subucni

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Ok, i haven't been here long, and don't know if this has been discussed before, but which do you believe in?

Personally, I believe 100% in evolution, and think creationists are people who are too closed minded to believe anything else. We had a long discussion in one of my classes last year, and every argument I heard for creationish is based soley upon religious texts. I personally am athiest, so I give no weight to these when it comes to explaining how things have occurred. I believe religion was simply something man created to explain the unexplainable.

Back on topic, when the religious right tries to get creation tought in school because evolution is, it pissed me off. Evolution is tought because it is a scientific theory that has evidence to back it up. Creation is simply a story and an idea based upon faith and has no real evidence to back it up. How can people ignore the studies of anthropology and Darwin's theories when it comes to the issue of where we came from?

Your thoughts?

aquadude

Micro-evolution has enough evidence to back it up, but MACRO-evolution has no evidence (and even has contradicting evidence). Micro-evolution is the phenomena where we experience 'super-bacteria' and viruses and such. Macro-evolution is the apes-to-man theory.

Now, if you want to believe that you are really a really complex gorilla, fine. You would also have to believe that you ultimately share the same ancestors as a rock. Now that gets harder to believe, eh?

Have you heard about Irreducible Complexity? That's also against your favor.
Read this

As for Anthropology, I'm sorry, the evidence is stacked against you:
Read the article: http://str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/misslink.htm

Naturally, if someone is to argue for Creationism, one has to presuppose an existence of God. However, that is not an easy thing for atheist to swallow. You could go to the 'Existence of God' forum, or you could realize that God can't be disproved as atheism claims.
Here is an article how even evolution doesn't make sense withough God:
http://str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/god_evol.htm

Yes, lots of reading. That means there's lots of evidence.

And I didn't even have to pull out ANY religious texts. How bout that?

subucni

In response to that first article trying to discount the theories (notice i say theories, because along with creation, they haven't been proven) of anthropology, I have to say that article was not a balanced analysis of each side of the issue. It is a pursuasive piece of writing. It is biased and its sole purpose is to get you to believe what the author writes, because of this, not everything stated in it can be accepted as fact or the truth.

Macro-evolution also does not only concern just the theory of a link between humans and apes. It deals with the long term changes in any species, a good example of which would be the finches Darwin observed and collected in the Galapagos Islands. Genetecists have found that 98% of our DNA is EXACLTY identical to that of chimps. I also read recently that a very basic form of DNA is found in all living animals, from houseflies to humans. If i can find this i will post it. If microevolution DEFINITELY occurs, as you agree, if it does in humans and other animals, how is it not possible that minute small changes eventually lead to speciation and other changes over a much greater period of time?

when the article states the fossile remains of Astralopithecines such as Lucy are only 40% complete, it is true. However, the human body and the body of species such as Australopithecines are symetrical. They are the same on each side. Because of this, by finding 40% of a skeleton, you can recreate 80% of an actual body by just replicating the bones on the other side.

When you look at the skeletons of Australopithecus and other early hominids or possible human ancestors in Africa (where hominids and more specifically humans are believed to have developed), you find many examples of macroevolution of apes, or a comman ancestor, to humans. The jaws and teeth of robust Australopithecines are extremely similar to that of current apes. It is estimated humans and apes split off into different species about 5 mya.

Skeletal fossiles of some species have been found that appear to be an intermediate species between ape and man. Unfortunately i didn't pay much attention in class that day and forgot to write the name down, besides a note of "Post Cranial." this species was about 5 ft tall, apparently bipedal, but still had a strong climbing musculature, curled fingers, and long arms such as you see in chimps and other primates that knuckle walk and spend time in trees.

It is also unfair to expect anthropologists to EVER find the "Missing Link" in human-ape evolution. Fossiles are only created under certain conditions and can easily be destroyed. We only have fossiles or evidence of a very small portion of all species that have ever lived, and for those that we have found, the numbers of individuals form those species found is also incredibly small.

subucni

This statement is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Since when have rocks ever been a living organism? Evolutionary theory concerns only organisms that once lived or are currently alive. There is nothing in ANY evolutionary idea that says we share a same ancestor as a rock. Yes, that is hard to believe, because it is completely idiodic to state that as a reason to refute the evidence supporting evolution. I'm completely floored you would make a claim like that to support creationism.

