Poll: Evolution and the other side

[daniel the immortal]

there is no other SCIENTIFIC side of evolution. all other theories use an unknown(god) to explain what happen. in SCIENCE you cant do that

 

[evilneko]

If there is anyone on this forum who legitimately believes in creationism, you really ought to research the bergess shale geological formation and the fact that boa constrictors are still born with legs/arms from time-to-time. Evolution is fact and every piece of new evidence scientists uncover further supports it.

I've always found that the term intelligent design simply makes god look bad. I would think an entity with a hands-on approach who tweaks every aspect of our existence would have created humans without cancer. And a planet without pollution. And ensuring plentiful food for every one of his creations.

If you seriously believe in creationism and aren't the least bit skeptical, you really ought to start asking more questions.

Wasn't it covered in Genisis how the Serpent had it's legs taken away? Just saying.

Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

Regarding this concept, called chirality.

L-type amino acids (what you call right-handed, but actually means "left-handed") are prevalent in complex life forms.

However, most bacteria are D-type, (what you call left-handed, but actually means "right-handed")

Life exists on this planet with amino acids of both chiralities.

Ergo your claim is patently false. Not only is your claim on chirality completely false, D-type amino acids are not, in fact, toxic.

To prove this, you need only perform an experiment wherein you eat a substance containing both types of amino acids.

I'm going to go eat a bowl of yogurt now.

Continue.

I could be wrong. Lets look at some similar experiments. One by Louis Pasteur. He had a sterilized broth of amino acids, proteins, and DNA that he kept the air out of by using water in a bent tube. As seen here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v5i11g1.jpg

Note that there is no growth within the broth (dead things stayed dead) until the neck is broken and air is introduced. (life is introduced into a dead space and life grew) Pasteur proved that life only comes from pre-existing life.

Which brings us back to Dr. Miller.. Even if Stanley Miller?s experiment showed that all the amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc., found in living things today could be produced in high concentrations in water by natural processes, it would not matter because Pasteur?s experiment proved that those organic molecules would not come to life.

Organic molecules did appear after a few days. But only 8 of the 20 required amino acids were produced.

Which brings me to a mistake I made. You are right that left and right handed amino acids can exist together and not cause too much problem. However, Left and right handed proteins are different. Oddly enough, Evolutionists are apparently not wanting to speak of it from the lack of talk on 'their' sites. You can read more on these sites I found: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10b.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i11f.htm

Have a basic primer on abiogenesis.


'course, this here thread's about evolution, not abiogenesis, but anyway.

 

[Uzbekistan]

Personally, I don't care one way or another. If we were created by god: WOW!! That was something I never thought would happen!! [/sincerity]

If we were created via millions of years of evolution: Okay, there was a lot of evidence pointing that way in the first place. Good job scientist for finding missing link!! [/sincerity again, in case you didn't think I was sincere]

 

[Zefar]

As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science. Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely). When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism. For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact), therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument). But do you see where I am coming from, Joe Evolutionist? Creationism isn't formed on the studies of "billions of years ago." It's formed on observational science. Another example is that evolution relies on mutations to make it work, but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life, not helpful mutations leading to survival of the species. A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons? We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet. We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago... 50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear. I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...

I know that this isn't a discussion thread so if anyone wants to chat just inbox me. Plus I'll pick and choose who to reply to based on how short the message is. 300 points for me to reply to isn't much fun, so keep it to your five most important points please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CMS-fEh91Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0RXDrfyZc

Those might be able to "Educate" you a bit more about Evolution. You could watch all his videos as well. This guy is also quite educated about things as well.

Btw they got literally tons of bones that they don't know what to do with. So you might want to check your sources again.

 

[daniel the immortal]

lol kent hovind is the 'other side' hahahahha ok first of all his phd is in religous education not science, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

and if you want to see just how wrong he is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg&feature=relmfu

there is no other side, evolution has gone through the trial by fire that all theorys has, and it has passed

 

[blaize2010]

Yes I have. I have actually played devil's advocate in some arguments against evolution (and won a few).

if you'd like to discuss any any know evidence for evolution with me send me a pm i don't want any fighting here.

(ill send you a pm soon to talk about some of the things i find highly "unscientific" but right now i just want to watch my topic you understand right?)

