Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!

[CaptainMarvelous]

Y'know, while I'm with pretty much everyone else here in this thread on the whole "You don't believe in Evolution, it's obviously right f*cking there, it's observed" there's one part which always bothered me about how humans evolved.

When Homo Sapiens developed over Homo Neanderthalis we... really weren't that much better. Neanderthal's wouldn't have been stupid, they had the same cranial capacity we did at birth and they even wound up with larger brains (source [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533682/]) so they didn't die out because Homo Sapiens was superior to them. In fact all we had over them was the fact we developed faster in earlier stages of maturity; even if we weren't as strong, smart or adapted to survive in cold environments such as the Ice Age (source [http://www.fmmcpherson.com/creatures/neanderthal].) Hell, we're pretty sure they could talk as well so... this is one of those things that always kinda bugged me about human development. I can't see a reason, through Natural Selection, Homo Sapiens trumped Homo Neanderthalis. Which, if you were of a religious mind, would be the point you start shouting about Adam and Eve and try to ignore the implications God made humanity on an already inhabited world and let them slowly over-run the natives.

Basically, I don't get why Humans were superior to Neanderthals in anything other than breeding speed. Any sources to explain it would be appreciated.

Right off the bat, I want to mention that a lot of people, even in this thread, are operating under a severely false assumption. Even if evolution were to be completely disproven tomorrow, not that it's even possible at this point, the claim that God exists would not be any more observably true than it is now. Not one bit. The God claim would still be sitting right where it's sitting now, along with the infinite amount of alternate hypotheses with zero evidence to back them up. These two propositions - evolution and creationism - do not form a true dichotomy.

What you seem to be alluding to [footnote]not that this is directed at you specifically in its entirety[/footnote] in your doubts about evolution being true - the God of the Gaps - is a completely and utterly vapid explanation, because on top of failing completely to carry the burden of proof - which disqualifies it from being anything resembling a theory, it also, ironically, has no explanatory value. There are no predictions or tests to be made with this proposition in mind that gets us closer to anything resembling truth.

To take a little stab at the specific quandary here, I've read somewhere that Sapiens is a species that was more imaginative and aggressive than the Neandarthals, who were very sedentary in comparison. The sedentary part might have spelled doom for them, because if those dinosaurs they were hunting migrated somewhere else, they're fucked.

OK, just 2 things

1) I dunno if this was clear, apparently not, I in no way meant to suggest that the cross-over implis God did it, I meant if you were going to try to claim God made people and they didn't evolve that strange period might be a good example to use. Because even if you DID use that theory, it doesn't explain where Neanderthals came from. I see where you're coming from with this, but it wasn't intentionally implied at all.

2) Neanderthals didn't hunt dinosaurs. I'm gonna assume this was a gag, because I can't reconcile the idea you can discredit God for not bearing the burdern of proof while also thinking Cavemen hunted dinosaurs.

 

[Andrew Bascom]

Hate to do this, but I'm interested in what the reply will be, cause I stumped my Science teacher with it. Science tells us that matter comes from other matter, so what caused the big bang? Where did it come from?

It's fair to say that no one knows for certain. In science, when you don't know about something, you don't attribute it to the divines, to the movement of the stars, to the tides, the flight of the birds, the sins of mankind, the whim of a Creator, etc. - you say "I don't know" and gather more data until you have a clear enough picture that you can postulate a hypothesis to explain it.

That's why most scientists will tell you "I don't know," and perhaps list some of the possibilities. It's not a matter of being "stumped" or taken off their high horse because the admission of ignorance is a crucial part of the scientific process. And it's definitely not comparable to poking holes in religious dogma, that self-identifies as flawless, perfect and given from the realm beyond (when it's quite clearly anything but).

The density of matter at the time of the Big Bang is such that most of our current models can't really predict or account for what happened in that state. Particle research has only just begun recreating what the big bang might have been like, and we're learning more every day of how the Universe began. However, I think the term "before" can hardly be applied to a pre-Big-Bang state - if all matter-energy and all of spacetime existed in a single point, there is really no before or after to speak of before spacetime starts to expand.

