14 testing (which i doubt that they have done) those who argue against evolution will have to invalidate a host of other age testing methods as well as recent discoveries in a plethora of other fields, e.g. geneticists have recently dated ‘mitochondrial eve’ at around 150,000-200,000 years ago. The mitochondria was probably originally a bacteria that decided to attach itself to us, it gets passed down to women at birth, similiar to the way the y chromosome gets passed down to males. (source: Mapping Human History copyright 2002 Houghton Mifflin Books a discover best science book of the year and a national book award finalist.)
— And as others have pointed out here. evolution is not necessarily incompatible with the notion of God or religion.
MAYBE IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY MAYBE GOD CREATED EVOLUTION?
MAYBE EVOLUTION WAS GODS PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSE AND SO WAS THE BIG BANG. MAYBE GOD IS SCIENCE?
PEOPLE ALWAYS SEE RELIGIONAND SCIENCE AS OPPOSING FORCES WHEN MABE THEY ARE THE SAME. LIKE LIFE AND DEATH. YOU CANT HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER…
Or, this is an interseting view, that the bible is actually A METAPHORE for what really happened? How else were those dudes back then supposed to explain it? Maybe the bible tels of the big bang but does not explain it properly beecause they had no way to?
This is probably because science bases its affirmations over knoweledge and logic while religion bases itself upon revealed truths that are imposed rather then argued.
Well theorically you can interpret a book in any way you want o_O
I mean, some people are still re-interpreting the book of revelation every 3 or 4 years to make it fit to the current political situation so that they may claim that the end of times is near.
Most Christians in England (and all Catholics who follow papal doctrine) believe that Genesis is just a metaphor for the big bang. Creationism is only strong in the good old USofA. Cause there’s a lot of stupid people in America (and conversely lots of intelligent ones).
It has been quite obvious since Galileo that they are different. It is the Creationists who want to turn back the clock 500 years and eliminate this crucial distinction.
I dont actually agree. Religion and science offer humans exactly the same magic, mystery and hope of salvation as each other. Science is the new religion.
If they are going to use this excuse why then can we not point out that they can not prove evolution wrong so thus we are justified in believing it exists.
I recently read a book by a creationist (scientist). He managed to convince me that there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution. There is ample evidence for micro evolution, but weak evidence (if any - I haven’t actually come across ANY scientific evidence) for macro evolution. (Macro evolution is the process of one species developing into another. )
I don’t believe in a God for philosophical reasons. However, if I did not hold these philososophical beliefs, after reading the book I read I would be strongly inclined to believe in a created universe.
I think most people presume macro evolution must be real because there is strong evidence for micro evolution. But that is not necessarily the case. Evolution is NOT a proven fact. It is only a theory, and a pretty weak one at that, going by what I have read. It sounds I nice idea - mutations and natural selection and so on. But what appears as obvious is not automatically true. Because the majority believe something also doesn’t make it automatically true.
In this forum people have argued both sides on the basis of it being ‘obvious’ but without supplying any real argument. Evidence for micro evolution is NOT evidence for macro evolution. An argument needs real evidence or reasoning to back it up. No one has done that in this forum, yet most take a very strong stance. Therefore, has this thread actually made ANY progress?
Evolution is absolutely proven true as a possibility. It just isn’t proven for humans. But the reality of evolution doesn’t require it to be specific to humans.
The easiest thing to do is test evolution on bacteria, which multiply rapidly and are easily categorized. Rabbits and mice and fruit flies and corn are fairly useful in this regard too. That’s why they’re used - and hence I know - anyways.
However, in order to absolutely prove evolution in humans - there is still a great statistical certainty that evolution is true for humans - one needs a time machine to convince the most staunch of skeptics.
Regardless, evolution has been proven true tens of thousands of times over in the past 150 years. Just not in humans. If only there were an intelligent species here that lived 10 times as long as us… they’d be able to do the research on humans.
Leo nice observation about the wolves although not all dogs came from wolves and we still have undomesticated dogs in the world today.
Secondly I am not so sure that the only difference between man and lower life is his brain and mind. I believe the organs of man are probably superior to that of other animals, we dont have much in the way of physical armour besides muscle and technology took alot of time to become an adequate survival mechanism. God doesnt give all to any particular creature or thing. I will have to think more about this but I know for one thing that man’s immune system is superior to any other creature and this is not so much because he is more able to control his mental state, it just possesses an innate strength that is not seen in other animals. Animals from small ones to ones larger in stature then humans often die in the matter of days of a virus which would take a lifetime to wipe out a human. I would have to do research to find evidence but i believe this to be the case. The reason our bodies seem so fallible or we dont live as long as certain animal species is that we choose to be that way and we choose not to . Elephants don’t do much, we humans wear ourselves into the ground with a lifetime of work. (I am sorry if most of this is conjecture, there is no usually alot of support for out of the box thinking).
Thirdly, I don’t see why religion and evolution cannot both be the truth unless one takes the garden of eden as existing in another realm, which perhaps it did, but perhaps it didn’t. I used to think that the garden of eden existed in a different realm because paradise seemed so unreal, but now I realize that the garden of eden coincided with the beginning of evolution. God did create man, but first he created ape. Anything without a prototype is risky business. Religious zealots are afraid to think, if they did they would realize that things are not so bad or not so different than they think they are. But try reaching one, thats the rub.
Look, this whole concept is really easy to understand. Different organisms are set up with different tools in order for the organism to sustain life. Most animals have a few basic systems: musculo-skeletal, reproductive, circulatory, endocrine, digestive, pulmonary, excretory, neural, circulatory, and immune. There are a couple I’m neglecting.
Most people I talk to really don’t understand the implications of their musculo-skeletal systems. It exists to provide support to keep the body together, and to make movement possible. Those are the major advantages to be had, but there are certainly many more.
So knowing that, consider this animal:
Compare your skeletal system to a cheetah’s here. Whose skeletal system is superior? Not yours. Actually, by the description, it looks like a cheetah has a superior pulmonary (quick air intake), circulatory (large heart), and endocrine (large adrenals). I’m also willing to bet some neural pathways in brain are more developed than their human counterparts, but not the brain on the whole.
This is basically what you see when you compare and look at all species. You see which of their systems are superior to the same systems in other species. It’s not too often that you see a system that is superior to a human’s, but it does happen. Ask Crush the Sea Turtle how many U.S. presidents he’s lived through.
What makes humans the most powerful animal rulers on earth? Superior brain ability when it comes to three crucial areas: memory, analysis of memories, and communication. However these superior brain traits would be considerably lessened if the tools that we use for sense - the ears, eyes, nose, tongue, nerves under the skin, nerves on the heart - were of lesser quality. Hair’s a good tool. It lets us know which way the wind is blowing before we stick our wet finger in the air for confirmation.
So we’re superior rulers of the earth. No doubt. But we’re not absolutely superior. We just have the most successful combinations. Of course, you wouldn’t know it, considering some of the inferior things we do.
anyways.