Evolution is a well founded theory, yet many people resist the idea. (Page 3)
If the stars fell: lets assume for a moment that all of science was proven wrong tomorrow... you wouldn't be an inch closer to proving that god did it.
arnym: Talking about the pro/con aspects of creationism vs evolution could be fun but not with people who can't admit to each other the possibility of doubt; that the other may have a point or two worth considering.
Don't know what the original poster - Kaninchen? - intended; maybe just wanted to watch people shouting at each other. I notice he just dropped his stone in the water and took off. Rascal.
zeffur: Let's leave creationism completely out of it and focus on the credibility of evolution as I proposed: "Show definitive credible evidence that mankind evolved from any other creature. Hint: You can't pretend any previous species/creature is the progenitor of mankind--you actually have to prove it without any assumptions."
You attempting to use Creationism as a straw man to avoid showing how credible or incredible your beliefs truly are isn't a valid position--it is a dodge.
arnym: "When a question is resolved, many people resist the idea of letting it go."
Zanjan; The fact that someone thinks they have the answer to a question does not resolve it for everyone.
Others can, and will, continue to think about the question.
zeffur: Geoff, why the confusion? I don't hate science at all. In fact, properly done science is a great thing.
What I see in 'evolution' is nothing but naturalistic/atheistic pseudo-science masquerading as science. Their beliefs & assertions are not testable & verifiable. They often say certain creatures evolved from other creatures through natural selection, mutation, etc--yet they have NEVER proven one single instance of that ever happening--and there is no credible transitional fossils to support their beliefs. They have lots of fossils that they claim are progenitors of more modern creatures--which they also cannot prove. In most cases the differences are minor & can be explained by natural variations in a species & in other cases they are simply just different extinct species that they 'belief' were the progenitors of other species. That's not testable, not verifiable, & therefore NOT science--it's pseudo-scientific rubbish.
Their latest con is taking DNA out of context. Claiming certain commonalities in DNA suggest such creatures are related to the progenitors of other creatures--which again is total BS. Humans & chimps have many of the same chromosomes/genes--but we certainly didn't descend from each other. To that they claim that we both came from a common ancestor that they can't prove in any way that we actually came from--it's all just total rubbish that has NO credible science to back up their claims. If you know of tests that prove such things--please provide it for all of us to see.
Geoff: Actually, evolution first came to popular attention through the work of the church, well reform churches anyway. Evolution has so much evidence for it that the churchmen (and at the time, they were all men) tried to find ways to explain it. During the 18th and 19th century, it was those in the church who had the time and education to study nature and they played a large part in understanding the natural world. That actually continued into the 20th century, hell it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the big bang theory.
See, the fact that species change and adapt over time has been long established as fact. For instance: It is a fact that all cats share a common ancestor; that lions and tigers are genetically similar enough to breed (although the offspring often has genetic problems caused by the fact that the two groups of Panthera have separated too much to create a stable population and are usually incapable of breeding themselves). That's as much a fact as the battleship HMS Hood being made of steel. It can be proven, through comparative physiology and genetic testing. And, for most people, you only have to look at them.
The "Theory" of evolution took centuries to discover after the fact of evolution was established. Science tested and discounted other ideas, Lemarck and Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus were two people who proposed ideas which were interesting, but failed to actually get to the truth of the matter. The theory of evolution by natural selection is about the driving force behind what causes speciation. That limited resources means the best adapted to their environment have more offspring and thus their genetic traits dominate.
The theory of evolution explains why populations with a species diverge; that they diverge is proven fact; just as the theory of gravity explains why a rock drops if you lift it up and let go, or germ theory explains why people get sick. We have the proof; species change over time just as rocks drop just as people die from illnesses. Darwin and Wallace just explained why.
That you dismiss it says more about you, than about science.
arnym: Geoff, Don't confuse zeffur with facts. He can't handle them.
Just a picky point though: I'd say the theory of gravity explains how a rock drops, rather than why.
Geoff: It tried to explain why. Einstein explained it a little better. To be honest, I'm a biologist far more than I am a physicist.
When they start talking about branes, I tend to phase out to what they're saying and start looking for impromptu weapons in case they turn into zombies.
zeffur: re: "...it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the big bang theory."
That is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the evolution. And that theory is also rife with speculations that cannot be proven scientifically.
re: "See, the fact that species change and adapt over time has been long established as fact. For instance: It is a fact that all cats share a common ancestor;... It can be proven, through comparative physiology and genetic testing. And, for most people, you only have to look at them. "
Neither of those proposition are 'facts' they are unproven beliefs. They are just examples of different species within the same family. Just like big dogs & tiny dogs--they are all just dogs-nothing more. Provide credible proof to the contrary. You refer to comparative physiology & genetic testing because each require a certain degree of subjective opinion to draw conclusions. When you falsely present the notion that B evolved from A & here are some physical & genetic similarities to prove it--most people will not understand how you have hoodwinked them because they see the similarities that you point out--but they don't realize that similarities don't equal descendancy.