If you don't mind, I would like to get in on that too.

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Apes are just a superfamily called Hominoidea. Biology(Taxonomy to be precise) has us classified as "ape" or "Hominoidea". Evolution does in fact claim we evolved from apes, and biology claims we are still apes.

OK... so you got some facts right there, but NO educated biologist will tell you humans evolved from apes. We have the same origin as the modern ape, we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes or hominoidea is as you said a super family and neither super family nor super group is a good phylogenic way to arrange things. They're there because it's more convenient than the normal divisions. You might claim there is no difference between saying we evolved from apes and had the same origin, but every biologist curse the man who first said that. It's the statement that is the root to the creationist defense "Then why didn't all apes end up as humans?". What we evolved from is a specie that is extinct a long time ago.

But we are apes. What we evolved from would technically be classified as an ape. The common ancestor we share with modern apes, I would argue, is still an ape.

There will be a common ancestor even farther back, one shared by all modern primates, that would not have been an ape. But to say that our species didn't evolve from an ape is rather an odd claim to make.

Now first of did you see where I said the super family is not a formal division? Thus super family is not a formal division thus APE is NOT a formal division. If we were to use super groups in formal cases reptiles and birds would not be related. But ignoring the super group birds evolved from reptiles. Super group is for convenience, NOT for formal phylogeny. Also the super family for ape is not monophyletic, it is at best polyphyletic and with our current knowledge we're closer to pan than any of the others.

Also biologist are really struggling to get this misconception out of the world. Why make it harder if you know both how confusing it is for those who know little or nothing about evolution and how damaging for those of us trying to educate people on evolution?

I understand what you're saying, but one of our common ancestors would have been an ape. So to argue that we didn't evolve from apes is lunacy. Regardless of whether it would have been classified as an ape out of convenience or actual relation is besides the point.

It was an ape!

OK, so do you understand that ape is not a formal division simply something we use to look at the modern species? We use the division ape to look at modern species. Ape is NOT monophyletic thus we did not evolve FROM apes. It's a division we use between species that have clearly been on the same branch once, but how the relation stands is currently unknown.

So are you starting to understand that the division ape is not formal? That it is not monophyletic? Do you understand that every time you say we evolved from apes 2 creationists will ask "Then why are there still apes now?"

Why don't you just become a creationist rather than going around pretending you understand evolution because that's what you and most creationists have in common.

That was quite an assish remark for no apparent reason. Your assumption is that I don't understand evolution because I would classify one (actually more) of our common ancestry as an ape. 2 words 'Ardipithecus ramidus'. A very early member of the hominini tribe, in other words an ape. And guess what, it's an extinct ancestor... Something we evolved from.

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

Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Homo, and the two species of the genus Pan (the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo), their ancestors, and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.

Frankly I want an apology for your inexcusably condescending post.

I think you deserve an apology, the other guy is being a flaming d-bag. excuse me, other guy, why are you being such a flaming d-bag? is it so hard to prove your point without being one? do you feel so smug, sitting at your computer, confident that you can be a flaming d-bag on the internet because no one can reach through your computer screen and punch you in the face? hm? for being a flaming d-bag? i hate to say this, sir, and i will probably be put on probation for saying it, but that's okay because i really don't post much anyway, but i have to ask, why, oh why, do you, and all the other smug athiests, have to answer in such a way as to make all of us, those of us who do not believe in a god, look like such, pretentious, smug, assholeish flaming d-bags? also, other guys's right, because we did evolve from what is commonly called an ape. so yeah. you. flaming. d-bag. don't bother replying, i won't read it. i just want you to realize, that just because not everyone knows everything, doesn't make them stupid, but using your knowledge to make pretentious comments and act in the manner did, my friend, is the reason you are worse than he would be even if he was wrong, which he really wasn't, because you had to be a smug, pretentious, flaming d-bag, and that is at least five times worse than being wrong. WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO THROW AWAY YOUR COMPUTER IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SUCH A FLAMING D-BAG?

