The misinterpretation of evolution

[kouriichi]

What are the chances we, HUMANS sit here to day?

Your argument that the world as we see it is so unlikely that it can only have been created by God, can just as easily apply to God himself. What are the chances that God, an infinitely fantastical entity, sits here today? Probability doesn't work as an argument in either case.

Except i dont believe in god.... :?
And i dont believe he created it.
I believe this supernatural force/being helped shape and protect it, but not just "poof its made".

It doesn't matter what you call him/her/it. God, supernatural force or being, the point still applies. The existence of god/force/being is just as unlikely as the existence of the universe, the universe whose existence you are trying to explain by inventing the aforementioned god/force/being. If it's possible for god/force/being to exist without itself having a creator (or shaper or protector), then it must be possible for the universe to exist without a creator (or shaper or protector).

As ive said in my earlier posts. For all i know, it could be aliens. It could be "luck", tipping in our favor. It could be "fate", making sure that the the slightest changes happen the way they need to.
The odds of us existing, as we are now is so fantastical, the number cant even be recognized. I believe something beyond our comprehension helped. Not "God" or "Buddha" or whatever you want to call it. Its something beyond our comprehension that just exists. Its not omnipotent, nor does it make our decisions of us.
It isnt always right, and it can possibly be wrong. Its ability to be right and wrong is even unknown. It may not even be sentient. It might just "be there", making sure things happen the way they should.

So what is the point of guessing about something which is unknowable?

It's all just wordplay. To paraphrase the very excellent and funny book Scepticism Inc by Bo Fowler: Words are not things. They are just words. Words give us the sensation of having described something or having found something, in fact they are just arbitrary labels and nothing to do with reality. There is no good reason to think language, any language, mirrors the real world. The metaphysician cuts everything up according to his language, things become either/or. Everything is neatly divided up into word categories like the Absolute and mere perception, Heaven and Hell. The metaphysician has infected reality with the dualism found within his language. He has attempted to grammatise the world. He imposes on the world linguistic distinctions. He cuts. Snip snip snip goes the metaphysician. The metaphysician smashes words on the world. He claims the world echoes his words when all we can really hear is silence.

Why guess?
Because its better to have an answer? xD
"Whats your favorite food?"
"I dunno."

Having a guess gives you something to say. I believe in random chance. I just think the force/forces that be have a say in the chance.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

But seriously, people who don't "believe in" evolution and believe in creationism clearly should be pushed off of high buildings because after all they might be able to fly. There's no evidence or anything, but it is strictly possible.

XD
So terrible, but so funny at the same time. I'm stealing that.

 

[TurboPanda]

I always find it highly ironic that creationists demand proof of Evolution.

Oh and anyone who says humans were Intelligently designed needs to look in the mirror. Why are the optic nerves in my eye in front of the photo receptors? Why do i have hairs on my arm when they're not thick enough to provide any warmth? Why do i have a Coccyx? It does nothing but get broken. Why do I have an Appendix? it does nothing but get infected. Why is my DNA 98% chimp, 60% earthworm and 40% banana?

I guess that's what you expect from a guy who decide to create complicated sentient beings in less than a day.

 

[UnknownGunslinger]

We're entitled to our views, and sure I don't understand everything about evolution - but to me, I just see lots of contradictions in the entire thing and potential for the whole system to backfire. A very basic and simple example as one of the many problems I see is this: If a species outgrows the rest, evolves to the highest state without a sentient mind, then surely it'd kill off completion, breed to such an amount that it'd devour all it's prey then starve to death. Resulting in no more ecosystem. I know it's unlikely and blah blah blah.
But really - I just see so many flaws in the whole concept of the idea. All the things that could go wrong, I just say it's all down to luck. If someone here can for once stop yelling 'you're stupid you don't believe in evolution!' and actually explain it for once then maybe less people would mid-understand?

Hi @GraveeKing, this is an excellent point and one that underlines very well, precisely why I love the theory of evolution so much.

What you are describing is called a Super-Predator, an animal that at some point has evolved characteristics that has made him equipped to dominate other species around him.

The most recent example will be of course Humans, in the past 50,000 years we have brought to extinction hundreds of animal species, decimated the natural environments of Greenland, Australia, the Easter Islands, intentionally changed and modified the looks and behaviour of dozens of animals for our uses and of hundreds of plants species.
We are a Super-Predator but in the long history of Earth we are not the only one that has existed.