Sorry really didn't mean to insinuate that I felt I had beaten my science teacher with the question or anything, I just like learning about evolution and I was curious if anyone had an idea. As far as the matter explanation about how closed in matter was (I know I kind of sound stupid with my lack of scientific terminology) I thank you a lot, never really had that bit explained to me. More or less I wondered where all this matter came from, to me even a dot of extremely dense matter had to come from somewhere by what was explained to me. All in all I guess it doesn't really matter I'm just curious, as whether I was insinuating a God caused it or not, I probably was, but until I get a different/better answer I see this as good an explanation as any. Anyway thanks for the response it was actually very interesting.

 

[HalfTangible]

If there were enough evidence to conclude that a god exists, the one who came up with the hypothetical god theory would have many nobel prices.

No, i mean that the first reaction the average atheist would have to such a theory would be to call the man coming up with it an idiot and not even look at it. Because the average atheist is an average human and the average human is ignorant, blind, idiotic and as close-minded as an imagined gate.

There's no specific evidence that Jesus existed.
What I mean is that there are accounts of several 'messiah' figures during that time in that area, so it's possible that one of those were Jesus, but there are no evidence pointing to Jesus specifically.

Actually, that's not true. There's evidence that Jesus was a real person and claimed he was god. We have eyewitness accounts that say 'yes, he did miracles and came back to life' but I admit that's not really 'concrete' after two millenia.

As for believing in god along with evolution, if that's stupid or not depends on how you rationalise that belief. God is redundant when it comes to evolution. so if you, say, believe they exist independently of one another, fine. But if you believe in things like creationism, you have some seriously conflicting beliefs, to the point that you just ignore the conflicts or make shit up about evolution as you go, both of said scenarios being indicative of a crippled mind.

Putting aside for the moment that I'm pretty sure I AM a very disturbed individual, personally I think evolution is how everything has continued since it was made. Evolution (as it was explained to me) is a process, not a beginning or end. It's something that happens because... well, life works that way. The strong live and reproduce, the weak (or more accurately poorly-adapted) die and... don't.

Moving on to the FSM...
Yeah, they're basically right. Your argument IS invalid. Hold on a moment and hear me out.
The point of FSM is that almost every, if not all, arguments for the existence of any god works equally well to prove the existence of the FSM. Invoking the FSM basically nullifies any arguments you present, as they can be used with equal effectiveness against you.

I understand that - I've seen it happen. But that was an exact quote. There are people that sincerely believe saying 'flying spaghettii monster' is a valid argument when the monster is alone is not. It is meant to be used as a tool for proving a point, not an argument in and of itself.

What they mean by that is that religion allows disturbed people to rationalise their behaviour by believing that they'll simply be forgiven if they just pray a bit or whatever. That's not to say all people does that, but many do, unfortunately. Many religious people behave with varying degrees of hostility against people outside of their faith. They can even act upon it and cause material, mental, or physical harm upon others and believe that doing so is a good deed.
Atheists do not have this 'comfort'. Whatever they do weighs solely upon their own conscience. They cannot draw upon 'holy providence' to justify their actions.

It is equally rational (ie, not at all) to assume that because there is no god or hell, there is no such thing as morality except for how a human defines it for themselves, and therefore you can do whatever you want and suffer absolutely no consequences for it. Saying holy providence lets you do whatever you want is much like claiming evolution is bull because we still have monkeys: it completely misses the point.

'Holy providence' is just one rationalization for terrible deeds. If it didn't exist, disturbed people would find another.

I would dispute that. Even a kid can find fault with the bible.

And even a grown die-hard atheist can become a religious man. Moreover, if a kid can find fault with the bible, then your argument that the child is brainwashed is invalid. But that's not the point.

