Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[flvinny521]

But of being, of the beings in their being: Humans remain constantly outside of all understanding, as much before they have heard as after they have first heard; for while everything occurs according to the being of which i speak, they are indeed like the inexperienced, when they attempt such words and works as I set forth! I myself exemplify this when I set forth, in that I distinguish each thing according to its essence and i say that it is as it is.

But what the other humans do while awake escapes from them just as what was present to them while asleep again conceals itself from them.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Evolution and the Earth being flat are very common. Both have been "proven" and stated as "fact" .... based on the knowledge of the time. When the Earth being flat was just accepted, the thought of going into space, or analyzing the stars and the moon and understanding what they are was unheard of. Eventually with more knowledge and technology they were able to disprove it.

Perhaps one day, evolution and/or the big bang (they tend to go together, but don't have to) will be fully proved... or disproved. Though it is a much more complex theory so I don't imagine any major breakthroughs any time soon.

I'm hungry for a banana. Guess since that craving is in me, we must come from monkeys. How many people don't like bananas, really? I think it's solid proof right there that we come from monkeys.

You are an idiot.

Evolution and the Flat Earth crap have very little in common, outside of only ignorant people ignore the science and supporting evidence that show evolution happens AND that the Earth is spherical.

The Earth was known to be spherical as early as 330 BC with the ancient Greeks and Aristotle (although there is evidence that it was even as early as the 6th century BC). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Decline_of_the_Flat_Earth_model

The Big Bang and Evolution have nothing to do with one another. The Big Bang theory is a theory stating how the universe started. It states nothing about life forming or not. Evolution doesn't give a crap about how the universe got started. Instead, evolution states that once life started it then started to adapt to the specific environment it was a part of.

The Big Bang theory has a ton of supporting evidence. Hubble being the most notable, but also the cosmic background radiation (WIMP for example), and many others. Do some research if you don't believe it. Evolution has even MORE support. We have SEEN species evolve (check out Lenski Affair, Darwin's Finches, and there is a species of reptile on an island that used to be the same and have now evolved into two different species which can no longer mate one together). We have fossil records that show evolution happening. You're a fool if you don't "believe" it.

As for the Banana, the most common one (the Cavendish) was bred through evolution. Here is a wild banana

It looks NOTHING like the one you get at the supermarket. The reason is that through genetic selection (done by humans), we selected traits we wanted and cultivated those plants. The number of people who like or dislike bananas has no relevance to how we evolved.

Oh, and finally... We are related to apes, however modern apes and humans have a modern ancestor. Check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution. It even has a nifty graph that shows ancestors and such. Humans and apes split a few million years ago, which is why we have similar genetics but are not the same.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

 

[Ns1]

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

One of the tenets of the Scientific principle is observation. Some of the greatest Scientific theories cannot be tested in any way, ie the Big Bang theory.

The big bang theory was established because astronomers observed that the Universe was expanding.

The theory of evolution was born under similar circumstances as well.



It has been tested, and found wanting. Random mutation, the supposed enabler of evolution, has never been shown (or even directly observed) in Nature or the Laboratory to be able to make positive changes to any creature to the extent that the creature would become a new species.

In fact, mutations tend to be neutral or harmful, and cells have active defenses and repair mechanisms against it.

And for the last time, I am NOT A CREATIONIST! And if you think Intelligent Design has anything to do with Creationism, then you are ignorant.

I'm sure this has been handled already, but creationism and Intelligent Design are both based on the concept that God created everything.
In order for that to be true, you must 1st prove God exists. You can't produce one piece of evidence that God exists. Hell we have multiple groups climing their version of God is the right one, but which one of those is right? Is Christianity the correct religion? Judiasm? Islam?
What about Hindus, Bhuddists, Native Americans, The Mayans? Incas? The FACT that there are so many wildly differing religions points to the high possibility that there is infact, not a one true God.

The Theory of Evolution is like the Theory of Physics. It can be measurably tested and observed. Creationism or (un)Intelligent Design can not be tested or measured. This is the flaw in it. It is designed by man as a way to explain things without providing for evidense or proof.
It's akin to saying, Wood is made of fre because wood burns.