Recent theories and computer models show that the periodic Mass extinctions that our fossil records indicate have occurred in the past, could also be explained by the emergence of Super-Predators.
Adam Lipowsk a physicist from the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland developed a computer model showing how periodic mass extinctions could be caused by the evolution of Super-Predators.
Most of the time, the model is populated by medium efficiency predators, but every so often genetic mutations lead to the evolution of a highly efficient beast.

"This super-predator is a fast-consuming species and it quickly decimated the population of prey, which in turn leads to its own decline,"

Any creatures that survives the destruction from the violent introduction of the new Super-Predator goes through radical mutations itself while filling in the new ecological niches, and fighting off the new beast.
This often leads to a sort of arms race between the local species and the intruder untill a new balance is established.

This can best be demonstrated by the ways animals and fauna, and most importantly bacteria is evolving in response to human actions.
First we observe that radical changes occur well within our lifetimes!
They can occur in two ways, one is genetic.
As predators we hunt most fish by means of net fishing, those fishes small enough to pass through the mesh of gill nets, survive to reproduce, thereby passing on genes for smaller offspring to their children. Leaving us with less fishes in our nets!
And since most fish have relatively small life cycle compared to humans, we've observed how some fish species have in fact reduced in size compared to similar fishes from regions where less commercial fishing is occurring.

The second way animals respond to Super-Predators is through plasticity:
Shifts to earlier reproduction, for example, can occur because there is a lot of food from the extinction of reduction of animals due to the actions of our Super-Predator and therefore fewer animals to dine on the remaining food - plant life, insects, what have you.
So the animals will often revert to an earlier breeding age, in order to fill in the gaps.

And it is often the harvested organisms that are the fastest-changing organisms of their kind due to the pressure exerted on them to contra react the Super-Predator.
And yes, this Super-Predator devours all its available prey then either starve to death or adapts its behaviour to the new conditions and a new balance is ultimately reached.

You see creatures are in constant struggle for survival and available resources, so much so, that we're constantly surprised by the adaptive mechanism some have come to have.
And many of those amazing mechanisms have occurred precisely because of the external pressures of superior predators.

Here are two videos of the Japanese face fish and the Heike Crab, who've developed human like characteristics because of the Japanese fisherman dislike of killing anything with man features. It's natural selection fighting off a Super-Predator at work in the most unusual ways.

Spoiler

<youtube=7hy0Bimyus4>
<youtube=gTVwgvqhwn8>

The effect is obvious, the fish with most human like features survived and reproduced, and in doing so averted being eaten by the predator.
It's easy then to see how poisonous animals, mimicry and a myriad of other adaptations would've quickly evolved in response to a new predator to ensure survival.

Many times over in the history of earth groups of species have gone extinct due to the evolution of Super-Predators, often those predators themselves have subsequently gone extinct because they were too succesful and diminished their available resources far too soon, to adapt to those changes themselves and change their behaviour!

But the beauty of life is that empty niches left behind never stay empty for very long.
You see it is not at all "unlikely and blah blah blah.", ecosystems have vanished in the past countless times, then re-discovered and re-shaped by new creatures.

The best way to describe how evolution work is by the Daisyworld simulation.
Imagine a fictional planet orbiting a star. It's populated entirely by one species - Daisies.
If you were to visit the Daisy planet one day you would walk through fields of white daisies covering every surface of the planet.
Then you come back for a visit a year later, but things are very different, the sun has grown colder, and the white daisies who were so adept at reflecting light have gone.
In their place now the planet is covered with fields of black daisies who are now dominant because they are able to catch the sparse sunlight, the white daisies could not.
The point is that there must already have been dark daisies, even when the light daisies were dominant, and that there will be light daisies still even when the world is covered with darkness.
Evolution can't produce new species on demand.
It is creating new species constantly, as genes drift and splice and break, and wait for the time when they can thrive and benefit from the current environment.

I hope this jumble I wrote is of any help. Or that you even read it for that matter
I tried to catch how under the relatively "simple" mechanism of Evolution, lies a vast and complex, self-correcting and ever striving force of life, that we are still beginning to understand in it's all mind-boggling complexity.
I think it's self-evident how the canonical Judeo-Christian view of life is insufficient in explaining all the changes we're observing and all the rich diversity of life from the past.