If I showed many people the physical & DNA similarities between humans & chimps & told them humans 'evolved' from chimps--and they weren't knowledgeable of the truth, then some of them would conclude that what I told them is true--especially if I claimed it was all a 'fact' that is based on tons of 'science'--which of course we both know it isn't.
The truth is that humans did not descend from chimps or vice versa--they are different species--and there is NO credible evidence that either of us 'evolved' from a common ancestor. Your common ancestor is just another extinct species of chimp that is used to pretend we all descended from it because it is dated long before us--in truth they cannot prove that creature has ANY link to us--and if you 'believe' otherwise, then please show everyone in this forum the definitive credible evidence that what you 'choose to believe' is verifiable & actually true.
re: "The theory of evolution by natural selection is about the driving force behind what causes speciation."
Natural selection is nothing more than 2 creatures breeding to produce offspring. It's nothing special--it's just the beginning of the natural reproduction process--there is no magic there--they just choose a mate that they prefer or that they can subdue (think cats & other animals) and then biology happens. The other major claim in the ToE is mutations that lead to improvements or forking in species. While that has been proposed & some people 'believe' it is a major factor in speciation--there is ZERO actual evidence that humans or any other species has 'evolved' in that way to improve or become some other species. If you disagree, then please show us definitive credible scientific evidence that proves such a thing has EVER occurred. I predict what you will find is assumptions & nothing credible to prove your belief.
re: "The theory of evolution explains why populations with a species diverge; that they diverge is proven fact; just as the theory of gravity explains why a rock drops if you lift it up and let go..."
That is completely false. See the above paragraph. Comparing evolution to gravity in that way is ludicrous.
If you are going to engage with me, please bring something credible to the discussion. Sheesh.
Geoff: The definition of a species is the ability to interbreed. Nothing more.
All dogs (within the physical limitations of size) can interbreed, all the way back to wolves.
The same with cattle. The same with reindeer. The same with big cats. The same with equines.
It's not been tested with great apes, including humans.
Geoff: Yes, but unlike you, I don't see having a monkey as a relative (and the picture includes two apes, no monkeys, but thanks for admitting you're a racist) as a bad thing.
We share > 97% of our DNA with the other great apes. We share half our DNA with bananas. Why is it so terrible to be connected to the other life on this planet?
Geoff: I simply demolished your counter-argument, since you evidently don't understand what evolution is or even how to define a species.
Now go away, learn a little, and come back when you have.
zeffur: You didn't demolish anything. You simply proved you have no credible proof & that you easily delude yourself about what you think you have accomplished.
Geoff: No. You absolute tool. We share a common ancestor with bananas. A long time back.
We share a common ancestor at some point with all life on Earth.
Much as it pains me, I share a common ancestor with a creature like you less than half a million years ago. Assuming that half-melted thing whose parent were probably too closely related in your profile pic is actually you, probably within the last 35,000 years.
Geoff: I mean, presumably you want the biblical story of creation to be true in order to justify you looking at trap porn on the internet. But I'm afraid to say that the evidence is that it's not true, and you're attracted to young men dressing up as girls.
zeffur: Ad hominem attacks already? Poor thing has no foundation to stand on so he's chucking insults already. Post a proof or credible evidence that isn't ladened with assumptions or scurry away like a raging fearful monkey.
Geoff: Yeah, I tried being polite. I tried explaining it to someone I thought was just misguided.
Turns out you're an imbecile. And if you won't accept the evidence then you have a reason for it. Now I am just going to have fun trying to work out what it is.
I guess you're a bible belt racist twunt who thinks there's a biblical reason that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Zanjan: The human genome has been completely mapped and catalogued into a library, which has actually been printed in volumes. What they found was that the human has every gene from every species of animal and plant on earth......and then some, obviously.
That's such a marvel, it's impossible to have occurred through that many accidents of fusion and mutation. Anyone who's still looking for a missing link has missed them all.
zeffur: Oh, now the poor dumb bastid thinks he's going to antagonize me into showing him anything but my sound position.. Really man?? I realized pretty early on that you were obtuse.. but, really??
Geoff: zeffur, I'm sorry, but I am glad that your way of looking at the world is dying out. It can't die out soon enough.
Believe in god all you want. Don't attack science with your ignorance. Science doesn't care what you believe. Just what you can prove.