 

[jbt52]

http://news.yahoo.com/closest-human-ancestor-may-rewrite-steps-evolution-141606435.html

Just saw this and had to post

 

[Ns1]

http://news.yahoo.com/closest-human-ancestor-may-rewrite-steps-evolution-141606435.html

Just saw this and had to post

FSM put that here to test our faith.

 

[mattpegher]

http://news.yahoo.com/closest-human-ancestor-may-rewrite-steps-evolution-141606435.html

Just saw this and had to post

I don't like the title of this article it implies some refuting evidence when in fact it simply suggests that early hominins had pelvic changes that allowed bipedal motion and that change allowed for larger brains not vice versa. That tool use is probably older than once thought and required smaller brains than once thought. Yahoo like most news agencies trumping up interest in a rather mundane anthropologic data.

 

[bas1c]

My question is, for both creationists and evolutionists, how did these elements, amino acids, etc. come into existence in the first place. Maybe all these building blocks of life came from a single molecule and mutated from there...but how did that single molecule even start?

 

[PsiStar]

You guys can just go on & on & on ...

Creationists ... get over yourselves

God did not create man. Man created god.

It is everything's DNA to be attracted to those of like kind. Protazoa versus paramecium to jews versus muslims ... my high school team versus your high school team. Everything groups as a group is more likely to survive than the one. Everything outside the group is bad.

Lennon said it, and he was murdered by a born again Christian. Figments of mankind's imagination are deadly.

 

[bas1c]

You guys can just go on & on & on ...

Creationists ... get over yourselves

God did not create man. Man created god.

It is everything's DNA to be attracted to those of like kind. Protazoa versus paramecium to jews versus muslims ... my high school team versus your high school team. Everything groups as a group is more likely to survive than the one. Everything outside the group is bad.

Lennon said it, and he was murdered by a born again Christian. Figments of mankind's imagination are deadly.

Creationists and Evolutionists share a common thing, assholes are among them. So don't the entire group because of some idiots.

The theory of evolution, in my opinion, only proved that evolution does exist and is the reason for the vast diversity of life on this planet. It does not explain how life began. At some point there is an assumption that all the essentials for life just happened to be there and the process started some how. You have faith that it was the case and no way of ever proving it. How is that any different than creationism? In that way, science has become a religion. You start with base precepts that will never be conclusively proven and build everything off of that. Religion has been proven wrong in the past and science has been as well. For all we know L. Ron Hubbard may be the greatest prophet and be ultimately proven right.

People who are fanatically religious are so because they want to feel like there is some great plan and that life itself is not chaos. Science fanatics are so because they want to think that they are in control of their own lives and not be bound to a higher being. In that way, they both fear the unknown.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Creationists and Evolutionists share a common thing, assholes are among them. So don't the entire group because of some idiots.

The theory of evolution, in my opinion, only proved that evolution does exist and is the reason for the vast diversity of life on this planet. It does not explain how life began. At some point there is an assumption that all the essentials for life just happened to be there and the process started some how. You have faith that it was the case and no way of ever proving it. How is that any different than creationism? In that way, science has become a religion. You start with base precepts that will never be conclusively proven and build everything off of that. Religion has been proven wrong in the past and science has been as well. For all we know L. Ron Hubbard may be the greatest prophet and be ultimately proven right.

People who are fanatically religious are so because they want to feel like there is some great plan and that life itself is not chaos. Science fanatics are so because they want to think that they are in control of their own lives and not be bound to a higher being. In that way, they both fear the unknown.

Jesus Christ......

 

[KingstonU]

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

Thanks I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. GOLD! Several minutes and I still can't stop.

Edit: That's it, this will be the first ever quote going into my signature. :sneaky:

 

[DrPizza]

My question is, for both creationists and evolutionists, how did these elements, amino acids, etc. come into existence in the first place. Maybe all these building blocks of life came from a single molecule and mutated from there...but how did that single molecule even start?

