Evolution is a fact. No question about it.
We came from a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from apes.Though there are some people I know who look and act in way that makes me think that it is possible they could have originated from chimps:yes:
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof Against Evolution
- Thread starter Jerrell
- Start date
ProffesionalAtheist
New Member
It seems that many people don't really understand the mechanisms behind evolution. Before you consider whether creationism or evolution is true, please know this.
The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is based on several facts.
1.) Organisms inherit characteristics from their parents. This has been proven several times, first by Mendel (a monk, by the way), and countless other times by DNA scientists.
2.) Within a population of a species (a species being a set of organisms that can produce offspring by breeding with other members) there is variation in characteristics.
3.) There are some characteristics that are more beneficial to an organisms survival and reproduction than others.
Knowing these three proven facts, there is no way that evolution cannot be true. Arising from simpler forms of life, certain characteristics were more beneficial to the organism and were therefore passed on more than others. As these changes accumulated over the billions of years that life has existed on Earth, life forms became much more complex and well adapted to their ecological niches until the complex organisms we see today finally came into existed.
Evolution does not claim that you used to be a monkey. You were born a human and will stay a human. The correct conclusion of evolution is that we and all organisms are descended from simpler organisms. Our ancestors were monkeys, not us today.
If you still don't believe in evolution, at least you now know how it works.
The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is based on several facts.
1.) Organisms inherit characteristics from their parents. This has been proven several times, first by Mendel (a monk, by the way), and countless other times by DNA scientists.
2.) Within a population of a species (a species being a set of organisms that can produce offspring by breeding with other members) there is variation in characteristics.
3.) There are some characteristics that are more beneficial to an organisms survival and reproduction than others.
Knowing these three proven facts, there is no way that evolution cannot be true. Arising from simpler forms of life, certain characteristics were more beneficial to the organism and were therefore passed on more than others. As these changes accumulated over the billions of years that life has existed on Earth, life forms became much more complex and well adapted to their ecological niches until the complex organisms we see today finally came into existed.
Evolution does not claim that you used to be a monkey. You were born a human and will stay a human. The correct conclusion of evolution is that we and all organisms are descended from simpler organisms. Our ancestors were monkeys, not us today.
If you still don't believe in evolution, at least you now know how it works.
ProffesionalAtheist
New Member
Is that really the best response you can come up with?
This impresses me as somewhat weak, bordering on the evolution-as-progress fallacy. What it fails to capture is the stochastic quality of evolution acting upon the interplay of changing allele frequency and changing ecology. As I've said (perhaps too often), evolution is a filter, not a ladder. We're here, not primarily because we're "much more complex and well adapted", but because of a continuously mutating cluster of contingent events arguably including the geothermal consequences of Panama.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
No, I meant Panama or, to be more precise, the Isthmus of Panama.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
Are you then referring to the rise of Panama as a land bridge between North and South America and the consequence of introducing the various animal species to new habitats and new animal populations thereby resulting in further competition as well as new resources and such? Thing is I am was just slightly confused about how Panama fit into the picture of evolution, I seek clarity.
No.
It's really tangential to the point I was trying to make, but ...
The formation of the land bridge blocked the warm currents flowing between the two landmasses. This triggered a chain reaction resulting in the collapse of the African equitorial ecosystem, including the qualitative diminution of the African rain forest and the decimation of the surrounding transitional woodlands as the area gave way to Savanna and desert. The result was the catastrophic destruction of the habitat that had sustained Astralopithecus afarensis, generating intense pressures selecting for adaptation to the evolving habitat.
Panama happened, and a species that had thrived for some 1.3 million years (some 10 times longer than homo sapiens sapiens) gave way to a species which much, much, much later would dramatize Carlyle's assertion that "man is a tool-using animal" and literally terra-form the planet by completing the construction of the Panama Canal - the 8th wonder of the world.
Evolution is a comedy of unintended consequences.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
Very cool indeed ...
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I think the idea of 'progress' is the hardest part to give up. People want to know that they are 'special' and 'inevitable' from an evolutionary standpoint. That humanity is destined by nature or god to be at the top of the ladder.
Honestly from an evolutionary standpoint the most complex organisms are the most likely to fail, and are the least successful.
wa:do
Honestly from an evolutionary standpoint the most complex organisms are the most likely to fail, and are the least successful.
wa:do
NZAmish
Member
You're right.
Evil, pagan, tree hugging, no good, heathen who shall burn in the fires on hell.
How's that?
From documentaries have watched on why not evolution, and liked these points:
a wood peckers tongue goes around the back of its head, through near the nostrils and then out, a bird goes through the neck as normal.
So how could that evolve was the question of a top X-evolutionist, as for any breed to exist there must be a kind like it or some reason for it forming like it.
A wood pecker being different is without reason, in terms of finding an animal like this or to do a task like that.
Cell reproduction, when a cell clones it self it is direct replica of the first, else we often call these cancer cells, where a cell that isn’t known by the body will be attacked by the body.
That same thing applies in the mothers womb also and cells not recognized are often attacked, so where is the chance of anything forming outside of this pattern of natural order.
This is within my own dimensions research and quantum physics taken from Harvard who also it appears have no clue as to the basic mechanics of quantum’s (scares me their experimentation, when you begin to understand the immensities of playing with the fabric of reality its self).
Anyways point being is if an atom is made of Photons, neutrons and electrons within these are a 6 sided object with positive and negative; very much like what seems to sound like a star of David to me, i.e. an equilateral star…
Well what told that to co-exist to begin or start to form from random chaos? It is all very well saying it evolved to be as such, yet even after millions and billion of years, times by infinity, we would still have random chaotic patches of evolution.
