What exactly do you mean by still just a theory?Gravity's still just a theory...
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What exactly do you mean by still just a theory?Gravity's still just a theory...
that the op miss uses the word theory. relax broWhat exactly do you mean by still just a theory?
Oh Ok, my bad............lolthat the op miss uses the word theory. relax bro
I believe that Evolution is a religion
Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Evolution: . Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift
the believe that something happened, but that can not for sure. So fare now one could prove that evolution is real.
All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors.
We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
Source: TalkOrigins
What I mean is:
Such statements simply reflect one's lack of understanding of evolution and religion.I believe that Evolution is a religion, the believe that something happened, but that can not for sure. So fare now one could prove that evolution is real.
So what stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution over time? Please provide a specific mechanism which prevents this from happening.The only evolution exists is micro evolution it can be proven. The macro evolution can not be proven.
I callI believe that Evolution is a religion, the believe that something happened, but that can not for sure. So fare now one could prove that evolution is real.
Without question, evolution coupled with abiogenesis acts as a religion for many people. It's their creation story. In fact, Darwinism and Christianity are quite analogous.
Aspect: Darwinism (Christianity)
Creator: Nature (God)
Messiah: Darwin (Jesus)
Holy Text: On the Origin of Species (Bible)
Apostles: Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Meyers, etc. (Peter, John, Andrew, etc.)
Celebration of the Messiah's Birth: Darwin Day (Christmas)
Symbolism:
Two other similarities are in the various conventions atheists attend, in which large groups of atheists sit and listen to sermons about Darwinian evolution. Needless to say. these conventions are eerily similar to church.
The other is the obvious emotional investment atheists have in Darwinian evolution; how they defend it, and the vitriolic outrage they espouse at those who doubt it, as if they're heretics.
Anyone who says there's no religious connection between atheism and Darwinian evolution is either ignorant or a liar. It's so obvious that denying it is like denying gravity.
Evolution a religion
Without question, evolution coupled with abiogenesis acts as a religion for many people. It's their creation story. In fact, Darwinism and Christianity are quite analogous.
Aspect: Darwinism (Christianity)
Creator: Nature (God)
Messiah: Darwin (Jesus)
Holy Text: On the Origin of Species (Bible)
Apostles: Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Meyers, etc. (Peter, John, Andrew, etc.)
Celebration of the Messiah's Birth: Darwin Day (Christmas)
Symbolism:
Two other similarities are in the various conventions atheists attend, in which large groups of atheists sit and listen to sermons about Darwinian evolution. Needless to say. these conventions are eerily similar to church.
The other is the obvious emotional investment atheists have in Darwinian evolution; how they defend it, and the vitriolic outrage they espouse at those who doubt it, as if they're heretics.
Anyone who says there's no religious connection between atheism and Darwinian evolution is either ignorant or a liar. It's so obvious that denying it is like denying gravity.
Without question, evolution coupled with abiogenesis acts as a religion for many people. It's their creation story. In fact, Darwinism and Christianity are quite analogous.
You are forgeting a little truth there.
Evolution has peer reviewed evidence.
Biologists of all religions (including christian) accept evolution as a fact.
Actually, so far I haven´t seen anyone name ONE SINGLE non-christian biologist who believes evolution doesn´t have enough evidence yet.
So I would more say it is christian literalists that have problems with the fact of evolution, and then some other people parodied it by presenting the fact of evolution as a religion.
Don't you know that the peer review system is a sort of academic hegemony, a grand conspiracy aimed at establishing a New World Order to be governed by the anti christ?
People! Hush!Or that I am to be the head of that new government because I was the first to prostrate myself and grant that anti-christ my soul. Didn't you know that? Wasn't it obvious?
Wow... that's just ... wow...Without question, evolution coupled with abiogenesis acts as a religion for many people. It's their creation story. In fact, Darwinism and Christianity are quite analogous.
Aspect: Darwinism (Christianity)
Creator: Nature (God)
Messiah: Darwin (Jesus)
Holy Text: On the Origin of Species (Bible)
Apostles: Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Meyers, etc. (Peter, John, Andrew, etc.)
Celebration of the Messiah's Birth: Darwin Day (Christmas)
Symbolism:
Two other similarities are in the various conventions atheists attend, in which large groups of atheists sit and listen to sermons about Darwinian evolution. Needless to say. these conventions are eerily similar to church.
The other is the obvious emotional investment atheists have in Darwinian evolution; how they defend it, and the vitriolic outrage they espouse at those who doubt it, as if they're heretics.
Anyone who says there's no religious connection between atheism and Darwinian evolution is either ignorant or a liar. It's so obvious that denying it is like denying gravity.