 

[blaize2010]

okay, there's been enough of these. in an attempt to make sure it's the last one, i'll go ahead and say it:
FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, NO, CREATIONISM IS NOT A VALID THEORY, WHILE EVOLUTION IS A BIT MORE GROUNDED IN FACT DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE AS HOW WE ARE DID NOT EXIST A COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS AGO. FURTHERMORE, GODS THEMSELVES ARE, FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, UNABLE TO EXIST, AS THEY CANNOT EXIST WITHIN THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. WHEN YOU ARE A SCIENTIST, GOD DOES NOT EXIST, AS A GOD IS SUPERNATURAL, AND SCIENTISTS STUDY THE *NATURAL* WORLD, A WORLD IN WHICH THINGS BECAME AS THEY ARE *NATURALLY.* IF YOU AREN'T ONE, FINE, BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT RELIGION IS NOT COMPATABLE WITH PURE FACT, WHICH IS SCIENCE, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT OUR UNIVERSE. OUR THEORIES ARE ENOUGH, BUT ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT THEORIES ARE NOT BELIEFS, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THEORY MEANS AN IDEA GROUNDED IN FACT, AND IS SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE. A BELIEF IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN TEST, IT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN KNOW. IT IS A THING TAKEN ON FAITH, WHICH IS NOT GOOD, AS YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING IN FAITH, BUT SCIENCE PROVES THINGS. IT ASSURES THINGS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION IS THAT ONE IS BASED IN FACT, IN WHAT WE KNOW, CONCRETELY TO BE TRUE, WITH KNOWLEDGE GOING BACK BILLIONS OF YEARS, TESTABLE, AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, WHILE THE OTHER IS RELIGIOUS PRATTLE FROM OLD DEAD MEN WHO WROTE STUFF DOWN A COUPLE THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND THEN EVERYONE STARTED BOWING BEFORE ONE ICON OR ANOTHER, AND STARTED FIGHTING OVER WHO'S ICON WAS MORE SHINY AND WHICH ONE WAS RIGHT. AND HERE I AM, A COUPLE THOUSAND YEARS LATER, TELLING YOU THIS, WHICH IS PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ANGRY BECAUSE I DIDN'T BEAT AROUND THE BUSH. SCIENTIFICALLY, THERE IS NO GOD. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IN ON FAITH, FINE, I DON'T CARE, BUT UNTIL WE DIE AND SEE THE PEARLY GATES, OR THE FIERY MOUTH OF HELL, FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE SCIENTISTS, WHO BELIEVE IN WHAT CAN BE SEEN, OBSERVED, TESTED, MEASURED, THERE. IS. NO. GOD. THERE IS NO CREATIONISM. THERE ARE NO ANGELS, DEMONS, FAERIES, UNICORNS, DRAGONS, MONSTERS, VAMPIRES, WEREWOLVES, OR ANY OTHER CREATURE, BEING, OR IDEA NOT FOUND AND OBSERVED. ASKING ME TO CONSIDER THE REALITY OF CREATIONISM IS LIKE ASKING ME TO TRY TO BELIEVE IN GOD, WHICH TO ME SOUNDS LIKE ASKING ME TO BELIEVE IN MAGIC AND ELVES AND CRAP LIKE THAT. AND. I. CAN'T.
i can't prove it, i can't see it, i can't believe in it. and you will get more answers like this. because the escapist is filled with geeks, who are scientists, who almost never believe in creationism or god or religion. because we can't. so, please, please, please, please stop with these subjects. they're bringing me down, man. i always click on them and there's always one guy with a "NO WAIT GAIZ B-CUZ I HAV PRUF OF GOD" and i always read it, and i'm never impressed. these are annoying, pointless, and stupid. no one will be swayed, ever. if you believe, you will read this, get pissed, and keep on believeing, and if you don't believe this, you will read this, smile a smug smile, then go off and do the same damn thing, post the same topic. it's a vicious cycle, it just makes people unhappy, stop talking about it. and if you post these because you're some 13 year old kid who wants to look all cool and edgy because he doesn't believe in god and he wants everyone to know it, please stop. i know some of you are, i was like that once. i'm tired of this rant already, and i haven't even made it to my twentieth decade of life yet.

