The Theory of Evolution

Finn said:

I'd say that the problem is that these people don't understand the principles of science. The post above is a prime example of it.

In fact, the concept of nothing being certain is the whole basis of science. Everything has to be disputable, granted there is enough data to support the turnover of a given theory. One can always look to make the odds better, but no self-respecting scientist deals in absolutes, no matter how much laymen might be demanding them.


And this is why there'll never be a resolution to this matter. Especially since in a way believing in the numbers is almost as much a matter of faith as is believing in something else.

Click to expand...

Indeed. My point on 'no absolutes' was in my above post; I cannot prove nor disprove God - nor ghosts for that matter - but I'm certain through what evidence suggests that God is a remnant of ancient ideologies and misunderstandings. God is folk lore.

Religion is a product of wanting to know without really trying. Ultimately, religion is the easy way out, ie the convenient way.

Jack Nelligan said:

most true scientist don?t call creationism a theory, they dismiss it as ignorant ranting of the unenlightened.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse the ideals of science with the opinions of some scientists.

Some one was talking about evidence before well heres some evidence to support the theory

comparative anatomy - in the bone structures of a human, seal, frog, crocodile, wing of a bat and bird, dog an many others all have a very similar structuring of the fore arm. This most likley means some were down the line millions of years ago there was a common ancestor.

comparative embryology - the embryo of a human, monkey, pig, chicken and salamander all have gills during early development, leading to suggest the same thing as before.

And as for the comment made before about so what we share DNA with lots of animals, or something along those lines. that means we are related although along long time ago the the more different the DNA the longer ago that organism broke of from our evolutionary path.

Now those are the facts and evolution is the best interpretation of those facts. In advanced biology we were told at the start that evolution is the theory of how life on Earth diversified from then on it was taught like it was fact but she had explained at the start it was a theory, so I'm not really sure whats happening at that school your talking about.

Another interesting tidbit is the following:

In the antique ages, the median height of an average human male was somewhere in 5'4" to 5'6" range. Females were commonly lucky if they got past five inches. They've had enough remains from those ages to study to make this a statistical fact - which is the only kind science deals with, anyway.

These days these numbers are, as we all know, in a range somewhere between 5' 8" and 5 10" for men and from 5' 5" to 5' 7" for women.


By studying these remains they've also managed to conclude that the average age of man from those times was somewhere between 50 and 60 years -and this means under ideal circumstances and avoiding a violent end.

How shocking it is to find, that these days the life expectancy under similar circumstances is somewhere between 70 and 80.


Now, what does this tell us? While we definitely have made no jump into whole another species, in a matter of mere millennia we humans have become beings that are bigger, stronger and live longer than those that were before us.

In other words, we have very much evolved. And the odds are we continue to do so.

What are we to become given a few million years more, no one can say for sure. And even after these things being stated, while there are people still doubtful about the common origin of species (and that is their right), I don't think there is anyone who is brazen enough to dispute the existence of evolutionary process in itself - at least without becoming a laughing stock.

It's funny how the pro evolution side on this thread continue to put out practical examples to discuss and the pro creationist side continues to put out empassioned pleas and ancient traditions.

I for one can't understand why people with faith in God insist on applying an article of faith, morality and spirituality as a blueprint or a text book for the construct of the natural world.

The source of creationism: The Bible is not about the construct of the phyical universe, it's about man's relationship with man and God.


Quick question: what's a vestigial tail?

Rocket Surgeon said:

Quick question: what's a vestigial tail?

Click to expand...

The remains of a tail at the base of the spinal column we humans have... coccyx

Montana Smith said:

The remains of a tail at the base of the spinal column we humans have... coccyx

Click to expand...

Eeewwww!

People had tails? Why?

Do some people still have tails?

Why would God put a tail on a person?

Rocket Surgeon said:

Eeewwww!

People had tails? Why?

Click to expand...

We all had tails once (well, before we became 'humans', that is). Gorillas and chimps also have vestigial tails. You need a prehensile tail for balance and as a fifth limb if you spend a lot of time up in the trees. When homo spent more time on the ground he didn't need a tail anymore - maybe it got in the way, wasn't used, so the muscles weren't exercised, became weak, and successive generations no longer carried the DNA that told to tail to grow. So all we have now is the tip of the spine - just as much as we need to bind the muscles and enable us to walk upright.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Do some people still have tails??

Click to expand...

There was a comedy film (Shallow Hal?) where one of the characters reveals he has a little tail! Eeewwww
indeed!

I think there may be cases like this for real.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Why would God put a tail on a person?

Click to expand...

My answer would be that He didn't. The tail existed on the primates from which we appear to have developed.

Montana Smith said:

...we need to bind the muscles and enable us to walk upright.

Click to expand...

Ah, "four legs good, two legs better".