This touches one of the fundamental problems people have with religions in general, too.
Teaching children about reality is fundamental in parenting. But reading them the bible and telling them that what's in the bible is true, they'll believe you. In effect, you teach them fiction and force their perception of reality to accept absurdities as being rational. You undermine their ability to distinguish fiction from reality, and their aptitude towards critical thought.

See below.

Should I point you to the video of the little kid singing "Ain't no homo going to heaven" to prove that you're wrong?

The point of that was that the angry teenagers do not stay angry teenagers. I firmly believe people get better when they grow out of their teenage hormones. It doesn't mean they don't grow into terrible parents.

...And i'm arguing for religion when my point was supposed to be 'Evolution threads always turn into angry, irrational spiel'. Again -.-

Good day.

 

[iseko]

I don't really find that an answer. I understand what you are saying and maybe with your next reply you can re-educate me (not sarcastic or something). I know the proposed design of the 'first' single cell organisms. I'm talking about getting from a few amino acids and bases to those first single cells. Even though they are laughably simplistic compared to modern bacteria they are still very complex compared to a single adenosine molecule. You understand what I mean? How do we get from a pile of bricks to a house, even a simple house, by pure chance. How did the first RNA come into existence. And how did the first proteins needed to interact with that RNA come into existence. And all of this confined by a membrane built out of lipids.

Yea you are probably right about the flagellum thing. I saw it with the tail of spermatozoon. They are pretty much the same but in a way bacterial flagellum makes more sense. Sorry.

Have you seen cdk007's abiogenesis video? Have a look, it's great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

THANKS! That video was cool! I felt the sudden urge to share it with friends. I'd never even heard of this theory. It's still a long way from that to our modern cells. But now I can pretty much fill in the blanks with what I know. Too bad it doesn't show the introduction of proteins yet. I mean proteins with aminoacids. It shows the use of DNA/RNA as an enzyme. This is the only thing that strikes me as odd btw. I always learned that early life was RNA in nature? But RNA as we know it is (mostly) single stranded. But in this movie they talk about double stranded DNA (a special variant of the one we have now). Still cool to see though. Again, thanks!

 

[runic knight]

*sigh*

Don't even know why I clicked this thread. They're all the same, always the same angry gush of stupidity from both sides that feels just like that green stuff i keep finding on my dog's neck in the morning.

1) Evolution does not disprove god (please do not bring up the stupid spaghettii monster again because that completely misses the point here >.>) and yet atheists consistently and CONSTANTLY try to act like it does.

You're right, it doesn't disprove god. It just reveals that the Abrahamic creation story, and by extension the religions basing themselves on it, are wrong about how life came to be diverse on the planet. Sure, it can be a leap of logic to use the reveal that the holy book of the religion is a lieing worthless paperweight, as evidence the god described within is false, but even you got to admit, there is a lot more sense in that then in ignoring the science for creationism.
Also, most people I run into only use evolution as a means of disproving creationism, rather then extending that further to include god as a concept.

2) Every discussion that has ever brought up Evolution or Religion has inevitably led to the other and at that EXACT point, you get spiel like what's all over this thread of confrontational morons just repeating shit they've heard other people say (atheist, religious, or otherwise) and acting like they know what they're talking about when all they know is what they've been told. What makes me so sure, you ask? Because the people who know what they're talking about don't get angry about it.

You do see people bring that point up, and oft by self proclaimed centralists painting stereotypes of both sides as some ass backwards means of invalidating the discussion and pulling both sides into a side argument. Kinda funny how people whining that the discussion will become a pointless bickering match in the end actually helps it do that so much faster, especially when done with all the tact of a drunk bull in a china shop. The main problem here, is the discussion that remains civil, based in logic and reason and relying on sound and valid arguments tend to have people smart enough to realize that creationism is not compatible with any of that. There is no rational case for creationism, so seeing emotional arguments, logical fallacies and topic diverging base on whatever tangent is to be expected.

