How can you believe in evolution?

[The Master M]

How can you believe in evolution?

I mean something happened and all of a sudden, BAM! We have an explosion and all of the things collide and form everything we have in our universe. Then some millions to billions of years later we have micro oranisms that evolve into fish. Next, those fish "grow" legs and walk onto land. After that, they some how evolve into all of the millions of billions of living organisms that we have today.

Could someone please explain as to why you would believe in this?

Fail post is fail. /thread

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

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

I think you misunderstand what a genetic Eve is and why there can be more than one. It isn't the originator of all humans. Rather, it is a female in the past whose genetic material has been passed on so prolifically that everyone today shares some of it. As you can see, this is possible for more than one female.

Life on land does evolve independently from life in the water. Most divergences in species happen due to geographic isolation.

[The Master M]

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.

Come back when you actually understand evolution. Fail.

[Stygon]

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.

How could 2 big stars collide if the Big Bang supposedly created nearly everything? The Big Bang actually would of been on a microscopic scale if it actually happened.

[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

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

wikipedia:
Scientific theories
Main article: Scientific theory

In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

Which fits what I said nicely. Semantics does not negate an argument or observation.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

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.

The reason why you think physical cosmology and evolution are stupid is because you apparently don't know the first fucking thing about what they actually say, else how could you possibly believe that the big bang says "2 stars slammed into each other" or that evolution has the evolutionary changes occurring ACROSS THE SAME ORGANISM THROUGHOUT IT'S LIFE.

[The Master M]

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.

The reason why you think physical cosmology and evolution are stupid is because you apparently don't know the first fucking thing about what they actually say, else how could you possibly believe that the big bang says "2 stars slammed into each other" or that evolution has the evolutionary changes occurring ACROSS THE SAME ORGANISM THROUGHOUT IT'S LIFE.

I bow to you sir

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

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?

1) Just because something is happening at a certain rate now doesn't mean it was always happening at that rate. I don't know how you think that constant rate processes are the only ones possible.

2) Really, really strong magnetic fields aren't exactly that dangerous. It takes unbelievably enormous magnetic fields to present even the slightest problems to life. Only something like a magnetar would really be a problem. The Earth could never have had a magnetic field that strong.

[Ifreann]

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

I've seen more examples of it than I can count. So have you, you just don't realise it.

---

The theory of evolution is called a theory for a reason.

Because it has a proverbial mountain of evidence supporting it. That's how scientific theories work

Theories normally change with time and evidence. This one, unfortunately, does not seem to.

The Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection does, in fact, change when it is appropriate for it to do so. The discovery of DNA, for example, revolutionised the theory. The less is changes as time goes on, the more likely it is that what we have now is right.

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.

Where life came from is not relevant to the fact that it evolves, or the theory that it evolves by natural selection. Conflating the two only makes you appear ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

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

It's a common misconception that anyone except the woefully uneducated ever believed that the Earth was flat. The Ancient Greeks discovered that it was round, and that belief was held until we discovered it is an oblate spheroid.

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.

Did you read what you just wrote? You just said that the theory changed, then complained that the evidence was changed to fit the theory. Honestly, if you can't even be consistent from one sentence to the next then how can you expect anyone to take your criticism seriously.

And yes, my understanding is that mitochondrial DNA(which is only inherited from one's mother) shows that all humans are descended from one of 7 women.

Evolution, esp. as in survival of the fittest? Absolutely

Which is the simple gist of what the Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection says.

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

How life came about is not dealt with by the Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection. Further, I think there may be some evidence to suggest that all life did evolve from a single organism. It's not relevant to this thread, so feel free to research it on your own time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

---

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.

It is true. You can deny it and pretend it's not possible to tell, but we can sit in a laboratory and watch things evolve. It happens, life evolves, fact. Whether it did happen in the past or not is not relevant to that.

[Stygon]

The Earth could never have had a magnetic field that strong.

Exactly my point.

[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.

wikipedia:
Scientific theories
Main article: Scientific theory

In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

Which fits what I said nicely. Semantics does not negate an argument or observation.

No, it very much contradicts what you said.

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.

The overall theory has been tested, re-tested and repeatedly verified in short and long term studies. That's why it's the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and not the Hypothesis. Right now they're tackling the specifics, the "nitpicks" that you're using here. There is sufficient evidence to support the theory that it's not a debate any longer, except in the political arena. It's the foundation for our medicine, our drugs and even industries using evolutionary principles to develop bacteria to do their bidding.

So again, please go educate yourself before you come back to us.

[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.

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.

