Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Somali Caliphate]

So I'm stupid because I reject some rehashed fairy-tale that's promoted by the elite as an alternative to religion? Really? I'm stupid for questioning what the merits of this theory and finding it has none?

[Chinese Regions]

So I'm stupid because I reject some rehashed fairy-tale that's promoted by the elite as an alternative to religion? Really? I'm stupid for questioning what the merits of this theory and finding it has none?

Irony is fun

[Big Jim P]

So I'm stupid because I reject some rehashed fairy-tale that's promoted by the elite as an alternative to religion? Really? I'm stupid for questioning what the merits of this theory and finding it has none?

No, because you accept one.

[Divair]

Fuck it, evidence time.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Still waiting for someone to refute all of this.

[Divair]

So I'm stupid because I reject some rehashed fairy-tale that's promoted by the elite as an alternative to religion? Really? I'm stupid for questioning what the merits of this theory and finding it has none?

No, because you accept one.

I'm beginning to think Poe.

[Ostroeuropa]

So I'm stupid because I reject some rehashed fairy-tale that's promoted by the elite as an alternative to religion? Really? I'm stupid for questioning what the merits of this theory and finding it has none?

You don't know how science works do you.

[Mavorpen]

I'm stupid for questioning what the merits of this theory and finding it has none?

You're not questioning anything. You're going out of your way to spam us with bullshit while refusing to address anything that refutes you.

[Rudie]

Can someone explain why they accept Evolution? Apart from the non-existent scientific evidence? Are people that desperate to deny God exists? Because Evolution is not merely a bogus theory, it is a religion in its own right and it fails to live up to any of the conditions that exist for a coherent scientific theory.

Evolution has a lot of scientific evidence. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god and both can coincide.

I'd disagree: evolutionary experimentation requires some time-frame to work under, even if it be indefinite. Divinely-originated evolution assumes any analysable time-conversion rate between physical time and 'metaphysical time', assuming the latter can even be quantified by sentient beings, as if creation was operated by a metaphysical being then it presumably would function under metaphysical time; or, at least, physical time would've been created by this being.

As the hypothesis of 'divine evolution' can't be scientifically studied, it is incompatible with modern evolutionary theory, to my understanding.

[Big Jim P]

No, because you accept one.

I'm beginning to think Poe.

Stupidity is a simpler hypothesis.

[Divair]

I'm beginning to think Poe.

Stupidity is a simpler hypothesis.

But the way it's worded...

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm beginning to think Poe.

Stupidity is a simpler hypothesis.

Hanlons Razor.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
"Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or sense."

Here, understanding is key.
You do not understand evolution, despite it having been explained AT LENGTH to you, ergo...

If we dismiss hanlons razor, then yeh. Malice.


So, in a minor threadjack in a desperate attempt to keep this alive, i'm going to expand on the OP and say
"Do you believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection?"

(I.E, are there any punctuated equilibriumists here?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

[Unchecked Expansion]

OIkay, let's move away from philosophy and on to more concrete evidence. Can anyone here who believes in Evolution provide evidence for ONE single fossil that shows a semi-evolved form of an animal, e.g say something between a dinosaur and a bird. As for so called human ape fossils, not a single one which was found showed that it was of a distinct species (i.e not human like you or I) and numerous examples exist of frauds such as the Piltdown Man, which was nothing more than a human, which had the jaws of an ape added to it. Not to mention the massive gap in the fossil record, which suggests that species of animals appeared and disappeared and not merely evolved into a new form- if this was the case, there would be plenty of fossils of hybrid animals- can't think of a better word for it.

Every single fossil ever.
Evolution doesn't work like pokemon, it's constant. Every generation of every species is evolving.
As for gaps - you do realise not every dead organism will fossilise? It takes a very specific set of circumstances to produce a fossil, which then has to survive potentially millions of years of geological activity in one piece, somewhere accessible where we can find it. It's hardly a surprise we can't document every species that has ever been alive.