3) Atheists are just as close-minded as religious types. And act like they're better. Despite the fact that their arguments can often be turned around on their own beliefs about the religious. Like the total-lack-of-responsibility argument above. Seriously, man? You think that we'd have a big eternal fire pit of damnation if 'take no responsibiltiy' was an actual choice? And even if it was, that doesn't automatically mean 'hey, i can do whatever the hell i want' any more than NOT having god would.

Actually, there are different types of atheist, ranging from the hardline ones you use here, to those who merely disbelieve god, to religious atheists even (Buddhists, satanists,etc.). But nice of you to show your stance by belief in a pit of fire. The threat comes off to an atheist the same as claiming you'll sick a horde of invisible dragons to tear me limb from limb in my sleep if I am not a good little boy. If you want to delve into why atheists aren't asshats, that could be a discussion for another time. I have a feeling explaining personal ethics stemming from emotions other then fear might take some time to explain.

4) Speaking from personal experience, Religious people online are often angry teenagers with nothing better to do with their lives than rage at atheists. Why does anybody act like this demographic is representative of religious adults?

Call me cynical, but that may be related to the number OF angry teenagers online. As for representation of religious adults, sure most adults are a little more sane then the average religious troll, but then again, you get people like the Phelps who display a prime counter-example of how you can get adult religious nutters.

Considering that people seem to think that 'monkey' refers to any primate that isn't human (chimpanzee, spider money, gorilla, etc etc)... yeah, it kinda was =P Sure, it wasn't a monkey that's still around today. But a monkey nonetheless.

Thought it was a more monkey/lemur type of creature. But yeah, anyone looking at the damn thing would probably go "hey, look at the monkey" unless they knew about zoological differences. That might be the problem though, "monkey" is more a label then a classification that can be adeptly placed.

 

[DANEgerous]

Now then, its just as wrong to follow a book as wrong is it to follow "evidence" that scientists brought in a said as their theory's. I'm not saying Evolution or the dinosaurs were not real, but I am saying its wrong to just blindly follow whatever a bunch of people you've never met are saying because they did some tests.

I am sorry just no, evidence beats a book any day you believe it or you need to start protesting that courts should take books as verified evidence. Tests prove things objectively, books say whatever you want.

If I right a book on how we never landed on the moon or how the Holocaust is a total sham i an absolutely trumped by evidence.

You so not blindly follow evidence, you observe what it tells you and make an objective conclusion.

 

[Kj371L]

Just because it's a theory, it doesn't mean it's just pure bull ****. A theory isn't just a wild guess, a stab in the dark, it's a scientificly proven and backed-up concept, it just haven't had 100% of the gaps filled. Which is why people still do research everyday to further develop this theory and thus make it complete sometime in the future.

Intelligent design on the other hand, is just a faint idea, a thesis, with no proper scientific foundation. This is just my opinion of course.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

I got the reference. (I think)

But, what I was referencing wasn't this just this thread, nor even this forum. I was referring to the topic in general.

In a global sense, the topic is hotly debated. With overly zealous advocates on both sides.

That's what I was getting at. The topic as a whole will get no where until we all start discussing it openly and in a tempered, well-informed manner. And, it won't amount to anything until people understand what evolution actually entails and the actual definition of a scientific theory.

(which, of course, will never happen on a broad scale)

 

[easternflame]

[youtube: FZFG5PKw504] Yeah, need I say more?

 

[CarlMin]

The concept of evolution is pretty much impossible to disprove given it's definition, more or less. This is not to say however that the modern scientific community's view of evolution is much similar to the theory expressed by Darwin more than a hundred years ago, a man who thought that homosexuals would soon go extinct because they can't reproduce and have children.

I also think that a lot of people have a very simplified view of evolution, which is basically just just the view of fishes developing into lizards, developing into monkeys with humans somewhere at the top, in the end of a liniar evolutionary process, as if homo sapiens were some sort of perfection, a concept that, ironically, is not to different from intelligent design.

 

[CarlMin]

You're right, it doesn't disprove god. It just reveals that the Abrahamic creation story, and by extension the religions basing themselves on it, are wrong about how life came to be diverse on the planet.