I find it funny that the Pro Evolution community and Scientists argue against Creationism by saying that it can?t be proven and you can?t go on a person?s FAITH alone, all the while they are asking us to have FAITH in there research and methods, that have not proven anything either. I see this as a struggle between FAITH in God and FAITH in Man. You choose!

Jack Nelligan said:

I see this as a struggle between FAITH in God and FAITH in Man. You choose!

Click to expand...

THAT is apparent, but who do you trust to tell you the will of God? MEN?

Rocket Surgeon said:

THAT is apparent, but who do you trust to tell you the will of God? MEN?

Click to expand...

I'll figure it out on my own!

Jack Nelligan said:

I find it funny that the Pro Evolution community and Scientists argue against Creationism by saying that it can’t be proven and you can’t go on a person’s FAITH alone, all the while they are asking us to have FAITH in there research and methods, that have not proven anything either. I see this as a struggle between FAITH in God and FAITH in Man. You choose!

Click to expand...

Jack, the argument is really about degrees of evidence.

A rationalist will believe what he imagines is possible. (Rene Descartes: 'I doubt, therefore I think, I think, therefore I am'. Descartes believed in God because he could imagine God).

An empricist will believe only what can be demonstrated.

Your faith is sacrosanct. It is futile to argue against somebody's faith, since it is their faith. Faith comes from within. Hard science requires hard evidence. Little by little the mysteries of the universe are unravelled and become laws which can be proved by experiment.

Jack Nelligan said:

I'll figure it out on my own!

Click to expand...

Good luck, me, I'll continue to figure out morality and spirituality with inspiration from the lessons in the Bible. As for how the natural world works, so far science has put man on the moon and published pictures from Mars...I think I'll leave figuring out that part of God's plan to like people.

Disclaimer for my first post on the subject: Science wasn't my best subject in school. I know what I believe, but I don't have the in-depth, scientific vocabulary to always explain it persuasively. And I'm not committed enough to the argument to do a lot of research to disprove anyone else's point-of-view. Believe what you want; ignore what you want.

That being said:

indy34 said:

Some one was talking about evidence before well heres some evidence to support the theory

comparative anatomy - in the bone structures of a human, seal, frog, crocodile, wing of a bat and bird, dog an many others all have a very similar structuring of the fore arm. This most likley means some were down the line millions of years ago there was a common ancestor.

comparative embryology - the embryo of a human, monkey, pig, chicken and salamander all have gills during early development, leading to suggest the same thing as before.

And as for the comment made before about so what we share DNA with lots of animals, or something along those lines. that means we are related although along long time ago the the more different the DNA the longer ago that organism broke of from our evolutionary path.

Now those are the facts and evolution is the best interpretation of those facts...

Click to expand...

People with a certain point-of-view tend to interpret evidence in a way that supports their point-of-view. This evidence supporting a common ancestor could also be used to support a common creator. Vertebrates have similar skeletal structures because we were all designed by the same person.

Rocket Surgeon said:

so far science has put man on the moon

Click to expand...

They filmed that in Nevada

I love conspiracy theories even more than the theory of evolution!

Junior Jones said:

Disclaimer for my first post on the subject: Science wasn't my best subject in school. I know what I believe, but I don't have the in-depth, scientific vocabulary to always explain it persuasively. And I'm not committed enough to the argument to do a lot of research to disprove anyone else's point-of-view. Believe what you want; ignore what you want.

That being said:


People with a certain point-of-view tend to interpret evidence in a way that supports their point-of-view. This evidence supporting a common ancestor could also be used to support a common creator. Vertebrates have similar skeletal structures because we were all designed by the same person.

Click to expand...

You are correct! The only thing flawed about Science is Man, and the same goes for Religion.

I say present Creationism and Evolution and any other THEORY and just that and neither as hard fact.

Montana Smith said:

They filmed that in Nevada

I love conspiracy theories even more than the theory of evolution!

Click to expand...

Amen to that.

Does anyone have any Russian footage of men on the moon?

Montana Smith said:

They filmed that in Nevada

I love conspiracy theories even more than the theory of evolution!

Click to expand...

Fine! ( )God isn't the only one to change a man's heart, (figuratively), but (medical) science is still the only way to exchange a person's heart, (literally).

Oh, thanks to the advances from those "scientists" who faked the moon landing and interpret evidence to support their point-of-view.

Junior, there are bad scientists just as there are bad rabbis, priests and imams. What's the common denominator? MAN. Not science.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Good luck, me, I'll continue to figure out morality and spirituality with inspiration from the lessons in the Bible. As for how the natural world works, so far science has put man on the moon and published pictures from Mars...I think I'll leave figuring out that part of God's plan to like people.

Click to expand...

I don't need luck, I have the Bible and the word of God and that is how I would figure it out on my own, or shoud I say with God's help of course.