The misinterpretation of evolution

[Hides His Eyes]

I believe we were created by something beyond our comprehension.

I could call it "god" just as much as i could call it "fate", "luck", "metaphysical-aliens", or "The flying spaghetti monster".

The chances of our planet being in perfect distance of the sun to have constant liquid water on the surface, have life develop on it from thoughtless chains of atoms, to develop the perfect oxygen atmosphere and then on top of that, for us to NOT be destroyed by one of the countless (literally countless) meteors hurling through space is beyond the realm of "just happening".

And Creationism isnt the belief it happened in a matter of days. Its just that a supernatural being started it. And yes, "evolution" did most of the work after the foundation was laid.

Life gets wiped out pretty commonly on earth, and it's 'perfect oxygen levels' haven't always been here, only after a major extinction. The point is that the earth isn't and wasn't made for our perfect standards. It's literally a coincidence that the conditions were right for life to begin and adapt to the constant hazards. Do you really think that in the universe, with countless galaxies, unthinkable amounts of stars and mind-boggling amounts of planets that there wouldn't be at least one planet with the right requirements for life to evolve from nothing more than a chain of acids?

Lol. I mean for us to exist.
Yes, its all scientifically explainable.
But that doesnt make it anyless random. What are the chances we, HUMANS sit here to day?
The chances of life existing on a planet alone are so astronomical its not even worth knowing.

Its not that it all happened. Its that it all happened perfectly, for us to exist. If the planet were 10 degrees hotter when the protoplasmic creatures were first forming, we might not even exist. The evolution of them could be so radically different we wouldnt even resemble humans.

The "coincidence" of it all happening one after another after another for billions of years is what makes it so..... unbelievable. That everything is happened the way it should for us to be here now.

Yes it did. You're not actually making a point here, just reinforcing how baffled you are by the statistics and the odds. If the planet were ten degrees hotter, then life may not even still exist in this hypothetical earth by now, but the point is when you compare it to the astronomical, unimaginably horribly gigantic amount of planets in the universe, it seems more probable that we exist. No reason to run off needing a divine reason for it. We're the result of pretty much just physics.

Supposing there are a billion billion planets in the universe (a fairly conservative estimate) and the chances of the conditions for life being just right is one in a billion (again fairly conservative), there are still a billion inhabited planets, and we're necessarily on one of them because look, here we are.

Even if the odds are such that Earth is the ONLY planet in the universe with life on it, well, again, here we are. The "it's just too improbable" argument is sort of like someone rolling a d100 and being amazed at having rolled that one specific number and not any of the other 99.

 

[cdstephens]

This thread is a perfect example of why I have a hard time believing in evolution- most of you can't even agree on what we're supposed to believe!

I was raised as a Christian and still believe all that stuff but I've seen more and more evidence that points to evolution being something that may have happened. One thing I've never understood is why people don't believe God could have guided evolution; or at least played a part in it.

Evolution in itself goes against the sayings of all religions, eg, the world was not made in seven fucking days, nor is it 4000 years fucking old. So, to believe in a god associated with any religion and believe in evolution is contradictory.

Many people hold a non-literalist view of the Bible.

For example, I think that most people during the time Genesis was written by whoever wrote the Torah (Moses?) would be more likely to believe a creation myth that most everyone in the world believed than a theory on evolution, no? It's just a demonstration of God's power with lessons like "It's our own damn fault we're evil."

As another example, there are a few people, Judaists and Christians alike, who believe that Job did not exist.

 

[kouriichi]

I believe we were created by something beyond our comprehension.

I could call it "god" just as much as i could call it "fate", "luck", "metaphysical-aliens", or "The flying spaghetti monster".

The chances of our planet being in perfect distance of the sun to have constant liquid water on the surface, have life develop on it from thoughtless chains of atoms, to develop the perfect oxygen atmosphere and then on top of that, for us to NOT be destroyed by one of the countless (literally countless) meteors hurling through space is beyond the realm of "just happening".

And Creationism isnt the belief it happened in a matter of days. Its just that a supernatural being started it. And yes, "evolution" did most of the work after the foundation was laid.