Please if you have any other examples of what may seem like problems, I urge to find and read books on the subject and follow the journals for the recent discoveries, to just sample all the diversity and brilliance that the full story of life holds.
Evolution is simply the mechanics that helps us explain to our selves the ways living forms interact, and change and adapt, it by no means have to clash with any religion, and missing out on those discoveries is missing out on having a full appreciation on the miracle of life.

 

[oktalist]

So what is the point of guessing about something which is unknowable?

Why guess?
Because its better to have an answer? xD
"Whats your favorite food?"
"I dunno."

But I know what my favourite food is. I don't have to guess. And I can test what my favourite food is by trying lots of different kinds of food and rating each one. (It's curry, if you're curious.)

I don't agree that it's better to have an answer if you can't say whether that answer is any more or less valid than the competing answers. Might as well believe a different religion each day, and atheism on Sundays.

 

[Daveman]

But seriously, people who don't "believe in" evolution and believe in creationism clearly should be pushed off of high buildings because after all they might be able to fly. There's no evidence or anything, but it is strictly possible.

XD
So terrible, but so funny at the same time. I'm stealing that.

Meh, I basically stole it off Tim Minchin anyways. This is pure awesome.

 

[evilneko]

Didn't read most of this thread but wanted to say this anyway. DISCLAIMER: I do not believe in a christian god (aka big sky daddy looking over us).

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, it explains is how life evolves. Evolution is pretty much fact, we know it happens. Humans have been using evolution to breed certain traits into animals for millennia.

That said, evolution doesn't explain everything, e.g.: humans have 250 unique genes that are not found in any lower species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7o7ICv5JGQ&feature=related

I've been so far unable to find a reputable source to back up such a claim. However, given who's behind Amenstop Productions [http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/index.html], I don't think I will.

Edit: After browsing that site for a while, I just have to sit back in awe at the batshit craziness being peddled there. It's an absolutely delicious mix of... just about every conspiracy theory and superstition known to man! Amazing!

 

[kouriichi]

So what is the point of guessing about something which is unknowable?

Why guess?
Because its better to have an answer? xD
"Whats your favorite food?"
"I dunno."

But I know what my favourite food is. I don't have to guess. And I can test what my favourite food is by trying lots of different kinds of food and rating each one. (It's curry, if you're curious.)

I don't agree that it's better to have an answer if you can't say whether that answer is any more or less valid than the competing answers. Might as well believe a different religion each day, and atheism on Sundays.

Lol. Never said my answer was more valid. And i never would.
xD I just say that FOR ME in particular, its the best answer.
To me it makes more sense.
Sure, random things happening is highly believable, and on a large scale i believe it.
But to the extent of our solar system being formed just as it needed to be, the sun being the proper temperature, the evolutionary lines created.... Every factor is just right for us to exist.

I believe in chances. Even if the chances of it happening were one in...... a few trillion, i would believe it was just luck. But in reality, the chances of it happening the way it did are way more astronomical then that.

This, my belief is that something had a hand in it for the odds to be beat. Something we probably cant comprehend.

 

[NickKuroshi0]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact, and should not be taught as such. It is the view of a religion, and thus should not be taught to kids as a scientific theory, but as a part of a religious history class, should they choose to take one.

Their is a reason why evolution is called a theory, because it doesnt have any evidence that we evolved from simpler beings while I do admit their is some form of genetic mutation in all lifeforms it is really not affecting their population growth.

 

[evilneko]

Lol. Never said my answer was more valid. And i never would.
xD I just say that FOR ME in particular, its the best answer.
To me it makes more sense.
Sure, random things happening is highly believable, and on a large scale i believe it.
But to the extent of our solar system being formed just as it needed to be, the sun being the proper temperature, the evolutionary lines created.... Every factor is just right for us to exist.

I believe in chances. Even if the chances of it happening were one in...... a few trillion, i would believe it was just luck. But in reality, the chances of it happening the way it did are way more astronomical then that.

This, my belief is that something had a hand in it for the odds to be beat. Something we probably cant comprehend.

Ah, ye olde fine-tuning argument.

The tuning, dear poster, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.

[small]My apologies to The Bard[/small]

 

[UnknownGunslinger]

Sure, random things happening is highly believable, and on a large scale i believe it.
But to the extent of our solar system being formed just as it needed to be, the sun being the proper temperature, the evolutionary lines created.... Every factor is just right for us to exist.

I believe in chances. Even if the chances of it happening were one in...... a few trillion, i would believe it was just luck. But in reality, the chances of it happening the way it did are way more astronomical then that.

