How can you believe in evolution?

[Treznor]

Why thank you, I did win that argument.

Sarcasm -meter broken?

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

I don't watch American programing much. >.>

That's why I linked Colbert's breakout performance. The actor duped a lot of people who are clearly deficient in satire receptors in reality, which is why they invited him to the White House Press Corp Dinner to roast Bush. They did not make that mistake twice.

[Ifreann]

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.

[Cheztope]

Well, I can guarantee you that I pay attention because I got 100% on the evolution test, thank you very much. I never said that the material in the movie is correct, but that's what I heard, and that was an answer to a question on the test.

@Sexnation: I do believe in survival of the fittest... I don't just believe in certain aspects of evolution, especially without a creator of the picture. What I don't understad, is why couldn't of a divine being created us to evolve?

It's not that a supernatural creator is impossible. It's just that it's unnecessary, and thus it feels tacked-on and pointless.

Aww... that's what the supernatural creator thinks of you too.

And God did not create us to evolve. It says clearly in the bible "God created man." The Bible did NOT say, "In the beginning, God evolutioned gay monkeys." Sorry, liberal-commies, that's not what happened.

Clearly this one religion out of millions has to be right...

^ win

Why thank you, I did win that argument.

you're such a dumbass, you completely failed in that argument. Look at Obamacain's post. He literally proved Evolution on the page with scientific logic and factual evidence. You used a book written 2 thousand years ago by old people who probably had alzheimers.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Clearly this one religion out of millions has to be right...

You are aware that this poster is a satire semi-troll, yes?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Well, I can guarantee you that I pay attention because I got 100% on the evolution test, thank you very much. I never said that the material in the movie is correct, but that's what I heard, and that was an answer to a question on the test.

@Sexnation: I do believe in survival of the fittest... I don't just believe in certain aspects of evolution, especially without a creator of the picture. What I don't understad, is why couldn't of a divine being created us to evolve?

It's not that a supernatural creator is impossible. It's just that it's unnecessary, and thus it feels tacked-on and pointless.

Aww... that's what the supernatural creator thinks of you too.

And God did not create us to evolve. It says clearly in the bible "God created man." The Bible did NOT say, "In the beginning, God evolutioned gay monkeys." Sorry, liberal-commies, that's not what happened.

Clearly this one religion out of millions has to be right...

^ win

Why thank you, I did win that argument.

you're such a dumbass, you completely failed in that argument. Look at Obamacain's post. He literally proved Evolution on the page with scientific logic and factual evidence. You used a book written 2 thousand years ago by old people who probably had alzheimers.

I'd rather have these intelligent people tell me what's what than those sciency mystics who think they're all that.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

you're such a dumbass, you completely failed in that argument. Look at Obamacain's post. He literally proved Evolution on the page with scientific logic and factual evidence. You used a book written 2 thousand years ago by old people who probably had alzheimers.

Considering it's OBVIOUS sarcasm he's using, I've got to wonder who the dumbass is here.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Also, the whole Stephen Colbert satire thing is completely unfunny and anti-lulz. Stop it.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Also, the whole Stephen Colbert satire thing is completely unfunny and anti-lulz. Stop it.

I quite like it.

[Stygon]

If evolution does exist, who was there to see it, hmmm?

[Buffett and Colbert]

If evolution does exist, who was there to see it, hmmm?

Exactly! I maintain that it's the sciency mystics who want to steal public money!

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If evolution does exist, who was there to see it, hmmm?

Because it's not like there are organisms with short enough generation times that it can be witnessed over the course of months or anything. It's also not like the genetic, anatomical, and phylogenic trees of life perfectly match.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Exactly! I maintain that it's the sciency mystics who want to steal public money!

Quit pretending to be stupid.

[Stygon]

If evolution does exist, who was there to see it, hmmm?

Because it's not like there are organisms with short enough generation times that it can be witnessed over the course of months or anything. It's also not like the genetic, anatomical, and phylogenic trees of life perfectly match.