Life gets wiped out pretty commonly on earth, and it's 'perfect oxygen levels' haven't always been here, only after a major extinction. The point is that the earth isn't and wasn't made for our perfect standards. It's literally a coincidence that the conditions were right for life to begin and adapt to the constant hazards. Do you really think that in the universe, with countless galaxies, unthinkable amounts of stars and mind-boggling amounts of planets that there wouldn't be at least one planet with the right requirements for life to evolve from nothing more than a chain of acids?

Lol. I mean for us to exist.
Yes, its all scientifically explainable.
But that doesnt make it anyless random. What are the chances we, HUMANS sit here to day?
The chances of life existing on a planet alone are so astronomical its not even worth knowing.

Its not that it all happened. Its that it all happened perfectly, for us to exist. If the planet were 10 degrees hotter when the protoplasmic creatures were first forming, we might not even exist. The evolution of them could be so radically different we wouldnt even resemble humans.

The "coincidence" of it all happening one after another after another for billions of years is what makes it so..... unbelievable. That everything is happened the way it should for us to be here now.

Yes it did. You're not actually making a point here, just reinforcing how baffled you are by the statistics and the odds. If the planet were ten degrees hotter, then life may not even still exist in this hypothetical earth by now, but the point is when you compare it to the astronomical, unimaginably horribly gigantic amount of planets in the universe, it seems more probable that we exist. No reason to run off needing a divine reason for it. We're the result of pretty much just physics.

Well thats the thing about it though. For us to exist, an uncountable amount of coincidences would have to occur. The odds of it happening are so outrageous, there is no number for it.

Forgive me for believing there is something more then "IT JUST HAPPENED". xD Like i said. Its not "god". Its not something i can comprehend. And thats why you can call me a "creationist".

 

[Stall]

Evolution includes the creation of life. How the hell do you think it happened without it?

No. Evolution does not include the creation of life. It has nothing to do with the creation of life. The creation of life is a field called abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

It's hilarious, because I pointed this out a few posts above you. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[weker]

snip
It's really fucking stupid, though, and that was a terrible, terrible analogy.

"It's really fucking stupid" unsure what your referring to here as you also said "and that was a terrible, terrible analogy." so I am unsure what the first part of the sentence was referring to.

My analogy was meant to be lighthearted if that was your issue with it

 

[Alexlion]

MITOCHONDRIAL LINK TO EVE

You need that or you can't prove evolution and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST will admit they don't know what that link is...

To everyone who doesn't know what he's talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

tl;dr: Every woman has DNA in her mitochondria which was passed on from her mother. By comparing the mitochondrial DNA with that of other living women, scientists have reached the conclusion that an African H. sapien woman is the ancestor of every woman currently alive on earth.. Her contemporaries reproduced, mind, but none of their lineages have survived "unbroken".

If any of you are interested in how this was done, this is a very informative Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test

Look at the mtDNA section.

& Back on topic, please explain exactly the "link" you say is missing. What would you accept as proof? What is the link we're looking for? Fossil evidence? The name and address of the lady? What do you want from us?

Ask that to the scientists that are looking for it, but essentially they haven't found the chain in the DNA that links it to any animal outside of a Human.

Erm im not sure what mitochondrial eve has to do with genetic links to other animals the point is a common ancestor, but maybe I misunderstood what you meant. If your curious chimpanzees are 96%-98% genetically similar to human beings depending on how its calculated.

And surely if you making a creationist argument then doesn't that mean you believe there was a literal eve and if so shouldn't we be able to trace our history back to this one common ancestor?

 

[Delsana]

Alright... I'll make this entirely simple.

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.

Adaptations occur very quickly, though not as quick as minutes or days or even months but quick in terms of the our lives.

As that adaptation settles it is saved just like our instruction manuals against diseases are saved.

Those are transmitted on and a thing called "resiliency" forms.

But that is adaptation or selective-evolution and very different than the theories you're trying to shove based on the evolutionary line and timeline of Humanity.

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.

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

 

[cdstephens]

EVOLUTION is not ADAPTATION

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

ADAPTING is the modification based on current capability of the creature, animal, or humanoid that only activates when it comes close to it.