I've never before seen a voice of reason speak in all caps. First time for everything Not that it's going to stop me arguing

Also, I should hope you've not made it anywhere near your 20th decade... that would just be... unnatural.

most of what i do is yell the truth at people in a very loud yet bored sounding voice, or with a megaphone. most of the rest of the time, i throw sharpened coins at hobos. either way, thanks for reading the post so in depth. and, sorry, really late, or early, whichever you want. and for some reason my hands are shaking. either way, i meant to put 20th year, or 2nd decade. OR DID I? WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW WHY I KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT RELIGION? I AM BECOME UNTO... A GOD. THOUGH I'M PRETTY YOUNG. FOR A GOD. and i'm going to go sleep now. OH WAIT, UPON FURTHER THOUGHT, I HAVE TO SAY THIS: "UNNATURAL" LAWL, I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE O_O

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

I'm an example. I went to three schools, of which two had compulsory Christianity. You could get out of it at the third one by being a practicing Jew, Muslim or Hindu, but they didn't take "Atheist" as an answer. Likewise, if you claimed that you were Jewish and writing

God

was against your religion you didn't have to write that in essays but claiming to be atheist and putting

"God"

or

their god

would get you into trouble. The second one had compulsory prayers and hymns every morning and grace before lunch and so on.

So, to answer the OP, no, I haven't.

that is the problem with this so called debate, it's always with the judeo christian god so the debate is automatically flawed with that premise

Yeah, good point! Hey, OP, have *you* ... er ... "ever once seriously looked at" the Churning of the Ocean of Milk? Have you studied scientific evidence for it?

No?

Gosh.

Meanwhile, your responses to others' posts and parts of your OP seem to be along the lines of a request that this thread be filled with "scientific evidence for creation" and nobody post any of the obvious faults in the linked video or in any of the "scientific evidence for creation" posted.

You know how high-school pot-smokers tend to want others to join them so they can feel more secure in their psychological dependence, and make up stuff about it curing cancer to justify carrying on, rather than admitting they're addicted?

... as an all-powerful, all-knowing being He could just have easily created the world to appear older than it actually was. For example, yes there might be DNA proof that one species was the ancestor of another, but how do we know that both weren't created to have the similar DNA, or just the fact that the two species are so similar they are bound to have similar DNA anyways?

Why, though? To mess with people's heads, make them doubt his existence and cause failure to follow the true faith despite having been shown it so that he'd have an excuse to throw his own creations into hell to burn for eternity? Why would he want to do that? To filter out the flawed ones? WHAT flawed ones? Isn't he supposed to be perfect?

So he is and has always been perfect, all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful and he deliberately put the Crusades, the Inquisition, Stalin, Mao's Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, the Taliban, al-Q, Anders Breivik, Thomas Hamilton, Peter Sutcliffe, slavery, those guys deliberately handing out smallpox-contaminated blankets, the Trail Of Tears and so on in place, told different groups of people in different places that they were the only ones who knew the truth and they would always triumph because he was with them and they must convert the world, made the fancy eyes of many modern animals with the nerves connected to the fronts of the photoreceptor cells rather than the backs so we'd all have blind spots, added cataracts, glaucoma, rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's for a giggle, made people inclined to doubt his existence and inclined to do all kinds of things that he'd declared, for some reason, to be sinful (like eating the flesh of hares) and so on and so forth and now takes, presumably, great delight in throwing the vast majority of his own creations into hell to burn in agony for all eternity as punishment for having been made imperfectly by him?

...

Okay, then. Sounds like the kind of abusive, violent, misogynistic, sick old man I'd happily batter to a pulp with a cricket bat. Some old Hitler Youth guy who reckons being his friend comes with a licence to sexually abuse teenage boys says I should worship him? I can spare a swing for that old prat's head too.

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Oh, my stats professor would have a HAYDAY with you and how you're completely taking stats out of context and blatantly using them to further your own agenda than for any true scientific rationale.

But then again, this post seems more like a troll to me, so I guess I'll stop feeding the troll.

... in terms of society's and culture ...

My English teacher would have disliked the expense of red ink incurred by having you in his classes.

(not the least of which is a far more accurate method of dating, known as "hydrogen-bond dating" or something like that)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="hydrogen+bond+dating"

2 results, both this thread.

As far as I'm aware, carbon dating still works just fine right up to about 1940, and we have other, more accurate ways of dating stuff since then.

