The misinterpretation of evolution

Recommended Videos

Abengoshis

New member
Aug 12, 2009
626
0
0
Delsana said:
Avatar Roku said:
Delsana said:
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.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,756
0
0
Flac00 said:
Is it because of the rise of Creationism and Intelligent design (which are the same exact thing) has been corrupting our science classes and media? I would just like to hear other people's opinions on this.
Sort of, but it's both because easy answers/slogans win, and he who shouts loudest is considered right.

It's also, in part, because creationists have phrased it as though evolution is nothing more than an attack on God.
 

iLikeHippos

New member
Jan 19, 2010
1,837
0
0
enzilewulf said:


"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.
Wouldn't had worded it as strong, but indeed.


I just say "I was made by my mom and dad. Now what's for dinner? I'm starving." and so just leave the subject at that, and make something productive instead.
 
Mar 9, 2010
2,722
0
0
Levski7 said:
I believe in evolution. Pretty sure that makes it a belief.
In the sense that you can believe in it, yes it is. In the sense that it matters and requires your faith, no it isn't. What I'm saying is it's not the same belief as religion.
 

Flac00

New member
May 19, 2010
782
0
0
NotAwesomeAtAll said:
kjrubberducky said:
With the amount of people who are mislead / willfully ignorant about current events and the state of the world they live in, educating them on things that might have happened hundreds of millions of years ago shouldn't be a priority. IMO, all it provides is intellectual masturbation for no real gain.
I second this.There are much more pressing issues than if we got here through evolution or if we were created by something.Honestly, I see why this is important in a big "what is the answer to Life, the Universe, and everything" way, but the debates all descended into games of one-upmanship; one said saying "Look how great we are for believing in creation," and the other responding with "Look how great we are for believing science". Nothing is gained from these arguments, and a considerable amount of time has been spent in the academic,theological, and scientific community getting into petty squabbles when they could be doing something more important than trying to yell the opposing side (whichever it might be) into submission.
In short: we need to deal with the here and know before we deal with the beginning of time,and those who do study how we became need to know when to open an actual intelligent dialog, and when to ignore the angry preacher,teacher,or scientist who just wants to get into a pissing contest.
Bit off topic, sorry.
Well, my only big problem is that it is no coincidence that those same people who don't believe in Evolution also don't believe in more "pressing" matters. Global Climate Change, expanding into space, ect. Thats not coincidence. It is not only a pattern, but a disease of ignorance. When I said culture, I meant it. It is not everyone, but many people in certain communities refuse to accept any modern advancements. Evolution is just the tip of the very deep and twisted iceberg.
 

cdstephens

New member
Apr 5, 2010
228
0
0
Alexlion said:
NotAwesomeAtAll said:
kjrubberducky said:
With the amount of people who are mislead / willfully ignorant about current events and the state of the world they live in, educating them on things that might have happened hundreds of millions of years ago shouldn't be a priority. IMO, all it provides is intellectual masturbation for no real gain.
I second this.There are much more pressing issues than if we got here through evolution or if we were created by something.Honestly, I see why this is important in a big "what is the answer to Life, the Universe, and everything" way, but the debates all descended into games of one-upmanship; one said saying "Look how great we are for believing in creation," and the other responding with "Look how great we are for believing science". Nothing is gained from these arguments, and a considerable amount of time has been spent in the academic,theological, and scientific community getting into petty squabbles when they could be doing something more important than trying to yell the opposing side (whichever it might be) into submission.
In short: we need to deal with the here and know before we deal with the beginning of time,and those who do study how we became need to know when to open an actual intelligent dialog, and when to ignore the angry preacher,teacher,or scientist who just wants to get into a pissing contest.
Bit off topic, sorry.
Tell you what when you become a member of the scientific community then you may dictate to us on how to spend our time, or how worth while the subjects we research are. Till then how about you shut up and enjoy the medical advancements and benefits it brings you.

Honestly you argue that peoples lack of understanding of the world around them leads to strife then try to make the point that wilful ignorance will benefit us.
Well actually I'm pretty sure that research into the human genome and evolution gives us further understanding in DNA and microbiology, which allows us to perform genetic engineering much more efficiently than our ancestors thousands of years could have.

And even if some of it is a waste of time, it's what they want to do. *shrugs*
 

Avatar Roku

New member
Jul 9, 2008
6,169
0
0
Delsana said:
Levski7 said:
kouriichi said:
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?
We owe everything to the "green belt".

But your statement does not prove you right and Christianity wrong.
Most people who believe in evolution are not trying to prove Christianity wrong. Unless you are taking literally every word of the bible as literal truth, they are not mutually exclusive. One is the how, the other is the why.
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
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...

These are adaptations enabled by essentially "cheat codes" which are only unlocked when we come into a situation that requires it.

Now if I grow a third leg I have mutated 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.
 

kouriichi

New member
Sep 5, 2010
2,414
0
0
Levski7 said:
kouriichi said:
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.
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
Deshara said:
Delsana said:
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".
If Earth supporting life is proof of some apparently knowledgable force existing and in some way guiding us, then is every other planet that isn't life-sustainable proof that god doesn't exist?
In the bible it says (and I didn't write that statement so either you extrapolated or someone else did) that the universe is a reflection of his beauty and glory.

Essentially an artist doesn't just paint one thing, but not everything in the picture has to be the top focus.
 

Rafael Dera

New member
Aug 24, 2010
68
0
0
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.[/quote]

The class in which evolution is taught is known as Science. Creationism is not science, and neither is ID. Therefore evolution and creationism should not be taught simultaneously. Creationism and ID can be taught in the religion class, though.

[/quote]

That comic is pure genius. perfect illustration of how a picture can say more then a thousand words. Thank you for that.
 

weker

New member
May 27, 2009
1,372
0
0
cdstephens said:
The one exception of course being a religion class that teaches religion from an outside point of view. It would be rather hard to teach what's in the Bible without going through Genesis.
Thats RE Religious Education, however I think the name as been attack by the PC brigade and been changed to FE Faith and Ethics for both PC reason and for a more accurate name in some cases.
 

cdstephens

New member
Apr 5, 2010
228
0
0
Delsana said:
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.
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
Abengoshis said:
Delsana said:
Avatar Roku said:
Delsana said:
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.
 

Alexlion

New member
May 2, 2011
76
0
0
enzilewulf said:


"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.
Here is a hypothetical
Let me put it to you this way i start denying world war 1 or 2 happened, you can prove me wrong and you may well try but i believe your lying and your evidence is falsified how can you make my change my mind, simple answer is you cant.

I do not care if you believe in god or not but evolution happened by gods hand or not, denying it and the evidence though isn't sensible or rational we have to accept the reality of our world around us so we can better our understanding of it and progress science medicine etc. Most people who try to teach you evolution arnt trying to upset you they are trying to teach the truth. Trust me learning the truth about the world does not tarnish its beauty.
 

Cpu46

Gloria ex machina
Sep 21, 2009
1,604
0
41
Speakercone said:
Cpu46 said:
Dann661 said:
snip
Further nitpick on your nitpick: if it can't be tested or observed, it isn't even a hypothesis. Maybe 'assertion' or 'idea' is closer to the mark. I usually prefer 'thinly veiled religious extremism' to describe ID.
Yea, I know. Someone already pointed that out to me.
 

MysticToast

New member
Jul 28, 2010
628
0
0
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.
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
cdstephens said:
Delsana said:
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.
 

OctopusRidge

New member
Aug 28, 2011
3
0
0
Delsana said:
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?