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

---

This thread title is literally important when it comes to ADAPTATION and EVOLUTION.

If a species becomes immune to a disease, then yes that means we have evolved because they have genetic differences that make them much less susceptible to the disease.

If we develop antibodies that make us immune to the disease, then yes that is adaptation.

Incorrect, we have no genetic differences, we merely have new information that our body retains in an index or archive or diseases and essentially protects us against.

We get a new instruction manual, we have "learned", "experienced", or "adapted".

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

The instruction manual and archive you refer to is called DNA.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Let me wrap this whole thing up in burritos. (thats right, im gunna wrap it like a burrito, with burritos.)

Sheep are Stupid.
Sheep are part of a flock. ((Unless theyre black sheep. Then its a Murder of Sheep))
The sheep will listen to whatever the dogs bark loudest. This is learned from an early age, because of the sheep doesnt listen, they get bit.
The dogs like to keep order, and control the flock ((or murder)) of sheep. So they bark loudly.

Now if you didnt get that analogy, let me explain it.

People are stupid.
People are part of religions. ((Unless theyre black sheep. Then its Atheism))
The people will listen to whatever their leaders/parents/priests ideas are. This is learned from an early age, because of the person doesnt listen, they get punished.
The leaders/parents/priests like to keep order, and control the people. So they force their ideas.

Roughly 50% of Americans dont believe in evolution.
Roughly 76% of Americans identify themselves as christian.
Christians are told from an early age, "God made man".
Because they are "brainwashed" (for lack of a better term) to believe what is RIGHT and WRONG, they never read in depth "theories" like Evolution.
Yes, this means many Christians are able to see past their "brainwashing" (again, for lack of a better term), but it also means many are blind, and dont WANT to see past it.

See how it all fits together? Most people who dont believe in evolution, are Christians. Anyone else is well.... an idiot. (Not in the insulting way. I mean "uneducated". And not in a bad way)
Because the large majority of people were told from childhood, "God is always right, never question him, he made the world and everyone on it", they dont believe in evolution.

Im not saying religion is bad. But there is a pretty large correlation between Religion, and the halt of scientific progress.

Please note: I am not saying anyone else has to believe this. This is just my belief. This is MY take on the situation and reason behind evolution being such a misinterpreted subject. If i offended you, sorry. It was not my intention.

So your belief is that Evolution is obviously the "intelligent" side.

Interesting, though I know numerous intelligent Christians that are far more capable than either of us and they wholeheartedly explain, and defend Creationism.

No, evolution isnt so much the "intelligent" side, as it is the "knowledgeable" side.
((I know people who you would call "intelligent", but they cant even change a flat tire))

And personally, i believe in creationism. But the thing is, Evolution is a fact. Why do you think the common cold is such a problem? Because its constantly evolving. Its always changing its form c. We can never cure it, because of its rapid evolution.

Or the experiment of increasing the lifespan of a fly. http://livelonger.hubpages.com/hub/Longevity_and_Genetics

Evolution is one of the few things we can actively PROVE. xD

So do you think that God created the entire universe within a matter of days, including all life, or do you hold a more intelligent design belief with God creating the universe but evolution doing most of the "work"?

Not really "god".
I believe we were created by something beyond our comprehension.

I could call it "god" just as much as i could call it "fate", "luck", "metaphysical-aliens", or "The flying spaghetti monster".

The chances of our planet being in perfect distance of the sun to have constant liquid water on the surface, have life develop on it from thoughtless chains of atoms, to develop the perfect oxygen atmosphere and then on top of that, for us to NOT be destroyed by one of the countless (literally countless) meteors hurling through space is beyond the realm of "just happening".

And Creationism isnt the belief it happened in a matter of days. Its just that a supernatural being started it. And yes, "evolution" did most of the work after the foundation was laid.

Thinking that is fine, I have no objections to that. This is mostly because evolution starts after the creation of life. Therefore Creationism has free reign over that area. However, that still doesn't make Creationism a science and thats the big point.

Evolution includes the creation of life. How the hell do you think it happened without it?