This, my belief is that something had a hand in it for the odds to be beat. Something we probably cant comprehend.

Even if the chances are one against trillions, it still has to happen somewhere.
At least once in a trillion times
Since we are here, it's obvious it happened to us.
We are, all the proof needed that, as minute as the perfect conditions for life are it happened.

It does not necessitate belief in anything else for the "odds to be beat", the fact that they were beaten is self-evident!

 

[GraveeKing]

-ULTRA SNIP FOR GREAT JUSTICE-

I can't believe I read all that, so my much shorter reply may seem terribly insufficient! For which I do apologize x3
I'm currently looking into something someone recommended me on YouTube, which has helped a little so far, but one tiny flaw I see is as the 'super predator' because we all survive, as the human race, the 'weak and old' evolutions don't die off - which continue to consume while our own 'evolutions' would surely mean we then get around their genetic survival via natural selection - i.e developing thinner nets.
So surely what would eventually happen is a stubborn super-predator as you put it like us, would surely just continue to evolve with them until eventually we ruin every single Eco-system, destroy every part of consumable life (excluding breeding on farms and planting etc but that's not really an Eco-system) leaving nothing behind, the way I see it though is if it's not unlikely to have a super-predator - how come we're the first form of 'intelligent/sentient' on the planet?

I can already see a few loopholes but I'd rather leave it up for discussion, and I admit I know little but I thank you for your great expanse of shared knowledge. Now as much as I enjoy life and these discussions, I really must pass out now.

 

[BrassButtons]

Their is a reason why evolution is called a theory, because it doesnt have any evidence that we evolved from simpler beings while I do admit their is some form of genetic mutation in all lifeforms it is really not affecting their population growth.

The reason evolution is called a theory is because it is "an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers" (Source [http://wilstar.com/theories.htm]).

As for there not being any evidence...well if you don't even know the most basic scientific terminology, do you really think you've studied the topic enough to know what evidence we do or do not have?

 

[kouriichi]

Sure, random things happening is highly believable, and on a large scale i believe it.
But to the extent of our solar system being formed just as it needed to be, the sun being the proper temperature, the evolutionary lines created.... Every factor is just right for us to exist.

I believe in chances. Even if the chances of it happening were one in...... a few trillion, i would believe it was just luck. But in reality, the chances of it happening the way it did are way more astronomical then that.

This, my belief is that something had a hand in it for the odds to be beat. Something we probably cant comprehend.

Even if the chances are one against trillions, it still has to happen somewhere.
At least once in a trillion times
Since we are here, it's obvious it happened to us.
We are, all the proof needed that, as minute as the perfect conditions for life are it happened.

It does not necessitate belief in anything else for the "odds to be beat", the fact that they were beaten is self-evident!

But that isnt proof it DIDNT help us beat the odds either xD
The chances of there being something we dont understand is probably higher then the chances of another earth popping up with humans on it.

As i said. Its just a belief. And yes, its not 100% rational. But thats because its a belief! Everyone has them xD

 

[oktalist]

If I say the dog came from wolf hybridization but I cannot find any static link that shows that it did indeed come from it then I cannot be right.

There is no missing link between wolves and dogs, therefore dogs didn't come from wolves. You just demonstrated the ridiculousness of your argument. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

We owe everything to the "green belt".

You mean "goldilocks zone". Geez, if you can't even get that right...

EVOLUTION is not ADAPTATION

Evolution is a kind of adaptation, that happens over long time periods as a result of those individuals who are better able to reproduce, reproducing more than those that are less able to reproduce.

Evolving is the complete change or modification of the DNA strand into some other form, changing critical pieces or adding something entirely different.

That's mutation and recombination, the genetic processes that occur in the newly fertilised egg cell. Evolution doesn't depend on those exact processes, it only requires that traits be passed down from parent to child by some mechanism, any mechanism.

WE DO NOT EVOLVE when we become immune to a disease, we have ADAPTED.

We can gain immunity to certain viruses after having been exposed to them, true. But we have also evolved resistance to many diseases. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If I live in a hot climate after living in a cold climate I do not EVOLVE when I become used to it, I have adapted using the equipment I am given, my breathing is moderated slower, my body gives off more heat, my heat index will raise, my skin will become slightly thicker based on sun exposure...

That information is not passed on to your children. An individual's DNA does not change after it has been concieved.