Its true that the theory of evolution, per se, does not claim all life comes from a single organism. This, however, is the way in which evolution is commonly portrayed. It is sad that documentary channels such as History and TLC perpetuate popular science as opposed to good science. When people argue evolution, perhaps they should clarify first which version of history they are arguing.
And yes, we have much better scientific tools now. This does not mean that we have a failproof path to the truth. It means we have better data with which to form hypothesis. The human mind is still as limited and influenced by what it wishes to find as it always was.
I was watching an excellent (for TV) documentary last night concerning God and evolution (the new Morgan Freeman series) and all the scientists looking at the same evidence could not agree as to its meaning.
The most dangerous thing in science or religion is a closed-mind. As one man on the show put it, science depends on nerve and audaciousness to present new theories, in order to open the mind and open discussion. Not one of us knows the 'truth' and we never will. We can only make theories and hypothesis and choose what to believe.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

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.

1) Stephen Hawking was not the first to come up with black holes.

2) We've already discovered them, like the supermassive one in the center of the galaxy around Sagittarius A.

3) He doesn't doubt their existence. The problems are with the black hole information paradox and with the quantum mechanical problems occurring near the singularity. These aren't problems of existence. These are problems of the finer points of behavior.

[Ifreann]

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.

Everything in this post is wrong. Everything.

---

Its true that the theory of evolution, per se, does not claim all life comes from a single organism. This, however, is the way in which evolution is commonly portrayed. It is sad that documentary channels such as History and TLC perpetuate popular science as opposed to good science. When people argue evolution, perhaps they should clarify first which version of history they are arguing.

Scientists don't do TV shows, TV producers do.

And yes, we have much better scientific tools now. This does not mean that we have a failproof path to the truth. It means we have better data with which to form hypothesis. The human mind is still as limited and influenced by what it wishes to find as it always was.

The scientific method isn't failproof, certainly, but it is self-correcting.

I was watching an excellent (for TV) documentary last night concerning God and evolution (the new Morgan Freeman series) and all the scientists looking at the same evidence could not agree as to its meaning.
The most dangerous thing in science or religion is a closed-mind. As one man on the show put it, science depends on nerve and audaciousness to present new theories, in order to open the mind and open discussion. Not one of us knows the 'truth' and we never will. We can only make theories and hypothesis and choose what to believe.

Science depends far more on evidential support of the new ideas. People can throw out ideas left right and centre, but until they can support them with experimental evidence they're as much use to us as the idea that there's a teapot secretly orbiting the Sun.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Its true that the theory of evolution, per se, does not claim all life comes from a single organism. This, however, is the way in which evolution is commonly portrayed. It is sad that documentary channels such as History and TLC perpetuate popular science as opposed to good science. When people argue evolution, perhaps they should clarify first which version of history they are arguing.
And yes, we have much better scientific tools now. This does not mean that we have a failproof path to the truth. It means we have better data with which to form hypothesis. The human mind is still as limited and influenced by what it wishes to find as it always was.
I was watching an excellent (for TV) documentary last night concerning God and evolution (the new Morgan Freeman series) and all the scientists looking at the same evidence could not agree as to its meaning.
The most dangerous thing in science or religion is a closed-mind. As one man on the show put it, science depends on nerve and audaciousness to present new theories, in order to open the mind and open discussion. Not one of us knows the 'truth' and we never will. We can only make theories and hypothesis and choose what to believe.

I don't see why you fail to recognize that life can come from a single origin point and organisms can evolve independently of each other. I don't understand why you fail to see that these two claims aren't contradictory. Evolution behaves more like a branching tree than a ladder. Divergences occur all the time.

As for why one origin makes more sense, it's both simple probability AND empirical evidence as well. First of all, the genetic record of life looks EXACTLY like a family tree, which is essentially impossible if life doesn't have a common ancestor. Second of all, if the origins of the first self-replicating molecules were improbable, then it's probably more likely for it to have occurred just once rather than multiple times.

[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

I think you misunderstand what a genetic Eve is and why there can be more than one. It isn't the originator of all humans. Rather, it is a female in the past whose genetic material has been passed on so prolifically that everyone today shares some of it. As you can see, this is possible for more than one female.

Life on land does evolve independently from life in the water. Most divergences in species happen due to geographic isolation.

Agreed. But popular science portrays Eve (or Eves) as the pregenitors of all humans, which is preposterous. Wayne State University, for example, teaches that we all descend from one to seven African Eves. Not taken into account is the effect of viruses and other outside conditions on mitochondrial DNA. I find the multiregional theory of Milford Wolpof (sp) much more compelling.
Your explanation is more logical than what I was told at the university.
I thank you for the courtesy in your reply!

[Puff-Puff-Pass Land]

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.

1) Stephen Hawking was not the first to come up with black holes.

2) We've already discovered them, like the supermassive one in the center of the galaxy around Sagittarius A.

3) He doesn't doubt their existence. The problems are with the black hole information paradox and with the quantum mechanical problems occurring near the singularity. These aren't problems of existence. These are problems of the finer points of behavior.

COORRRRRECCCCTTTTT!
You just won a million dollars!

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Exactly my point.

