How can you believe in evolution?

[Puff-Puff-Pass Land]

You may believe it, and that's all well and good, but what evidence is there to support your belief?

God is my evidence, heathen non-believer.

When can I make an appointment with God to interview him about this?

I've got his number somewhere...

[Stephen Colbert USA]

You may believe it, and that's all well and good, but what evidence is there to support your belief?

God is my evidence, heathen non-believer.

When can I make an appointment with God to interview him about this?

Just pray and get his attention. Keep in mind he may sometimes have no comment. He will speak to you through the mind.

[The Master M]

You may believe it, and that's all well and good, but what evidence is there to support your belief?

God is my evidence, heathen non-believer.

When can I make an appointment with God to interview him about this?

Just pray and get his attention. Keep in mind he may sometimes have no comment. He will speak to you through the mind.

what makes you qualified to say this? I am god, and I rarely listen. If you pray to your false gods and there is no answer, that means yes

*Prays* AR EVOLUTION BE TRUE?

...

[Ifreann]

You may believe it, and that's all well and good, but what evidence is there to support your belief?

God is my evidence, heathen non-believer.

When can I make an appointment with God to interview him about this?

Just pray and get his attention. Keep in mind he may sometimes have no comment. He will speak to you through the mind.

I'd prefer something that can be recorded....

[Big Jim P]

You may believe it, and that's all well and good, but what evidence is there to support your belief?

God is my evidence, heathen non-believer.

When can I make an appointment with God to interview him about this?

Just pray and get his attention. Keep in mind he may sometimes have no comment. He will speak to you through the mind.

I'd prefer something that can be recorded....

Just start writing BS, and claim it is the true Word of God. It worked 2 000 years ago.

[Stephen Colbert USA]

You may believe it, and that's all well and good, but what evidence is there to support your belief?

God is my evidence, heathen non-believer.

When can I make an appointment with God to interview him about this?

Just pray and get his attention. Keep in mind he may sometimes have no comment. He will speak to you through the mind.

I'd prefer something that can be recorded....

You're a liberal-hippie, aren't you? Why don't you just go evolve a device made out of dead baby monkeys and taxes and it will give you all the answers you crave.

[Obamacain]

Just in case nobody already answered it this way I am restating it:

Proof of evolution is found in:
Embryology- revealing similarities in embryos
Fossil Record- showing gradual (+punctuated equilibrium) changes in structures
Homologous structures- showing common body plans-points to common ancestor
Chemical Evidence- Showing most organisms share the same Hox genes and showing that similar organisms have similar DNA (reveals speciation)
Bacterial Resistance to Antibodies- showing the progression of a substance and adaptations
Geographic Distrubution- showing similarities and branching by area

These can be easily proven and do not contradict creationism is anyway. Note that Darwin was a creationist.

Longer theory of evolution (a.k.a incorporation of the theory of Evolution into all life as we know it):
Beginning Earth formed. Eventually it cooled enough for water to remain a liquid. Eventually vents in the bottom of the ocean, hydrothermal, cause geothermal reactions that spawn cell-like structures like the protenoid microsphere. Eventually with the usage of nucleic acid these were able to adapt. The cells changed with the adaptations of mitochondria and chloroplasts helping them make more energy. This is called the Endosymbiotic theory read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory.

Multicellular life eventually emerged after cells began to work together for the common goal of all life, food a.k.a. energy. During this time, these cells adapted to a new form of reproduction, sexual rather than asexual. The new form of reproduction caused what is known as the Cambrian Explosion as new species emerged more quickly. This is due to the fact that sexual reproduction leaves more room for adaptations.

Now you're wondering where we come from. Well about 360 million years ago a creature who was recently been uncovered named the Ichthyostega crawled onto land to avoid predation. This made the species more fit. The species however, was more like an amphibian because it still had to live in the ocean. However, many adaptations later it had adapted to living entirely on land. Link: http://www.livescience.com/animals/050831_four_legs.html

This species went through adaptive radiation, producing many different animal species over time. Insects and plants had already been around FYI. Now we are going to make another jump to the time of the dinosaurs. During this time, the mammal population emerged, though it was low. One of the first species was the Megazostrodon which was a rodent-amphibian mix. After the K-T extinction, there were no dinosaurs to provide predation to the mammals. So, they went through another adaptive radiation producing many different species of mammals.

Eventually the hominid section of the evolutionary tree emerged. Among this branch were old world monkeys and new world monkeys (old world- Europe+Asia, New World-Americas). We eventually developed from a group of old world monkey that learned how to stand upright. After this they developed tool learning skills, or possibly even before as other apes have learned how to do this. The main reason for our large brain is that their was an adaptation after we became a more settled population that lessened the strength of the jaw muscle. This caused the brain plates to fuse later and permitted more brain development.

Proof of Human descendancy from apes include similar DNA and similar behaviors as well as embryology

You know, if people don't respond to your post, that generally means they agree but can't don't feel like spamming to tell you.

Not looking for agreement just trying to make the debate more interesting

[Ifreann]

You may believe it, and that's all well and good, but what evidence is there to support your belief?