[Ostroeuropa]

OIkay, let's move away from philosophy and on to more concrete evidence. Can anyone here who believes in Evolution provide evidence for ONE single fossil that shows a semi-evolved form of an animal, e.g say something between a dinosaur and a bird. As for so called human ape fossils, not a single one which was found showed that it was of a distinct species (i.e not human like you or I) and numerous examples exist of frauds such as the Piltdown Man, which was nothing more than a human, which had the jaws of an ape added to it. Not to mention the massive gap in the fossil record, which suggests that species of animals appeared and disappeared and not merely evolved into a new form- if this was the case, there would be plenty of fossils of hybrid animals- can't think of a better word for it.

Every single fossil ever.
Evolution doesn't work like pokemon, it's constant. Every generation of every species is evolving.
As for gaps - you do realise not every dead organism will fossilise? It takes a very specific set of circumstances to produce a fossil, which then has to survive potentially millions of years of geological activity in one piece, somewhere accessible where we can find it. It's hardly a surprise we can't document every species that has ever been alive.

Pretty much this.
You are a transistional form between your parents and children.
Your great great great (twelve hours later) great grandfather is no different. Except being a fish of somekind.

[Unchecked Expansion]

So I'm stupid because I reject some rehashed fairy-tale that's promoted by the elite as an alternative to religion? Really? I'm stupid for questioning what the merits of this theory and finding it has none?

So, you don't like food, medicine or puppies?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll use the imaginary buckfish again.


There exists an imaginary buckfish in this scenario.
The entire species exists in a salt water lake, and is very well adapted to it.

One day, erosion causes the lake to be connected to a river nearby, and some of the buckfish decide to go up river, and the river splits in two part way up the path, with some going either way.


Some end up in a new lake, and some end up in the ocean.



The ones who stayed in the lakes will over time suffer evolutionary pressure, the ones most able to adapt to massive amounts of fresh water being added will survive, until we reach a point where those who can survive easily in fresh water are all that are left.

The ones who ended up in the sea had no need of this.


The ones who stayed in the initial lake don't really need to adapt further.

The ones who moved to a new lake find they are suddenly PREY of a much larger fish, not the apex predator they were in their initial lake. Pressure is applied for them to gain speed, be small, agile, have good eyesight, and blend in with their surroundings, as well as be able to scavenge, since hunting as a prey is rarely optimal. This is a purely social change, but over time, it is REINFORCED by genetic change. (The sudden need to be fast means the slow will die, etc.)

The ones who moved into the ocean go down into the depths, to a state of almost total darkness.
They have no need of eyes, and small eyes are a good thing here, since having two soft vulnerable spots on your face is a Bad Idea if they don't have any use.
Eventually eyes get small enough to be negligable, and cease to exist at all.
They become a better predator and such, and become dark and murky to blend in with their surroundings.


Now, suppose i dump all 3 in a fish tank.
One is a blind saltwater sea depth predator.
One is a small, agile, freshwater scavenger.
And one is a freshwater buckfish.

ALL are descended from the saltwater buckfish, their common ancestor.

but they are now so different genetically that they cannot interbreed, and may even kill eachother.

What part of that scenario do creationists disagree is possible?


Just change the enviromental pressures on two groups of the same species, and you'll see evolution happen.
Over time, enough drift has occured as to make them radically different and unable to interbreed. At this point, they are a new species.

[Sorisati]

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

Theistic Evolution!!!!

[Ostroeuropa]

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

Theistic Evolution!!!!

Quote mined.
Do you know what he said next?

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.



If you have to lie and misrepresent people to make your point, it's a shit point.

[Uiiop]

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

Theistic Evolution!!!!

calm down it's a quote mine
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
—(Darwin 1872, 143-144)[4]
edit: ninja'd damn

[Unchecked Expansion]

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

Theistic Evolution!!!!

How bout no?

[Ostroeuropa]

Evolution of the eye.



1. A species develops a slightly sensitive part of it' skin that can tell where light is, This is useful, and is actually present in plants to some degree.