So it's not over 1 million years old? Well, you could use that strange interpretation, which runs counter to several fields of science, or you could simply say that the whole 50% every 100 years IS NOT CONSTANT THROUGHOUT HISTORY, which doesn't contradict dozens of fields of science with massive amounts of evidence. See how this works?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Agreed. But popular science portrays Eve (or Eves) as the pregenitors of all humans, which is preposterous. Wayne State University, for example, teaches that we all descend from one to seven African Eves. Not taken into account is the effect of viruses and other outside conditions on mitochondrial DNA. I find the multiregional theory of Milford Wolpof (sp) much more compelling.
Your explanation is more logical than what I was told at the university.
I thank you for the courtesy in your reply!

The problem is that the transition from one species to another isn't a discrete process, thus why you get strange phenomena like ring species. The problem you have seems to stem from your view of evolution as discrete rather than continuous.

[Horn-Bautz]

Its true that the theory of evolution, per se, does not claim all life comes from a single organism. This, however, is the way in which evolution is commonly portrayed. It is sad that documentary channels such as History and TLC perpetuate popular science as opposed to good science. When people argue evolution, perhaps they should clarify first which version of history they are arguing.
And yes, we have much better scientific tools now. This does not mean that we have a failproof path to the truth. It means we have better data with which to form hypothesis. The human mind is still as limited and influenced by what it wishes to find as it always was.
I was watching an excellent (for TV) documentary last night concerning God and evolution (the new Morgan Freeman series) and all the scientists looking at the same evidence could not agree as to its meaning.
The most dangerous thing in science or religion is a closed-mind. As one man on the show put it, science depends on nerve and audaciousness to present new theories, in order to open the mind and open discussion. Not one of us knows the 'truth' and we never will. We can only make theories and hypothesis and choose what to believe.

I don't see why you fail to recognize that life can come from a single origin point and organisms can evolve independently of each other. I don't understand why you fail to see that these two claims aren't contradictory. Evolution behaves more like a branching tree than a ladder. Divergences occur all the time.

As for why one origin makes more sense, it's both simple probability AND empirical evidence as well. First of all, the genetic record of life looks EXACTLY like a family tree, which is essentially impossible if life doesn't have a common ancestor. Second of all, if the origins of the first self-replicating molecules were improbable, then it's probably more likely for it to have occurred just once rather than multiple times.

I do believe in evolution and the divergence of species. I simply don't agree in the common origin of life. I believe that life is the result of environmental pressures, and therefore it would not be improbable for life to evolve in similar ways in different locations. Or there may have been other life which evolved but did not survive. Life as we know it may only be the surviving form.
I recognize that I believe this because it seems logical to me, and that others have other beliefs which are just as likely to be true as mine. I wish that we could know the truth for sure one day.
I have to sign off now- work break is over. But thank you for your insightful responses and polite arguments.

[Ifreann]

Its true that the theory of evolution, per se, does not claim all life comes from a single organism. This, however, is the way in which evolution is commonly portrayed. It is sad that documentary channels such as History and TLC perpetuate popular science as opposed to good science. When people argue evolution, perhaps they should clarify first which version of history they are arguing.
And yes, we have much better scientific tools now. This does not mean that we have a failproof path to the truth. It means we have better data with which to form hypothesis. The human mind is still as limited and influenced by what it wishes to find as it always was.
I was watching an excellent (for TV) documentary last night concerning God and evolution (the new Morgan Freeman series) and all the scientists looking at the same evidence could not agree as to its meaning.
The most dangerous thing in science or religion is a closed-mind. As one man on the show put it, science depends on nerve and audaciousness to present new theories, in order to open the mind and open discussion. Not one of us knows the 'truth' and we never will. We can only make theories and hypothesis and choose what to believe.

I don't see why you fail to recognize that life can come from a single origin point and organisms can evolve independently of each other. I don't understand why you fail to see that these two claims aren't contradictory. Evolution behaves more like a branching tree than a ladder. Divergences occur all the time.

As for why one origin makes more sense, it's both simple probability AND empirical evidence as well. First of all, the genetic record of life looks EXACTLY like a family tree, which is essentially impossible if life doesn't have a common ancestor. Second of all, if the origins of the first self-replicating molecules were improbable, then it's probably more likely for it to have occurred just once rather than multiple times.

I do believe in evolution and the divergence of species. I simply don't agree in the common origin of life. I believe that life is the result of environmental pressures, and therefore it would not be improbable for life to evolve in similar ways in different locations. Or there may have been other life which evolved but did not survive. Life as we know it may only be the surviving form.
I recognize that I believe this because it seems logical to me, and that others have other beliefs which are just as likely to be true as mine. I wish that we could know the truth for sure one day.
I have to sign off now- work break is over. But thank you for your insightful responses and polite arguments.

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

[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.

[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.

Woo-hoo!

[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?

[Treznor]

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.

Excellent! Produce your evidence and we'll examine it so we can update our data. Until then, your belief is rejected as a viable hypothesis.