This is not occurring and we have (that I know of from all my studying) never heard of any occurrence recorded here on earth or seen of wonky space, or chaos reports….black hole is different and is an imploded star,
So how could all be in a perfect state of equilibrium even down to the quantum’s, else doubt many of us would be capable of exiting if we didn’t have a framework to exist in.
Following that is the symbiosis between us and nature:
Our waste is not, it is converted energy turning what we and all animals eat into soil made of nitrates and phosphates.
Depending the quantities of each, depends on the nourishment and type of plants that will grow well.
For a system like that to evolve, there would be places energy is lost, yet down again to the smallest creatures our waste is ate by other creatures, which again put out waste, which is eat by other creatures; Until finally it comes to a microscopic fungus that then the trees attach to and then feed their roots through that.
Then when the air we breath is in direct contrast to the plants breathing, in the day we breath out more carbon dioxide, which then plants need to grow and during the night plants put out carbon dioxide to even it all out.
So again unless something prearranged organized and coordinated that to co-exist the immense calculations of random chance to say evolution could work falter, and therefore could not be and the only logical explanation is say something had to create it.
a wood peckers tongue goes around the back of its head, through near the nostrils and then out, a bird goes through the neck as normal.
So how could that evolve was the question of a top X-evolutionist, as for any breed to exist there must be a kind like it or some reason for it forming like it.
A wood pecker being different is without reason, in terms of finding an animal like this or to do a task like that.
Cell reproduction, when a cell clones it self it is direct replica of the first, else we often call these cancer cells, where a cell that isn’t known by the body will be attacked by the body.
That same thing applies in the mothers womb also and cells not recognized are often attacked, so where is the chance of anything forming outside of this pattern of natural order.
This is within my own dimensions research and quantum physics taken from Harvard who also it appears have no clue as to the basic mechanics of quantum’s (scares me their experimentation, when you begin to understand the immensities of playing with the fabric of reality its self).
Anyways point being is if an atom is made of Photons, neutrons and electrons within these are a 6 sided object with positive and negative; very much like what seems to sound like a star of David to me, i.e. an equilateral star…
Well what told that to co-exist to begin or start to form from random chaos? It is all very well saying it evolved to be as such, yet even after millions and billion of years, times by infinity, we would still have random chaotic patches of evolution.
This is not occurring and we have (that I know of from all my studying) never heard of any occurrence recorded here on earth or seen of wonky space, or chaos reports….black hole is different and is an imploded star,
So how could all be in a perfect state of equilibrium even down to the quantum’s, else doubt many of us would be capable of exiting if we didn’t have a framework to exist in.
Following that is the symbiosis between us and nature:
Our waste is not, it is converted energy turning what we and all animals eat into soil made of nitrates and phosphates.
Depending the quantities of each, depends on the nourishment and type of plants that will grow well.
For a system like that to evolve, there would be places energy is lost, yet down again to the smallest creatures our waste is ate by other creatures, which again put out waste, which is eat by other creatures; Until finally it comes to a microscopic fungus that then the trees attach to and then feed their roots through that.
Then when the air we breath is in direct contrast to the plants breathing, in the day we breath out more carbon dioxide, which then plants need to grow and during the night plants put out carbon dioxide to even it all out.
So again unless something prearranged organized and coordinated that to co-exist the immense calculations of random chance to say evolution could work falter, and therefore could not be and the only logical explanation is say something had to create it.
Tree huggers go to Hell?
I don't remember that being in the Bible. :sarcastic
Mustard Seed
Jack of all trades... :)
I am not familiar with all the technical terms but maybe some of you heard of the same thing.....I was watching a program on television where a physist/scientist looked deep into the atom for questions to the "big bang" theory. I remember he kept nameing what was inside an atom, and what was inside those, and so on. Then he came to a point where he could go no further. He said that when he finally got to the bottom...there was nothing. After watching that program, that did it for me...I knew that the "nothing" was God! I mean what else can it be? I dont remember the name of the program but it was very convincing to me. The program was not religous in nature at all...purely from a scientific view.
After seeing this awhile ago, I have come to the conclusion that evolution is most definately real but what started those chain of events and influenced them was purely God.
Anyway's that was my "two cents", hopefully I was not too confusing.
After seeing this awhile ago, I have come to the conclusion that evolution is most definately real but what started those chain of events and influenced them was purely God.
Anyway's that was my "two cents", hopefully I was not too confusing.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Perhaps he/she confused it for the Republican Party manifesto...Tree huggers go to Hell?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
actually if you look at close relitives like sapsuckers and other birds you see how easily this feature would have evolved. Their toungs are less dramatic but intermediate between 'normal' birds and woodpeckers.
happins all the time. like you said cancer and even other predatory/parasitic cells are quite good at getting past our defences.
[qipte]Anyways point being is if an atom is made of Photons, neutrons and electrons within these are a 6 sided object with positive and negative; very much like what seems to sound like a star of David to me, i.e. an equilateral star… [/quote]
absolutely falce, atoms have no set structure and are more like a ball if anything, though even this discription doesn't due them justice. Atoms do no have six sided anything.
I'll get into the chaos theory stuff, the evils of oxygen and the death of the first life forms from it, and how we loose energy in our 'system' all the time later. I have to run off to work.
wa:do
That was quantum physics not atomic physics ...we are getting smaller in our research globally and having to look through Harvard and any other university research to find out where they are up to, until now….my own concepts haven’t wordings yet, as I just remember what the after life looked and felt like….so then having to check against what they have learned so far, to find correct words for it.
...we are getting smaller in our research globally and having to look through Harvard and any other university research to find out where they are up to, until now….my own concepts haven’t wordings yet, as I just remember what the after life looked and felt like….so then having to check against what they have learned so far, to find correct words for it.