Abiogenesis, which is an entirely different theory that is not related to Evolution.

 

[OctopusRidge]

MITOCHONDRIAL LINK TO EVE

You need that or you can't prove evolution and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST will admit they don't know what that link is...

To everyone who doesn't know what he's talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

tl;dr: Every woman has DNA in her mitochondria which was passed on from her mother. By comparing the mitochondrial DNA with that of other living women, scientists have reached the conclusion that an African H. sapien woman is the ancestor of every woman currently alive on earth.. Her contemporaries reproduced, mind, but none of their lineages have survived "unbroken".

If any of you are interested in how this was done, this is a very informative Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test

Look at the mtDNA section.

& Back on topic, please explain exactly the "link" you say is missing. What would you accept as proof? What is the link we're looking for? Fossil evidence? The name and address of the lady? What do you want from us?

Ask that to the scientists that are looking for it, but essentially they haven't found the chain in the DNA that links it to any animal outside of a Human.

We share more than 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

Any source will tell you that.

Geneticists use Drosophilia (fruit flies) to aid in studying human diseases, and to aid in understanding the human genome, and have for years. They're cheaper to take care of, have a short life cycle, and have genomes that are close enough to humans' to be of use
http://www.physorg.com/news155751263.html

There is no doubt in the scientific community that we have large tracts of DNA in common with all living things. They're not debating on whether we evolved alongside all other animals (and from common ancestors of all of the animals and plants in existence today!), they're just debating on the how, the why, the when, and the how fast.

 

[martin's a madman]

Sorry, but work on the grammar and sentence structure, it was a chore to read.


Every week someone makes this thread, and this isn't a particularly good one.

 

[Berethond]

"That's right, around 50% of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution, and that is sad"

Who put you on such a high horse? You know what? Your saying its sad that people don't believe in what you do, and that is sad. Seriously most people don't give a shit about Human evolution so deal with it. Why do people who strongly believe in Evolution have to be such dick heads? Sorry we can't all be like you.

That's the thing. Evolution isn't ABOUT belief. It doesn't matter at all, it's been observed and it is true and it happens. If at this point you deny evolution that's like saying it's nighttime while looking at the sun.

 

[renegade7]

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.

Because evolution is a scientific theory that forms the basis of the entirety of the field of biology, in that it explains why creatures are the way they are. True or not, it's pretty important to understand how it works and its implications. Creationism, on the other hand, is based in faith, not hard facts, and thus has no place in a science classroom. I think it's fine if it's taught in school, because understanding various religions is important to understanding culture. But they should teach about religion, that is the facts, important figures, history, etc., but they should not preach it.

 

[molesgallus]

I am a Catholic, but I still know that evolution exists, and I agree that it is appalling that most people don't don't know about it. However, I do not think everyone should be forced to believe in evolution, if people don't want to, why make them? Intelligent design is still a possible theory, as is the theory of evolution, I think God guided evolution but, I'm not going to go around and try and make people teach this in schools everywhere.

It's not evolution if God guided it, just slow creation.

 

[Delsana]

MITOCHONDRIAL LINK TO EVE

You need that or you can't prove evolution and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST will admit they don't know what that link is...

To everyone who doesn't know what he's talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

tl;dr: Every woman has DNA in her mitochondria which was passed on from her mother. By comparing the mitochondrial DNA with that of other living women, scientists have reached the conclusion that an African H. sapien woman is the ancestor of every woman currently alive on earth.. Her contemporaries reproduced, mind, but none of their lineages have survived "unbroken".

If any of you are interested in how this was done, this is a very informative Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test

Look at the mtDNA section.

& Back on topic, please explain exactly the "link" you say is missing. What would you accept as proof? What is the link we're looking for? Fossil evidence? The name and address of the lady? What do you want from us?

Ask that to the scientists that are looking for it, but essentially they haven't found the chain in the DNA that links it to any animal outside of a Human.

We share more than 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

Any source will tell you that.