Now if I grow a third leg I have mutated

Mutation doesn't happen like in the Incredible Hulk. It only happens in the newly fertilised egg cell, when the DNA from the sperm and egg are being combined. Sometimes the combination does not happen perfectly, and random changes creep in. That is mutation. If those random changes confer an advantage, then the resulting individual will tend to reproduce more and that new gene will, over time, become more common in the population.

and if that mutation continues and follows the chain of events that are DNA sets (as the past events can all be logged and thus we can see our future with enough analysis (A LOT OF ANALYSIS)) then that is EVOLUTION, or selective mutation based on environmental damage, corruption, or causes that may follow only my line, which would be considered a mutation, not evolution.

We can see our future? EVOLUTION which is not considered evolution? What the hell are you talking about?

every scientist has admitted that the missing link is the focus and that one definitely exists...

Every scientist would disagree with that statement.

we can track back our DNA and genome through analysis

No, we can't. Not in the way you are proposing.

but we can not find how we came from primeapes or anything else on this planet...

Primeapes! \o/

We have not evolved, and I don't know any scientist who would agree that your statement would be defined as evolution.

I think it's clear that you don't know any scientist, period.

but essentially they haven't found the chain in the DNA that links it to any animal outside of a Human.

Of course they have. We know we had a common ancestor with chimpanzees approximately 5 million years ago. We know this from DNA analyses.

You are asking for the sequencing of DNA from the fossils of every single ancestor from ourselves all the way up to our common ancestor with the chimpanzee, 5 million years ago, and only then will you accept the theory of evolution. But you are ready to believe your religion based on a single book. Seems like a massive double standard to me.

Apply the same logic to Newton's theory of gravity, that objects attract each other with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. You would not accept the theory of gravity unless we were able to measure the forces acting on every single object everywhere in the universe throughout all time. We can't do that, obviously, just like we can't get the DNA of every single one of our ancestors. But of the objects we have observed (and we have observed a great many) all move according to the theory of gravity. And of the fossils we have found (and we have found a great many) all fit the theory of evolution.

Go ask a scientist if it's undeniable...

The thing about science is, nothing is ever undeniable. That's the great thing about science. The established wisdom can always be challenged if new evidence is found that contradicts it. No evidence has yet been found that contradicts evolution. If it were, evolution would have to be reassessed. Religious people seem to percieve this uncertainty as a weakness of science, as their religions claim to provide absolute certainty. But it is a strength of science that it is able to change its views when new evidence is found.

A person adapts over time... and like a memory card that is written into their OWN DNA (not the strand theirs is based around) and that is of course saved and transmitted (if one of the successfully competing factors in the next child birthing process) to their offspring.

You're talking about Lamarkism, which has been thoroughly disproven decades ago. More recently, in epigenetics it has been found that certain ways in which some genes are expressed in the offspring can come from environmental factors experienced by the parents, but that doesn't change DNA and isn't stored across many generations and is still a very slight factor in evolution compared to the dominant Darwinian natural selection.

The Mitochondrial EVE dates back to the first, so by analyzing that genome we would obviously be able to then determine where IT first came from, and THAT has not been found in an indisputable manner as errors, gaps, and links of large or small size fail to connect and thus it is rendered implausible and time goes on.

Wrong, the mitochondrial Eve was not the first human, and is not the one that links humans to animals. As has been pointed out many times already, there is no one single missing link, it's a gradual progression. Every one of our ancestors going back 5 million years is just as much of a link as every other one, most of them are "missing" because we haven't found their fossils and because only a very small proportion of individuals are actually fossilised, but that doesn't disprove anything. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

We may already have found the mitochondrial Eve fossil, and just not realise it, because mitochondrial DNA decays so easily that it is practically impossible to sequence from a fossil. So you are asking for the impossible.

THE GENOME has been mapped a long time ago, but the actual DNA extrapolation is something entirely different.

Alright then, what is DNA extrapolation and how does it differ from sequencing a genome?

 

[Vindictus]

So what is the point of guessing about something which is unknowable?

Why guess?
Because its better to have an answer? xD
"Whats your favorite food?"
"I dunno."

But I know what my favourite food is. I don't have to guess. And I can test what my favourite food is by trying lots of different kinds of food and rating each one. (It's curry, if you're curious.)

I don't agree that it's better to have an answer if you can't say whether that answer is any more or less valid than the competing answers. Might as well believe a different religion each day, and atheism on Sundays.