Then go ahead and waste money trying to live 10,000 years so you can see that it's not true.

[Horn-Bautz]

The theory of evolution is called a theory for a reason. Theories normally change with time and evidence. This one, unfortunately, does not seem to.
There is definitely evolution among species and sub-species. That can be seen from the fossil record, and even in some cases in recorded history. This is sound fact.
Using the available information to say that all life and all species come from one organism is unsustainable by direct evidence. This interpretation of the evidence is popular and widely believed right now, but it is still just an interpretation.
People were once as vigorous in defending the idea that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat.
Likewise, I do not believe in the Eve theory of human evolution. The theory was changed from one female, to three, to five, and I believe is now at seven original female ancestors for all of mankind. This is a sad case of evidence not supporting a theory, and the evidence being changed to fit the theory instead of the other way around. True science can only result from theories which are based on evidence without manipulation if said theory.
Evolution, esp. as in survival of the fittest? Absolutely
Generic evolution of all species (or all humans) from a single descendant? Not proven, and to me, not logical. Why shouldn't life on land have evolved independently from life in the water? etc etc etc

[Stephen Colbert USA]

Also, the whole Stephen Colbert satire thing is completely unfunny and anti-lulz. Stop it.

I quite like it.

I think it's humorous that nobody realizes I'm actually Stephen Colbert...

Or AM I?

Or am I?

Or AM I?

No.

Yes.

Got to continue this argument now...

[Buffett and Colbert]

Exactly! I maintain that it's the sciency mystics who want to steal public money!

Quit pretending to be stupid.

It's much more fun.

[Stygon]

Also, if you think that life existed even just 1 million years ago, it couldn't of been on Earth. Why? Because the magnetic field shrinks about %50 every 100 years or so. So how could anything withstand a magnetic field large enough to reach the moon?

[Stephen Colbert USA]

Well, I can guarantee you that I pay attention because I got 100% on the evolution test, thank you very much. I never said that the material in the movie is correct, but that's what I heard, and that was an answer to a question on the test.

@Sexnation: I do believe in survival of the fittest... I don't just believe in certain aspects of evolution, especially without a creator of the picture. What I don't understad, is why couldn't of a divine being created us to evolve?

It's not that a supernatural creator is impossible. It's just that it's unnecessary, and thus it feels tacked-on and pointless.

Aww... that's what the supernatural creator thinks of you too.

And God did not create us to evolve. It says clearly in the bible "God created man." The Bible did NOT say, "In the beginning, God evolutioned gay monkeys." Sorry, liberal-commies, that's not what happened.

Clearly this one religion out of millions has to be right...

^ win

Why thank you, I did win that argument.

you're such a dumbass, you completely failed in that argument. Look at Obamacain's post. He literally proved Evolution on the page with scientific logic and factual evidence. You used a book written 2 thousand years ago by old people who probably had alzheimers.

Actually, God wrote the bible ten thousand years ago. It just took awhile for him to find a good publisher.

[Horn-Bautz]

The theory of evolution is called a theory for a reason. Theories normally change with time and evidence. This one, unfortunately, does not seem to.
There is definitely evolution among species and sub-species. That can be seen from the fossil record, and even in some cases in recorded history. This is sound fact.
Using the available information to say that all life and all species come from one organism is unsustainable by direct evidence. This interpretation of the evidence is popular and widely believed right now, but it is still just an interpretation.
People were once as vigorous in defending the idea that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat.
Likewise, I do not believe in the Eve theory of human evolution. The theory was changed from one female, to three, to five, and I believe is now at seven original female ancestors for all of mankind. This is a sad case of evidence not supporting a theory, and the evidence being changed to fit the theory instead of the other way around. True science can only result from theories which are based on evidence without manipulation if said theory.
Evolution, esp. as in survival of the fittest? Absolutely
Generic evolution of all species (or all humans) from a single descendant? Not proven, and to me, not logical. Why shouldn't life on land have evolved independently from life in the water? etc etc etc

[Buffett and Colbert]

The theory of evolution is called a theory for a reason. Theories normally change with time and evidence. This one, unfortunately, does not seem to.