 

[DracoSuave]

abiogenesis

Excuse me, but your video destroyed my braintellegence with awesome

It wins 40 internets

 

[evilneko]

abiogenesis

Excuse me, but your video destroyed my braintellegence with awesome

It wins 40 internets

You should check out the rest of cdk's vids then. And if you're new to the Youtube science scene, you're in for a real treat: check out the series that made Thunderf00t famous, called "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" and the Yahtzee of Science, AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism."

 

[DracoSuave]

abiogenesis

Excuse me, but your video destroyed my braintellegence with awesome

It wins 40 internets

You should check out the rest of cdk's vids then. And if you're new to the Youtube science scene, you're in for a real treat: check out the series that made Thunderf00t famous, called "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" and the Yahtzee of Science, AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism."

Speaking of. Some good ol' Carl Sagan. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmoNovE7_A&feature=related]

 

[Yopaz]

Yes I have. I have actually played devil's advocate in some arguments against evolution (and won a few).

if you'd like to discuss any any know evidence for evolution with me send me a pm i don't want any fighting here.

(ill send you a pm soon to talk about some of the things i find highly "unscientific" but right now i just want to watch my topic you understand right?)

If you don't mind, I would like to get in on that too.

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Apes are just a superfamily called Hominoidea. Biology(Taxonomy to be precise) has us classified as "ape" or "Hominoidea". Evolution does in fact claim we evolved from apes, and biology claims we are still apes.

OK... so you got some facts right there, but NO educated biologist will tell you humans evolved from apes. We have the same origin as the modern ape, we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes or hominoidea is as you said a super family and neither super family nor super group is a good phylogenic way to arrange things. They're there because it's more convenient than the normal divisions. You might claim there is no difference between saying we evolved from apes and had the same origin, but every biologist curse the man who first said that. It's the statement that is the root to the creationist defense "Then why didn't all apes end up as humans?". What we evolved from is a specie that is extinct a long time ago.

But we are apes. What we evolved from would technically be classified as an ape. The common ancestor we share with modern apes, I would argue, is still an ape.

There will be a common ancestor even farther back, one shared by all modern primates, that would not have been an ape. But to say that our species didn't evolve from an ape is rather an odd claim to make.

Now first of did you see where I said the super family is not a formal division? Thus super family is not a formal division thus APE is NOT a formal division. If we were to use super groups in formal cases reptiles and birds would not be related. But ignoring the super group birds evolved from reptiles. Super group is for convenience, NOT for formal phylogeny. Also the super family for ape is not monophyletic, it is at best polyphyletic and with our current knowledge we're closer to pan than any of the others.

Also biologist are really struggling to get this misconception out of the world. Why make it harder if you know both how confusing it is for those who know little or nothing about evolution and how damaging for those of us trying to educate people on evolution?

I understand what you're saying, but one of our common ancestors would have been an ape. So to argue that we didn't evolve from apes is lunacy. Regardless of whether it would have been classified as an ape out of convenience or actual relation is besides the point.

It was an ape!

OK, so do you understand that ape is not a formal division simply something we use to look at the modern species? We use the division ape to look at modern species. Ape is NOT monophyletic thus we did not evolve FROM apes. It's a division we use between species that have clearly been on the same branch once, but how the relation stands is currently unknown.

So are you starting to understand that the division ape is not formal? That it is not monophyletic? Do you understand that every time you say we evolved from apes 2 creationists will ask "Then why are there still apes now?"

Why don't you just become a creationist rather than going around pretending you understand evolution because that's what you and most creationists have in common.

That was quite an assish remark for no apparent reason. Your assumption is that I don't understand evolution because I would classify one (actually more) of our common ancestry as an ape. 2 words 'Ardipithecus ramidus'. A very early member of the hominini tribe, in other words an ape. And guess what, it's an extinct ancestor... Something we evolved from.

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

Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Homo, and the two species of the genus Pan (the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo), their ancestors, and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.

Frankly I want an apology for your inexcusably condescending post.

OK, by all means keep using "We evolved from apes" give creationist more canon fodder when they debate. Make it more confusing for those who don't know evolution. Still Ape is NOT NOT NOT NOT a valid group. It's a superfamily.