WTF? Is this a serious question? Okay, from the big bang, eventually as the universe cooled, we ended up with hydrogen, helium, and lithium. That's it, although I've seen some sources claim that beryllium and boron may have occurred in trace amounts. Gravity, etc. - stars. If a star is more massive than a certain size, it eventually goes supernova. ALL of the elements higher than Lithium were created in stars. Eventually, you wind up with our solar system, our planet, and all of these elements on Earth in various amounts.

As far as molecules, there are a lot of ways for the basic molecules to form. There is geologic evidence for the elements that would have been most common in Earth's early atmosphere. With these elements present, it would be a miracle if these amino acids didn't form. A lot of chemists assumed that these molecules would occur in warmer/hotter areas (and they were probably right. But, I also read a recent article where Stanley Miller put together likely chemicals (I think it was ammonia, cyanide, and water) and froze the mixture for 25 years. After 25 years, nucleobases and amino acids had formed. Later experiments (Briebricher) with ice and nucleobases, along with one strand of RNA showed that at these temperatures, the nucleobases could form more chains of RNA, with chains of 400 or more nucleobases being discovered. Further, chemicals which act as enzymes do one thing at room temperature - cutting RNA in half, but act differently at freezing temperatures; they actually splice RNA strands together.

Now, this is just a hypothesis; I don't think there would ever be definitive proof of how life began here, but these laboratory experiments have demonstrated that a lot of the necessary steps to go from basic molecules to complex molecules are more than possible. Of course, there's the question "well, why haven't they done it yet." Well, apparently it doesn't happen all the time. What if the odds of it happening were one in a billion experiments. Don't forget, each cubic meter of ice would contain the equivalent of roughly a million test tube samples.

Creationists and Evolutionists share a common thing, assholes are among them. So don't the entire group because of some idiots.

The theory of evolution, in my opinion, only proved that evolution does exist and is the reason for the vast diversity of life on this planet. It does not explain how life began.

Yep, I'm an asshole sometimes, simply because I'm often intolerant of stupidity. Speaking of which, congratu-fucking-lations at pointing out that evolution doesn't explain how life began. WE ALL KNOW THAT. It has never been a part of the theory of evolution, as has been pointed out in this thread already, and has NOTHING to do with your opinion. That you apparently think that people who believe in evolution believe that evolution has anything to do with abiogenesis simply demonstrates how incredibly ignorant you are on this topic.

 

[bas1c]

WTF? Is this a serious question? Okay, from the big bang, eventually as the universe cooled, we ended up with hydrogen, helium, and lithium. That's it, although I've seen some sources claim that beryllium and boron may have occurred in trace amounts. Gravity, etc. - stars. If a star is more massive than a certain size, it eventually goes supernova. ALL of the elements higher than Lithium were created in stars. Eventually, you wind up with our solar system, our planet, and all of these elements on Earth in various amounts.

You missed the point or I made a bad one. If I did, my fault. The problem with the big bang theory is that it explains what may have occurred if all the matter that makes up the universe was just sitting there and something catalyzed the process.

What I asked is, based on the assumptions of the theory, how was this original set of matter there in the first place? You accept, and I stress again, by faith, that it just was and never answered my question. Essentially what you have is an inductive proof without the base case being established.

Yep, I'm an asshole sometimes, simply because I'm often intolerant of stupidity. Speaking of which, congratu-fucking-lations at pointing out that evolution doesn't explain how life began. WE ALL KNOW THAT. It has never been a part of the theory of evolution, as has been pointed out in this thread already, and has NOTHING to do with your opinion. That you apparently think that people who believe in evolution believe that evolution has anything to do with abiogenesis simply demonstrates how incredibly ignorant you are on this topic.

You'd be surprised at the number people that do think. Religious people are blinded by the need to be more pious than others. Scientific people are blinded by the need to be smarter than others. Get over it.

 

[sandorski]

You missed the point or I made a bad one. If I did, my fault. The problem with the big bang theory is that it explains what may have occurred if all the matter that makes up the universe was just sitting there and something catalyzed the process.