I'd be interested in seeing your reaction to a comparison between Darwin's theory and modern science's theory.

Using the available information to say that all life and all species come from one organism is unsustainable by direct evidence.

You're right. Thank goodness the Theory of Evolution doesn't stipulate that.

People were once as vigorous in defending the idea that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat.

Those people used religion as their premise and didn't have access to nearly as many tools to observe the world around them.

Generic evolution of all species (or all humans) from a single descendant? Not proven, and to me, not logical.

Good thing Evolution doesn't say that.

Why shouldn't life on land have evolved independently from life in the water? etc etc etc

Good thing Evolution pretty much says that.

[Horn-Bautz]

Well, I can guarantee you that I pay attention because I got 100% on the evolution test, thank you very much. I never said that the material in the movie is correct, but that's what I heard, and that was an answer to a question on the test.

@Sexnation: I do believe in survival of the fittest... I don't just believe in certain aspects of evolution, especially without a creator of the picture. What I don't understad, is why couldn't of a divine being created us to evolve?

It's not that a supernatural creator is impossible. It's just that it's unnecessary, and thus it feels tacked-on and pointless.

Aww... that's what the supernatural creator thinks of you too.


And God did not create us to evolve. It says clearly in the bible "God created man." The Bible did NOT say, "In the beginning, God evolutioned gay monkeys." Sorry, liberal-commies, that's not what happened.

Clearly this one religion out of millions has to be right...

^ win

Why thank you, I did win that argument.

you're such a dumbass, you completely failed in that argument. Look at Obamacain's post. He literally proved Evolution on the page with scientific logic and factual evidence. You used a book written 2 thousand years ago by old people who probably had alzheimers.

Actually, God wrote the bible ten thousand years ago. It just took awhile for him to find a good publisher.

Actually, arguments presented here are based on interpretation of fact, not fact itself.
Black holes were based on 'scientific fact,' and now even their creator, the legendary Steven Hawkins, has doubts as to the interpretation.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Also, if you think that life existed even just 1 million years ago, it couldn't of been on Earth. Why? Because the magnetic field shrinks about %50 every 100 years or so. So how could anything withstand a magnetic field large enough to reach the moon?

I guess life was just attracted to the Earth.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Then go ahead and waste money trying to live 10,000 years so you can see that it's not true.

That's a great argument against what I said. Way to refute my points there.

[Treznor]

The theory of evolution is called a theory for a reason. Theories normally change with time and evidence. This one, unfortunately, does not seem to.
There is definitely evolution among species and sub-species. That can be seen from the fossil record, and even in some cases in recorded history. This is sound fact.
Using the available information to say that all life and all species come from one organism is unsustainable by direct evidence. This interpretation of the evidence is popular and widely believed right now, but it is still just an interpretation.
People were once as vigorous in defending the idea that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat.
Likewise, I do not believe in the Eve theory of human evolution. The theory was changed from one female, to three, to five, and I believe is now at seven original female ancestors for all of mankind. This is a sad case of evidence not supporting a theory, and the evidence being changed to fit the theory instead of the other way around. True science can only result from theories which are based on evidence without manipulation if said theory.
Evolution, esp. as in survival of the fittest? Absolutely
Generic evolution of all species (or all humans) from a single descendant? Not proven, and to me, not logical. Why shouldn't life on land have evolved independently from life in the water? etc etc etc

Please learn the difference between theory and hypothesis. Then get back to us.

[Balantania]

What made the 2 big stars that suposedly slammed into each otehr and made the big bang. Also if you think believing in religon is stupid how can you believe in evolution theory about a fish coming out of the water and growing legs and then turning into a lizard and then forming into an ape and then forming into a human. That sounds very stupid just like how you athiests think religion sounds.