Do you seriously want to cause damage for us trying to educate people on evolution? If yes, then just keep on being a creationist.

Some questions though, do you call birds reptiles? Cause they are. Do you call all living organisms except bacteria archea? Cause that's what they evolved from. I can make things confusing by using phrases that by current standards are 100% correct. As I said early on. No biologist with pride will say "We evolved from apes" they will say "We share a common ancestry" and if you read your own wiki extract, the part you put in bold it says exactly that.

 

[Tselis]

When Christians admit that other religions' creation myths are just as valid as thier own, then I will be just fine will spending money on researching something with absolutely no evidence to even begin researching. The problem with 'researching' is that there has to be someplace to begin the research, something we can lay our hands on, or look at and point too. Lacking one of those, there is nothing to research.

 

[Crazycat690]

No, I have not, why? Because there isn't any, that's like asking us if we've ever studied evidence for unicorns living on the moon.

Seriously can we just stop with all this religous bullshit? Especially christianity, the one religion which contradicts itself the most, plus have the most hypocrisy surrounding it. It's time for it to go away! It's time for humanity to grow up and stop believing in its imaginary friend.

 

[Agayek]

-snip-

Here's the thing, creationism, by definition, requires one accept the hypothesis that some supernatural being (or at minimum guiding intelligence), for which there is no evidence of, exists and controlled the process of creation. This is a fundamentally flawed supposition, and no amount of pseudoscience will be able to overcome that.

Simply put, you cannot scientifically prove creationism. It's simply not possible without first proving the existence of God. Since the existence of any higher power is, again by definition, unprovable, creationism is therefore unprovable.

Even without that, the "science" (and I use the term very loosely here) behind creationism is faulty. The primary argument for it can be boiled down to "This really old book I really want to be true says this happened, so that's what happened". There is, literally, no hard physical evidence that supports creationism.

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

We so totally evolved from Chimpanzees dude. That's where babies come from, didn't you know? Chimps give birth to humans, but we kidnap them before they can be raised as monkeys.

On a slightly more serious note, the shared ancestors were technically monkeys, insofar as monkey is a colloquially term for primate, and Homo XXXXXXX most certainly qualifies as a primate.

 

[PiggyJibbleFish]

I'm talking about at least a week or two of long research into creationism.

I'd be impressed if you could find a week or two's worth of scientific evidence for creationism.

If anybody actually manages to FIND some credible scientific evidence for creationism, I'll be the first one to have a look. At present though, there is no scientific evidence to be studied.

 

[Sight Unseen]

abiogenesis

Excuse me, but your video destroyed my braintellegence with awesome

It wins 40 internets

You should check out the rest of cdk's vids then. And if you're new to the Youtube science scene, you're in for a real treat: check out the series that made Thunderf00t famous, called "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" and the Yahtzee of Science, AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism."

Speaking of. Some good ol' Carl Sagan. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AmoNovE7_A&feature=related]

I'd also like to suggest checking out c0nc0rdance, not1delusion, QualiaSoup, Secular Astronomer, and TheraminTrees as good youtubers for scientific videos.

 

[Yopaz]

Yes I have. I have actually played devil's advocate in some arguments against evolution (and won a few).

if you'd like to discuss any any know evidence for evolution with me send me a pm i don't want any fighting here.

(ill send you a pm soon to talk about some of the things i find highly "unscientific" but right now i just want to watch my topic you understand right?)

If you don't mind, I would like to get in on that too.

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Apes are just a superfamily called Hominoidea. Biology(Taxonomy to be precise) has us classified as "ape" or "Hominoidea". Evolution does in fact claim we evolved from apes, and biology claims we are still apes.

OK... so you got some facts right there, but NO educated biologist will tell you humans evolved from apes. We have the same origin as the modern ape, we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes or hominoidea is as you said a super family and neither super family nor super group is a good phylogenic way to arrange things. They're there because it's more convenient than the normal divisions. You might claim there is no difference between saying we evolved from apes and had the same origin, but every biologist curse the man who first said that. It's the statement that is the root to the creationist defense "Then why didn't all apes end up as humans?". What we evolved from is a specie that is extinct a long time ago.

But we are apes. What we evolved from would technically be classified as an ape. The common ancestor we share with modern apes, I would argue, is still an ape.

