Who likes evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

No evolution does not disprove god, it does however destroy a lot of previously held religious beliefs. To say that it is ''plausible to some extent" is an insult to the 150 years of research that has continually expanded the theory. By every scientific measure evolution is a proven fact.

To say that evolution and religion are "one" requires the completely unsubstantiated theory of god. Give me a shred of material evidence for gods existence and I will agree with you


NOW where did Bertrand put that teapot, I know its here somewhere.

By 'like' evolution do you mean "find it interesting"?
I do.

Evolution, the most lovely of the universees going ons

I detest evolution. I think we as a species should do our best to kick it in the metaphorical teeth, by carrying out our own unnatural selections in pursuit of a world with less carnage (human and animal).

well... look around you.. the world it self proclaims a god.. al of this cant be random.. it dosent work..

so.. ultimlatly im a decentent of some black sludge??? i dont think so.... evoloution as most poeple understand it has a few holes.. could you prove to me that we decended from reptiles...

i think most "science" is just theories which no one can disprove....... or has the will to

anyway i shall not continue tihs argument as it will go round in circles

That's because there are severe gaps in most people's understanding of evolution. That is a fault of our education system, people themselves, and misinformation campaigns promulgated by Creationist propagandists. It has nothing to do with the viability of evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life.


Well... you're wrong. There's not much else to say here.

It's kind of interesting how Creationism has evolved. Its supporters went from the typical "Durkadur ah ain't come from no gawddamn monkeh!" hillbillies of the south, to the insidious creeps like Kirk Cameron and Ray "Banana-man" Comfort, pushing "intelligent design".

But, I like evolution - It tells us just how miniscule and irrelevant we are in the grand scheme of things; we're tiny, tiny organisms on a tiny, tiny planet. It is kind of interesting to ponder how parts of what spawned us came from outer space, gives a new meaning to the whole "one with the universe" phrase.

I think this is the single biggest misconception that people have about evolution. Let's all say it together: Natural Selection is NOT random!

In the simplest terms, evolution = random mutation + NON-random natural selection + time.

This gives the *appearance* of design. (I won't go into the whole argument here - there are numerous articles and books that spell it out.) But in short, no one is claiming that complex structures like eyes appeared randomly. They evolved over time through mutation and natural selection.

I don't like evolution. I like myself just the way I am, and don't want to evolve into something else

Yes, thankfully you won't have to worry about that because a single organism doesn't change. Rather, changes in genes happen when they get passed on to future generations.

What you see are the result of physical laws doing their work. Why do you presume a person is behind it?

ruveyn

Actually, in my genetics & behaviour class, we've noticed that there is more to genetics than meets the eye. There is something called the epigenetic, which is pretty much how the genes manifest themselves based on the environment. The best way to illustrate this comes from studies of twins...

Both identical (mono zygote) twins have 100% of their genes shared (I reckon there's even a town in the USA which is mostly populated by twins if you care to look it up), yet there are cases where one of the twins will either get autism (as was shown in a documentary on "Nova" which i can't quite recall the title of) or cancer, and the other twin will be fine.

How do you explain this if they both share 100% of their genes? =/ Shouldn't they be immune to the same things? Apparently not. And this is where the environment comes in... (They usually share the same family environment as well)

I know you're joking Greenblue, but which is actually prettier?

1)Life having been designed by an intelligence that would, by default, have more knowledge and understanding of the physical universe than any human scientist today has?

2) Or the Gamov version of the origin of the cosmos, where nothingness fluctuated and gave birth to the laws of physics and energy, then energy assembled into matter, and over the course of billions of years of probabilistically certain Deep Time, matter aggregates as it slowly loses kinetic energy, then after more time stars and galaxies form, then planets form. Followed by Abiogenesis, nonliving chemicals assemble themselves into life over more Deep Time. Followed then by "evolution" where life progresses from microscopic to macroscopic, eventually a fish with lungs develops in the course of all this Deep Time, and from this lungfish, life on the land diversifies into various forms, from reptiles to mammals and birds, then a particular branch of mammal develops incredible intelligence and develops complex language forms and takes over more and more of its environment. Followed by.... et cetera. Onward and upward.

I have never heard of a scientist claiming that evolution disproves god. What I encounter is certain religionists claiming that evolution cant be true because it would disprove god.. impossible in their minds. And, as you show, people that claim scientists say these things.

Rational people would say, if so inclined, that a prime mover could set evolution into gear. But they study Abiogenesis, which is not evolution, which suggests a better model than the god hand.

Likewise, abiogenesis does not say that evolution must happen. They are two separate things.

Rationalists and scientists have better ideas than evolution as to why god is a bunch of nonsense.

150 years of just expansion? Things are always discarded, such as "sexual selection" to explain the peacock's tail.

AG, what if it loses its effectiveness at some point? I know there is the standardized answer of "we'd have to replace it with some other naturalistic cause", however, you quite often think before you reply so I don't expect that from you. From some other people, perhaps, such as those who enjoy dispensing canned spam like "O NOES, ITS DA GAWD OF DE GAPS!! ! LOLWTHBBQ&ROTFLMAO!! !!".

But really, what if only one part of biological evolution is correct and one isn't? Such as, what if natural selection works, but the mutations are insufficient?