2. A slight curvature develops turning I into C over time, since a curvature enables you not only to detect light, but the direction it is coming from.


3. A filter develops over the proto-eye, which greatly enhances your ability to determine shapes and images.

4. The proto-eye is filled with goop over time, probably smething would be born with it empty but with some mutation that causes it to fill over it's life, eventually pressure applied by environment means that things would be born with the eye ready-filled. This again enhances your ability to determine shape.

5. Small improvements occur over time to make the proto-eye a full eye. (From a spherical orb with goop and a filter set inside a curvature, to an actual eye, is far easier to envision.)

[Somali Caliphate]

So I'm stupid because I reject some rehashed fairy-tale that's promoted by the elite as an alternative to religion? Really? I'm stupid for questioning what the merits of this theory and finding it has none?

So, you don't like food, medicine or puppies?

Who doesn't. And just because I'm Muslim doesn't mean I don't like dogs. Just that they have to be outside my house. Every family in rural Somalia has a dog of some kind and its the same in other Muslim countries.

[Furious Grandmothers]

So, you don't like food, medicine or puppies?

Who doesn't. And just because I'm Muslim doesn't mean I don't like dogs. Just that they have to be outside my house. Every family in rural Somalia has a dog of some kind and its the same in other Muslim countries.

That's not his point. His point is that modern food, modern medicine and dog breeds we see now would have been impossible without evolution and are evidence for evolution.

Also, why are you not responding to any of the arguments that 5 or so posters have made in reply to you? It's good exercise to see what they wrote, think it through, find a counterargument, find evidence to further support your case and give your reply. Instead of coming up with new points when you've not even addressed the old ones to put them to a close.

[Tsuntion]

So, you don't like food, medicine or puppies?

Who doesn't. And just because I'm Muslim doesn't mean I don't like dogs. Just that they have to be outside my house. Every family in rural Somalia has a dog of some kind and its the same in other Muslim countries.

Dogs are bred based on some evolutionary principles: take two with the same genetic trait and their offspring will likely have it too, to horrendously oversimplify the process.

Medicine-wise, I don't know what Unchecked Expansion was going to go for but I'd say that medicines are developed based on natural selections: a lot of ideas are tried, those which kill people are discontinued and those which work well are tweaked, if that kills someone a different tweak is tried, and eventually you end up with a working medicine from all those ideas. (Again, oversimplification.)

[Divair]

Who doesn't. And just because I'm Muslim doesn't mean I don't like dogs. Just that they have to be outside my house. Every family in rural Somalia has a dog of some kind and its the same in other Muslim countries.

Dogs are bred based on some evolutionary principles: take two with the same genetic trait and their offspring will likely have it too, to horrendously oversimplify the process.

Medicine-wise, I don't know what Unchecked Expansion was going to go for but I'd say that medicines are developed based on natural selections: a lot of ideas are tried, those which kill people are discontinued and those which work well are tweaked, if that kills someone a different tweak is tried, and eventually you end up with a working medicine from all those ideas. (Again, oversimplification.)

Actually, it has more to do with diseases adapting. The flu, for example, is a huge example of us having to deal with evolution. Once we understand how the flu evolves, we will be able to create a vaccine for all flu strains, both present and future.

[Ostroeuropa]

Who doesn't. And just because I'm Muslim doesn't mean I don't like dogs. Just that they have to be outside my house. Every family in rural Somalia has a dog of some kind and its the same in other Muslim countries.

Dogs are bred based on some evolutionary principles: take two with the same genetic trait and their offspring will likely have it too, to horrendously oversimplify the process.

Medicine-wise, I don't know what Unchecked Expansion was going to go for but I'd say that medicines are developed based on natural selections: a lot of ideas are tried, those which kill people are discontinued and those which work well are tweaked, if that kills someone a different tweak is tried, and eventually you end up with a working medicine from all those ideas. (Again, oversimplification.)

Well that and we need to update them constantly.
Try using todays medicine in 10 years.
Sure, it works now, but by then the illnesses will have evolved to be stronger.