There will be a common ancestor even farther back, one shared by all modern primates, that would not have been an ape. But to say that our species didn't evolve from an ape is rather an odd claim to make.

Now first of did you see where I said the super family is not a formal division? Thus super family is not a formal division thus APE is NOT a formal division. If we were to use super groups in formal cases reptiles and birds would not be related. But ignoring the super group birds evolved from reptiles. Super group is for convenience, NOT for formal phylogeny. Also the super family for ape is not monophyletic, it is at best polyphyletic and with our current knowledge we're closer to pan than any of the others.

Also biologist are really struggling to get this misconception out of the world. Why make it harder if you know both how confusing it is for those who know little or nothing about evolution and how damaging for those of us trying to educate people on evolution?

I understand what you're saying, but one of our common ancestors would have been an ape. So to argue that we didn't evolve from apes is lunacy. Regardless of whether it would have been classified as an ape out of convenience or actual relation is besides the point.

It was an ape!

OK, so do you understand that ape is not a formal division simply something we use to look at the modern species? We use the division ape to look at modern species. Ape is NOT monophyletic thus we did not evolve FROM apes. It's a division we use between species that have clearly been on the same branch once, but how the relation stands is currently unknown.

So are you starting to understand that the division ape is not formal? That it is not monophyletic? Do you understand that every time you say we evolved from apes 2 creationists will ask "Then why are there still apes now?"

Why don't you just become a creationist rather than going around pretending you understand evolution because that's what you and most creationists have in common.

That was quite an assish remark for no apparent reason. Your assumption is that I don't understand evolution because I would classify one (actually more) of our common ancestry as an ape. 2 words 'Ardipithecus ramidus'. A very early member of the hominini tribe, in other words an ape. And guess what, it's an extinct ancestor... Something we evolved from.

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

Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Homo, and the two species of the genus Pan (the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo), their ancestors, and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.

Frankly I want an apology for your inexcusably condescending post.

OK, by all means keep using "We evolved from apes" give creationist more canon fodder when they debate. Make it more confusing for those who don't know evolution. Still Ape is NOT NOT NOT NOT a valid group. It's a superfamily.

Do you seriously want to cause damage for us trying to educate people on evolution? If yes, then just keep on being a creationist.

Some questions though, do you call birds reptiles? Cause they are. Do you call all living organisms except bacteria archea? Cause that's what they evolved from. I can make things confusing by using phrases that by current standards are 100% correct. As I said early on. No biologist with pride will say "We evolved from apes" they will say "We share a common ancestry" and if you read your own wiki extract, the part you put in bold it says exactly that.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You're arguing a very shakey set of semantics. I'm not providing creationists with 'ammo' (cannon fodder would imply they don't benefit from it.) Our recent ancestry, at-least up until 6 million years ago when our lineage is believed to have split from the pans, were and still are classified as apes.

What you're arguing (however ineloquently) is that we did not evolve from extant apes. I NEVER FUCKING ARGUED THAT WE DID! Our recent common ancestry, 'Homnini;' Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus, are APES!

The definitions of Hominid and Homnini have changed a little over the past few years, and so actually has how humans and the other extant great apes are classified. Perhaps you simply need to brush up on these changes. Because not matter how much you piss and moan about it. Saying we evolved from apes is 100% accurate.

Ever heard a creationist like yourself say "If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" If you have you will find that quite annoying. More annoying is it when they say "I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human, thus evolution is false". That is why I am arguing semantics.

Also repeat this 3 times. Ape is not a valid group on a phylogenic tree.

Also fun fact for you. The first time someone publicly stated men evolved from apes was on a press conference held by a guy who was not fit to speak in public, was not prepared for what he was saying and said that by mistake. He tried to take it back later that day and biologists have been trying to make people forget that was ever said since. That is another reason why I am arguing what you call shaky semantics.

Are you starting to understand by now that ape is not a formal group on a phylogenic tree? Do you understand that ape is not valid? That it is for convenience?

If you do not I will keep calling you a creationist.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Ever heard a creationist like yourself say "If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" If you have you will find that quite annoying. More annoying is it when they say "I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human, thus evolution is false". That is why I am arguing semantics.

Also repeat this 3 times. Ape is not a valid group on a phylogenic tree.