Lol. Never said my answer was more valid. And i never would.
xD I just say that FOR ME in particular, its the best answer.
To me it makes more sense.
Sure, random things happening is highly believable, and on a large scale i believe it.
But to the extent of our solar system being formed just as it needed to be, the sun being the proper temperature, the evolutionary lines created.... Every factor is just right for us to exist.

I believe in chances. Even if the chances of it happening were one in...... a few trillion, i would believe it was just luck. But in reality, the chances of it happening the way it did are way more astronomical then that.

This, my belief is that something had a hand in it for the odds to be beat. Something we probably cant comprehend.

How else would you expect life that has evolved around these things to look like? This argument is silly because not only is it irrelevant, but it's also an incorrect assertion. If you put red colouring in cake batter to bake a cake, would you expect it to come out green? I think not, and the same can be said about allowing life to evolve around certain conditions. It's going to look like things are perfect or coincidental, otherwise it wouldn't have flourished!

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact, and should not be taught as such. It is the view of a religion, and thus should not be taught to kids as a scientific theory, but as a part of a religious history class, should they choose to take one.

Their is a reason why evolution is called a theory, because it doesnt have any evidence that we evolved from simpler beings while I do admit their is some form of genetic mutation in all lifeforms it is really not affecting their population growth.

Sigh....
They should really change the term. A scientific theory is the highest status something can have in science. It isn't "just a theory".

 

[oktalist]

Their is a reason why evolution is called a theory, because it doesnt have any evidence that we evolved from simpler beings while I do admit their is some form of genetic mutation in all lifeforms it is really not affecting their population growth.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Yahoo Answers: Why is evolution called a theory? [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080427090215AA1nflr]

And what's population growth got to do with anything?

 

[kouriichi]

So what is the point of guessing about something which is unknowable?

Why guess?
Because its better to have an answer? xD
"Whats your favorite food?"
"I dunno."

But I know what my favourite food is. I don't have to guess. And I can test what my favourite food is by trying lots of different kinds of food and rating each one. (It's curry, if you're curious.)

I don't agree that it's better to have an answer if you can't say whether that answer is any more or less valid than the competing answers. Might as well believe a different religion each day, and atheism on Sundays.

Lol. Never said my answer was more valid. And i never would.
xD I just say that FOR ME in particular, its the best answer.
To me it makes more sense.
Sure, random things happening is highly believable, and on a large scale i believe it.
But to the extent of our solar system being formed just as it needed to be, the sun being the proper temperature, the evolutionary lines created.... Every factor is just right for us to exist.

I believe in chances. Even if the chances of it happening were one in...... a few trillion, i would believe it was just luck. But in reality, the chances of it happening the way it did are way more astronomical then that.

This, my belief is that something had a hand in it for the odds to be beat. Something we probably cant comprehend.

How else would you expect life that has evolved around these things to look like? This argument is silly because not only is it irrelevant, but it's also an incorrect assertion. If you put red colouring in cake batter to bake a cake, would you expect it to come out green? I think not, and the same can be said about allowing life to evolve around certain conditions. It's going to look like things are perfect or coincidental, otherwise it wouldn't have flourished!

Heres the thing though. We could have evolved so many different ways the thought of it is almost scary. Theres a good chance we could have grown scales instead. Or never got fingers.

Theres a chance our brain would have stayed tiny, because it was the best option at the time.

Saying, "This protoplasm is human, and will become human" makes no sense either, because it will change and evolve based on what its species needs to survive.

your analogy of "red coloring in a cake" doesnt apply to life, because life changes, and food coloring doesnt xD

But the another thing to it is, what if hands werent the best evolutionary option at the time? What if walking upright was a detriment to humans as we were evolving? There are so many other possibilities to how we could of evolved instead of how we did, you cant calculate it xD

 

[matoasters]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact, and should not be taught as such. It is the view of a religion, and thus should not be taught to kids as a scientific theory, but as a part of a religious history class, should they choose to take one.

Their is a reason why evolution is called a theory, because it doesnt have any evidence that we evolved from simpler beings while I do admit their is some form of genetic mutation in all lifeforms it is really not affecting their population growth.

No. Evolution has pretty much been proven. We know that species change over time. It has been observed in current species, and can be traced throughout the fossil record. The amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming, while there is no genuine evidence for creationism other than the feeble protests of idiotic religious fundamentalists.