That really depends on how allegorically you want to interpret the genesis creation narrative, which is described surprisingly briefly in The Book of Genesis.

 

[SirPlindington]

One of the weirdest moments of my life involoved one of these people, actaully. My sister and I were talking about SCIENCE (chemistry, I believe it was) whilst walking around New York when we passed a group of domsday preachers. You know the type. Anyway, they heard us talking and made the leap from chemistry to evolution, and started yelling at us about how it wasn't real, we were all going to hell to burn in the eternal flames, our children were going to be born with 7 heads and die, would we consider accepting the ever-forgiving Jesus into our lives, etc. I'm not trying to insult Christianity here, y the way. It was just these mad men. Anyway, we just kept walking, although we had a good laugh about it later. Those were the days.

 

[RaNDM G]

Evolution as a whole is a theory. Natural selection and mutation by themselves are facts.

It's like this. The theory of evolution suggests that a population naturally develops new traits over a gradual period of time, and that it can happen regardless of whether there is drastic environmental change or not. However, if you have a set population of whatever animal and simulate a consistent environment that supports them for a thousand years, that population will not have any significant genetic changes other than diseases caused by inbreeding.

But if you take the same population and separate that into separate environments for a hundred years, one group is going to look pretty different from the other even though they are of the same species.

Consider the Kaibab and Abert's squirrels. Kaibabs are technically a subspecies of Aberts', however the years spent separated on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon have allowed Kaibab's to develop a set of dominant mutated genes that gave the squirrels black bellies and darker coats. Despite their appearance and the fact they can't breed, both animals are still virtually identical to each other.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

It doesn't matter what some monkeys believe, it doesn't stop Evolution from being the truth, no matter your messed up belief system. I also hate how people claim creationism is a theory as much as Evolution is. A theory in scientific terms means more than just a geuss, a theory in science is a closely examined possibility with EVIDENCE to back it up.

Dinosaurs were put there to test our faith. Get fuckin' real.

Yeah, but that doesn't ultimately disprove thousands of years of belief in a higher power. Its like we have two different kinds of assholes on either side:

A. Assholes who think that everyone who isn't in there religion is burning in a hell.
B. Assholes who think that everyone who is in a religion is an idiot and wrong.

In all honesty I would rather be an Asshole that doesn't support backward cults that have an agenda against everyone that isnt white, male and over 40.
As a kid I never fully accepted the idea of God and other Fictional characters (my first word was 'Dinosaur', if that puts anything into perspective), its not that I didn't have an imgaination, I just didn't like Plot Holes in them.
How is he invisible, where is he in the sky, is he only on earth? The usual 101 questions a 7 year old asks when soembody feeds him something that sounds like Bullshit.

 

[Denamic]

Evolution as a whole is a theory. Natural selection and mutation by themselves are facts.

I just have to interject here...
The term 'theory' used in science is not even close to being the same as the layman's bastardised version.
A hypothesis that has passed peer review, which is a very harsh and extensive process where many scientists try to disprove you, it gains 'theory' status. Theories are the pinnacle of current knowledge on the matter in question.

Put simply, theory = fact.

If you say that something is 'just' a theory shows a fundamental ignorance about science and how it works, and you really should not even talk about it. Because anything you say is right by accident at best.

That is all.

 

[Do4600]

This is literally the one thing that scares me most about the world today, not war, famine or disease can inspire the amount of terror I feel when I'm confronted with somebody who depends on knowledge that they actively deny. Evolution is fact, we've supported evolution to the point where something like 90% of all biomedical research is derived from concepts that rely on evolution. If the theory of evolution is so correct that we can literally prevent people from dying based on it's implications, I'd say it's beyond discourse.