Also fun fact for you. The first time someone publicly stated men evolved from apes was on a press conference held by a guy who was not fit to speak in public, was not prepared for what he was saying and said that by mistake. He tried to take it back later that day and biologists have been trying to make people forget that was ever said since. That is another reason why I am arguing what you call shaky semantics.

Are you starting to understand by now that ape is not a formal group on a phylogenic tree? Do you understand that ape is not valid? That it is for convenience?

If you do not I will keep calling you a creationist.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with the guy you're arguing against here. He clearly supports evolution, thus there's no need to demean him by calling him a creationist.

You said it yourself, ape is a term that is for convenience. So why does it necessarily only have to encompass the most modern incarnations of the primate species, excluding us? If he said that we evolved from monkeys, then I would agree completely with you, but since ape is a generic term to generally refer to primate species, he's not technically wrong in saying that we evolved from apes, and split off from some common ancestor that was an ape.

I admit that it does make things confusing for the layman who may interpret apes as being the modern versions, and see why you are fighting this fight, but you are still arguing semantics at the end of the day, and you're being kind of a jerk about it.

 

[Yopaz]

Ever heard a creationist like yourself say "If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" If you have you will find that quite annoying. More annoying is it when they say "I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human, thus evolution is false". That is why I am arguing semantics.

Also repeat this 3 times. Ape is not a valid group on a phylogenic tree.

Also fun fact for you. The first time someone publicly stated men evolved from apes was on a press conference held by a guy who was not fit to speak in public, was not prepared for what he was saying and said that by mistake. He tried to take it back later that day and biologists have been trying to make people forget that was ever said since. That is another reason why I am arguing what you call shaky semantics.

Are you starting to understand by now that ape is not a formal group on a phylogenic tree? Do you understand that ape is not valid? That it is for convenience?

If you do not I will keep calling you a creationist.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with the guy you're arguing against here. He clearly supports evolution, thus there's no need to demean him by calling him a creationist.

You said it yourself, ape is a term that is for convenience. So why does it necessarily only have to encompass the most modern incarnations of the primate species, excluding us? If he said that we evolved from monkeys, then I would agree completely with you, but since ape is a generic term to generally refer to primate species, he's not technically wrong in saying that we evolved from apes, and split off from some common ancestor that was an ape.

I admit that it does make things confusing for the layman who may interpret apes as being the modern versions, and see why you are fighting this fight, but you are still arguing semantics at the end of the day, and you're being kind of a jerk about it.

A group established only for the sake of convenience is not a real group. Ape is not a real group. We have evolved from something called a real group. When ape is not a real group we can't have evolved from it.


The reason I am arguing this is that semantics is the thing that opponents pounces over. In a debate of evolution every word has to be chosen carefully, if you're not watching your tongue you will lose all edge. For those who are creationists there's nothing you can do. You can shove evidence under their nose and they will say it's not valid, but creationists use every edge they can find in semantics to brainwash children into believing evolution is bullshit.

Don't even you see how damaging it is when an adult creationist tell kids that he's never seen a monkey give birth to a human? Most kids will swallow that explanation and start believing in creationism in an instant. When we say we share a common ancestry they wont get that opportunity. They will always have reasons why evolution is hogwash of course, but there's no use to give them more canon fodder.

You're actually beginning to annoy me. You're simply thick skulled and ignorant. Keep calling me a creationist all you want. Just prove yourself as more of a troll.

You're just arguing stupid strawmen-

"Ever heard a creationist like yourself say If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" If you have you will find that quite annoying. More annoying is it when they say "I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human, thus evolution is false".

Which is why I made the careful distinction between the extinct Hominin that we evolved from and the extant Hominidae, extant, as in still alive today. :/

And you can keep quibbling about how a superfamily 'is not a valid group on a phylogenic tree.' all you want. Because a tribe is. And the tribe falls under the superfamily. It really isn't that complicated and it's not too much to expect the people we're 'educating' to pick up.

Yes, super family comes above tribe. Super group is also very early in the division. Every division with super is not formal. Still I will stop this right now. I am saying the same thing every post and if you haven't understood it by now then I give up. Words are damaging even if you know it or not. Go on piss off some other biologist.