Geneticists use Drosophilia (fruit flies) to aid in studying human diseases, and to aid in understanding the human genome, and have for years. They're cheaper to take care of, have a short life cycle, and have genomes that are close enough to humans' to be of use
http://www.physorg.com/news155751263.html

There is no doubt in the scientific community that we have large tracts of DNA in common with all living things. They're not debating on whether we evolved alongside all other animals (and from common ancestors of all of the animals and plants in existence today!), they're just debating on the how, the why, the when, and the how fast.

I've got too many things to follow, but I made a post shortly above yours.

Point is that having things in common is not proof as we have things in common with everything... as in terms of Creationism we were made first and everything was based off of the instructions already made and that we then were told to name... long story short your statement is illogical.

The LINK is the proof undeniably, that our original ancestor actually CAME from any of those and the entire extrapolation of the DNA would be required to learn that, or if we try to learn it otherwise it has yet to be proven... we have similarities just like many things are found in many things such as vitamins, nutrients, colors, eyes... but just because it HAS IT doesn't mean that what it is most similar to is what it CAME from.

 

[cdstephens]

Alright... I'll make this entirely simple.

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.

Adaptations occur very quickly, though not as quick as minutes or days or even months but quick in terms of the our lives.

As that adaptation settles it is saved just like our instruction manuals against diseases are saved.

Those are transmitted on and a thing called "resiliency" forms.

But that is adaptation or selective-evolution and very different than the theories you're trying to shove based on the evolutionary line and timeline of Humanity.

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.

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

Then how come people become immune to chicken pox after the first time they have it but their children are still susceptible to it? We are not genetically immune to chicken pox, we have mechanisms within our body such that once we get it then we can combat it in the future because our body figures out how to fight that particular strain. This "knowledge" isn't passed down to the offspring because this knowledge isn't based in DNA, it's based in our brain.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Well the bible says that on a particular day He created man and than woman out of man.

There's really nothing to interpret out of that.

So... creationism.

Alrighty then.

---

Outside of that... when you can find the missing mitochondria eve then we will chat about EVOLUTION, but until then I'm not giving it a thought.

I really don't mean to get into a huge discussion about this (unless you want to take this to a PM), but how is the bible proof? It's basically the same as saying your friend told you: anecdotal evidence that holds no water.

I know you believe it, and that's fine for you and anyone else who does, but can you at least see how others would not?

Also, I am unfamiliar with the whole thing with the missing mitochondria. What is that?

The LINK so to speak is the thing evolution misses the chain that links any animal to the plausible Human DNA chain.

Similarities exist, as they do in every species but there is no link to us and scientists are throwing everything trying to find it (hence why they want to map the entire DNA sequence which would take massive massive datapower) but without it they are just a THEORY.

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.

If I find a chain and say that it links to a ball but the ball has no loose chain that broke then I am wrong.

YOU NEED THE MISSING LINK and without it you are wrong.

Every single "stage" if you want to call it that, (it's really not a stage, just a point in time) is a "missing link" There is no "this turns into this", it's a constant change due to selection pressure.

Incorrect, every scientist has admitted that the missing link is the focus and that one definitely exists... we can track back our DNA and genome through analysis (which we haven't perfected based on processing power) but we can not find how we came from primeapes or anything else on this planet... because the missing link is not there...

But no scientist will agree a missing link doesn't exist... DNA IS THE CHAIN and every chain binds to another that causes a link.

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/B004AYCWY4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314495410&sr=1-1

See, the thing is, scientists FOUND "the missing link" decades ago, and they've found many more since. Every time they find one creationists basically say "now there are twice as many missing links as there were before!!!"

Incorrect, theories and plausibility were found, but no concrete link that links Human to ape in a chain that isn't corrupted.

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

I don't know which scientists you've been talking to about this. Please, please, please read the book I linked to. There are so many things wrong with your point of view that I can't address them, but that book does. But in a nutshell, the problem is that you're thinking of an animal up here and human beings down there, and they're so different that you think there must be some intermediate stage linking them. But it's not like that. It's like, if you went back far enough in the ancestral chain your ancestors would start to resemble something else, and then something else, and finally that animal from the fossil. We don't have records of every single "stage" because the fossil record is incomplete; and why on earth should it be complete? We are doing the best with what we have.