We've already pulled ourselves up onto the massive step that is evolution, if it were incorrect none of our medical technology would yield results and we would fall through the step, but we haven't. Everything we've done based on the implications has succeeded, so we know that this step is solid. Meanwhile, there are people who are also standing on this step, who accept the benefits of the step but think we are actually floating in midair with nothing to hold us up. This is the kind of attitude that if it spreads creates a society where only a few people know how to run "the machine" and nobody knows how to fix "the machine". Thankfully, we are nowhere near that point and are steadily moving away from that point. Unfortunately, I feel so strongly about this issue that anybody that denies evolution in my eyes is little more than a parasite bent on the catastrophic destruction of sane human society, and that's putting it very politely.

 

[RaNDM G]

@Denamic: Just to interject here.

A hypothesis that has passed peer review, which is a very harsh and extensive process where many scientists try to disprove you, it gains 'theory' status. Theories are the pinnacle of current knowledge on the matter in question.

Put simply, theory = fact.

Saying that a theory is the pinnacle of current knowledge does not make it fact. A theory leaves room that there is more information to be discovered and that it may even be disproved at a later time by other theories. Much like how the Big Bang theory can be disproved by asking why dark matter exists or how carbon formed in the universe.

My argument regarding evolution was based on natural selection and genetics, both of which have a direct correlation toward the outcome of an animal's appearance. I offered a basic understanding of how splitting a population will create differences in the gene pool and can potentially create a subspecies. I even backed my argument up with a real life example which any middle school biology student would be familiar with.

You are right when I say I have no real business in the physical sciences. That's just not my field of expertise. But are you really gonna call me ignorant just by picking apart a single sentence? I didn't work my ass off for ten years getting Bs in my middle school, high school, and college Biology classes just so I can argue on the internet.

If you want to get all existential about it, I can argue that every concept we know of is a theory. But a message board isn't the place for that kind of debate.

 

[Jzolr0708]

I understand if some people want to claim that evolution is a guided effort by a divine force, but I feel that outright denying it is beyond ignorant. Mankind has documented evidence of creatures with the highest potential fitness surviving to procreate, while those without the traits to make such a level of fitness die out. Those with the trait procreate, creating an offspring with the trait, passing it on until it becomes a staple of the species. Science has shown this to happen to many, many species, to ignore that is just... flabbergasting.

 

[Altorin]

To the people arguing for facts, like facts are superior to theories, just... shush. theories aren't facts. they're made of facts.

It's a fact that animals breed with variation, and this variation is caused mainly during meiosis. We see those all around us, and have seen and studied the phases of meiosis and know where the this takes place.

It's a fact that certain switches can happen in the genes at certain levels that can remarkably change the resulting animals, and these changes are hereditary. Recently we've experimented with this sort of evodevo stuff and produced chickens that have teeth. Other things are possible.

It's a fact that these changes can alter a creatures ability to produce viable offspring, either by giving them an environmental advantage (easier to get food, fight off/avoid predators) or a sexual advantage (promoting genetic strength through elaborate (or perhaps simple) displays).

It's a fact that a mutated or altered gene that does provide a benefit to those two aspects of survival can spread downward through generations due to that altered gene's success in the environment.

You take all these disparate facts (many of them not understood by darwin himself, but discovered later, and they don't contradict, but rather support darwin's theory), and you have a working theory - a testable model of how something in the natural world works.

We don't need to prove that the Theory of Evolution is a Fact. It's got all the facts it needs. There is no argument that can be made strictly against Evolution from the side of a theistic mindset that can't and won't be easily thwarted by hard science. Evolution is an inescapable conclusion. It's just what life does. That it does is amazing. Astounding. We should be celebrating it.

If you're going to bring cosmology and the big bang theory into the argument, at least start a new argument. The Big Bang Theory, compared to Evolution is much newer, and the science is a lot more.. interpretive, but the Big Bang Theory, while not being perfect, makes predictable results, making it a good theory, whether you can understand "where all that stuff came from," Scientists such as Lawrence Krauss and many other theoretical physicists have some great solid ideas that answer just those questions. They're difficult for a lay person (including myself, I'm certainly no physicist) to understand, but they're not impossible, and they fit within the big bang theory model. Good Theory.