God is my evidence, heathen non-believer.

When can I make an appointment with God to interview him about this?

Just pray and get his attention. Keep in mind he may sometimes have no comment. He will speak to you through the mind.

I'd prefer something that can be recorded....

You're a liberal-hippie, aren't you? Why don't you just go evolve a device made out of dead baby monkeys and taxes and it will give you all the answers you crave.

I'm working on it, but you know what they say about eggs and baskets.

[Palidania]

1. Evolution is a theory not a fact, stating we evolved over time from primitive life forms.
2. The Big Bang is also a theory not a fact and has nothing to do with Evolution.

[Big Jim P]

1. Evolution is a theory not a fact, stating we evolved over time from primitive life forms.
2. The Big Bang is also a theory not a fact and has nothing to do with Evolution.

And creationism is neither theory nor fact.

[Ifreann]

1. Evolution is a theory not a fact, stating we evolved over time from primitive life forms.

Not quite, on both counts. Evolution is a fact, it's the "By Natural Selection" bit that's the theory. Further, that theory doesn't state that we evolved over time from more primitive life forms, though the evidence suggests we did.

[Skirtingboard]

1. Evolution is a theory not a fact, stating we evolved over time from primitive life forms.
2. The Big Bang is also a theory not a fact and has nothing to do with Evolution.

And creationism is neither theory nor fact.

It makes for a good bedtime story though.

[Tungookska]

Why thank you, I did win that argument.

Sarcasm -meter broken?

He's role-playing. Consider who Stephen Colbert is.

but colbert is intelligent

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1. Evolution is a theory not a fact, stating we evolved over time from primitive life forms.
2. The Big Bang is also a theory not a fact and has nothing to do with Evolution.

That the universe is expanding and that the Friedmann cosmology explains the current expansion with remarkable accuracy is a fact.

You see, in science, theories and facts are separate. A "fact" is not a theory that's been proven. An absolutely proven theory (which isn't even possible) would still be a theory. You see, theories are explanations, and facts are observations. Theory is not an expression of the tenuous nature of an idea, but rather of its function.

God, how many times has this been explained before?

[United Dependencies]

1. Evolution is a theory not a fact, stating we evolved over time from primitive life forms.
2. The Big Bang is also a theory not a fact and has nothing to do with Evolution.

That the universe is expanding and that the Friedmann cosmology explains the current expansion with remarkable accuracy is a fact.

You see, in science, theories and facts are separate. A "fact" is not a theory that's been proven. An absolutely proven theory (which isn't even possible) would still be a theory. You see, theories are explanations, and facts are observations. Theory is not an expression of the tenuous nature of an idea, but rather of its function.

God, how many times has this been explained before?

And where do law's fit into this picture?

[Stephen Colbert USA]

Why thank you, I did win that argument.

Sarcasm -meter broken?

He's role-playing. Consider who Stephen Colbert is.

but colbert is intelligent

Thank you!

[Karsol]

1. Evolution is a theory not a fact, stating we evolved over time from primitive life forms.
2. The Big Bang is also a theory not a fact and has nothing to do with Evolution.

That the universe is expanding and that the Friedmann cosmology explains the current expansion with remarkable accuracy is a fact.

You see, in science, theories and facts are separate. A "fact" is not a theory that's been proven. An absolutely proven theory (which isn't even possible) would still be a theory. You see, theories are explanations, and facts are observations. Theory is not an expression of the tenuous nature of an idea, but rather of its function.

God, how many times has this been explained before?

And where do law's fit into this picture?

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And where do law's fit into this picture?

Laws neither explain nor are they observations. A law is a mathematically predictive model. It can be tested, but it doesn't actually explain anything. Newton's laws of motion describe motion, are enormously useful, and serve as the basis for classical physics. However, they don't really explain. WHY doesn't an object retain its present state of motion absent the action of a force? Well, special relativity actually does explain that, but Newton's laws don't.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

[Palidania]

both of you are correct. the origin of life is still debated today and probably for the rest of time.
whats natural selection?

[United Dependencies]

And where do law's fit into this picture?

Laws neither explain nor are they observations. A law is a mathematically predictive model. It can be tested, but it doesn't actually explain anything. Newton's laws of motion describe motion, are enormously useful, and serve as the basis for classical physics. However, they don't really explain. WHY doesn't an object retain its present state of motion absent the action of a force? Well, special relativity actually does explain that, but Newton's laws don't.

Thank you.

[Ifreann]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

[Karsol]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

[Ifreann]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

Laws that don't work in every situation can still be useful. See: Newton's Laws of Motion.

[Treznor]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

The concept of "laws of nature" derive back when it was assumed such things could be conclusively proven without a shadow of a doubt. You'll notice there have been no new laws announced in a long, long time, not because our understanding is lacking but because it's been enhanced. We now assume the default position that sufficient evidence is enough to make a hypothesis into a theory, but we're still too early in the process of discovery to declare we know everything about anything. Operating with the default assumption of "I don't know" enables us to pursue questions that might otherwise escape us if we assume we understand enough to stop looking.