What I asked is, based on the assumptions of the theory, how was this original set of matter there in the first place? You accept, and I stress again, by faith, that it just was and never answered my question. Essentially what you have is an inductive proof without the base case being established.
==================
Not Faith, but to the best of our understanding.
===================
You'd be surprised at the number people that do think. Religious people are blinded by the need to be more pious than others. Scientific people are blinded by the need to be smarter than others. Get over it.

False. They seek to Understand and that Understanding, in areas we are not sure of, is based upon things that are already understood.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Many years from now, a transgalactic civilization has discovered time travel. A deep-thinking temporal engineer wonders what would happen if a time machine were sent back to the singularity from which the big bang emerged. His calculations yield an interesting result: the singularity would be destabilized, producing an explosion resembling the big bang. Needless to say, a time machine was quickly sent on its way

 

[DrPizza]

You missed the point or I made a bad one. If I did, my fault. The problem with the big bang theory is that it explains what may have occurred if all the matter that makes up the universe was just sitting there and something catalyzed the process.

What I asked is, based on the assumptions of the theory, how was this original set of matter there in the first place? You accept, and I stress again, by faith, that it just was and never answered my question. Essentially what you have is an inductive proof without the base case being established.

You'd be surprised at the number people that do think. Religious people are blinded by the need to be more pious than others. Scientific people are blinded by the need to be smarter than others. Get over it.

These things are NOT taken as acts of faith. There are various hypotheses for the very beginning of the universe. Some of the hypotheses are actually testable (one involves patterns in the cosmic background microwave radiation.) NO scientist is ever satisfied with an answer of "it just was."

I hope you're not considering yourself among the people "that do think." Because if you put forth even a miniscule amount of thought, you'd realize, "hey, 30 seconds of googling will help avoid me making myself look like an idiot."

And, "need to be smarter?" What's that mean? Most people who grow throughout their lives are lifelong learners. They constantly strive to learn new things. Scientists constantly strive to learn new things - to discover things about our universe and better understand how everything got to be the way it is, and how everything works. It's pretty pathetic of you to state this as a bad thing. If someone invents a time machine, perhaps they could take you back to the Dark Ages - maybe you'd fit in better there.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

At some point there is an assumption that all the essentials for life just happened to be there and the process started some how.

Wrong. The assumption you suggest is not necessary.

The remainder of your post is based upon this false premise.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What I asked is, based on the assumptions of the theory, how was this original set of matter there in the first place?

What "first place"?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

And, "need to be smarter?" What's that mean? Most people who grow throughout their lives are lifelong learners. They constantly strive to learn new things. Scientists constantly strive to learn new things

For what it's worth, which is little I know, I am one of these people and am quite sure that God guided evolution.

I just don't think that this point of view should be used as an explanation for what or how, though.

What and how is the domain of empiricism; The ultimate "why" has so very very little to do with explaining what and how and the smaller questions of "why how" and "why what" that I don't see as how it's a conflict at all.

 

[Paul98]

The main problem is that people think there uneducated opinions matter. Then instead of trying to educate themselves, spout nonsense. Such as thinking evolution has to do with how life first started.

 

[Paul98]

I see it all the time people don't really understand what they are talking about, and then come up with "theories" about how something should or will work. But since they don't understand the basics or only look are part of the equation what they are talking about makes no sense. Now many people do lack the logical reasoning skills, and mental capacity to actually understand some of these topics. What ends up happening is that the question is asked then answered over and over again. But since they can't understand it, it doesn't get them anywhere. In the end they can ether accept that they just don't understand, or end up coming up with there own explanation and think that the others are wrong.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

My question is, for both creationists and evolutionists, how did these elements, amino acids, etc. come into existence in the first place. Maybe all these building blocks of life came from a single molecule and mutated from there...but how did that single molecule even start?

It didn't "start". It was probably always here to begin with.

 

[flvinny521]

Thanks I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. GOLD! Several minutes and I still can't stop.

Edit: That's it, this will be the first ever quote going into my signature. :sneaky:

I am honored. I thought this thread needed some comic relief and I am glad somebody picked up where I left off