Macro-evoltion does have evidence (skeletal morphology, genetic similarities). You saying there is no evidence for it is also completely wrong, and you present your counter-evidence as if it were proven fact, instead of just an unproven theory in its own right, like evolution.

mxpxbigd285

too much to even begin with...

something i would like to add. in the human genome, about 1000 individual genes are dedicated to our sense of smell. of these, more than half have become completely inactive in humans, implying that at one point, the human sense of smell was much more important to our survival than it is now. over time, our body has taught itself that there is no need to express around 500 of those 1000 genes.

many more small changes like this over thousands and thousands of years (macroevolution does NOT occur quickly), it is all too possible that we evolved from some sort of other life form.

how else would you explain the modern homo sapiens? we sure didnt just drop from the sky, as some would like you to believe.

aquadude

Hmm, how did life begin on earth? Just a few molecules that randomly came together, according to evolutionary theory.

Sure, I may have exaggerated a bit when I compared humans to rocks, because rocks are comprised of inorganic elements.

Also note that we are just as "evolved" as apes. We have been on the earth for about the same period of time. Random chance can be the explanation for why we "diverged," but where is our common ancestor?

Also, if you look at the evolutionary tree, where are the missing links? Why are all of the species at the tips of the tree and none of them in the middle, where species apparently diverged?

aquadude

I agree. There are simply too many ways to attack each side.


That is a theory, and it makes sense. Another theory is that we need those genes to replicate damaged genes from a variety of different factors from our environment. Science has not advanced far enough to provide us with a definite answer, so everything is just speculation right now. As for those 98% human chimps, the 98% figure is for the expressed genes, and does not include the unexpressed genes. Too bad that the unexpressed genes number far more than the expressed ones....


It's possible, but it's not likely, given the amount of time that we have advanced. The probability is actually miniscule. Take the Cambrian explosion for example. A variety of different life forms seemed to have just popped out of nowhere. Isn't evolution the gradual change over time?


Your last sentence is what I believe to be the greatest weakness of Creationism. However, I believe that evolution has greater weaknesses. If you presuppose the existence of God, your last sentence would be entirely possible. However, evolution denies the existence of God, so chance is all that it has. And the chances are quite small...

aquadude

Are you not writing with the intention to persuade? We shouldn't take you as a credible source then either, by your own logic. Which is entirely fair, because all people should check their references.

So why don't you check out the references in the article?

Esco

I believe in both. There's plenty of science that shows evolution, on various levels, has taken place. I will not deny this.

But, I also believe in creationism. Why the contradiction? I've studied enough areas of science to understand millions and millions of things have to align for life on earth, as well as life itself. Some might call it coincidence. Because of my faith, I tend to believe there's a higher party calling the shots. What will I tell my children? I will tell them to study both ... but that I believe God has given them the gift of life.

Remember everybody, at one time we all thought we came from storks.

christianX

nope :happycow:

And - it's always easier to believe in fiction than to deal with the reality of evolution...

Phi

Posts: n/a/0

Threads:

While for the most part evolution is gradual change over long periods of time, there are occasionally periods of explosive growth, usually following a mass extinction event (presumably to fill the biological vacuum). There is also the possibility of rapid change in just a few generations caused by mutagenic effects in the environment (assuming the mutations aren't fatal of course). This can easily be seen with influenza, it's impossible to innoculate against for more than a few months, as the mutation rate is so high that the innoculation for todays big strain won't work on the mutation 3 months down the road (which is why people have to get new influenza vaccinations every year, the new vaccination being made to combat the prevailing mutation (or mutations) that the CDC deems the most risk for the season).

scoop

I think evolution and creation are both sides of the same coin but if you can't see why then you will agree with only one or the other. I know it might help to expand on this but I just got in from MAW at the Ministry of Sound...Awesome!!...it's 7am in the morning i'm wrecked, my girlfriend's in bed calling!............ Later dudes!............Paaarrrrrrty!

Esco

It's always easier to believe in fiction than reality.

aquadude

errr, no, not if you have a few good friends to slap you around....

OR just get a woman. I'm sure she'll make sure you're firmly grounded in reality.

what was the topic again?

:yawn: