Do you believe in evolution ??

[nicchick]

I just saw a poll that says more people in the U.S. believe in Creationism (55%) than in evolution. Any thoughts ?

[Rambozo]

Doctors see evolution every day in viruses that mutate, bacteria that becomes resistant to anti-biotics, etc. All of those are forms of evolution.

[ServerGenius]

Sometimes when I browse here I have serious doubts about the evolution
Theory.....I came to the conclusion that evolution is selective....it obviously
doesn't apply to ALL living creatures.....GFY is the proof

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Ants do not evolve.

I think Evolution is selective.

[Nicky]

I do belive in Evolution

[ADL Colin]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Ants do not evolve.

I think Evolution is selective.

Are you saying they don't evolve because there is little variation amongst ant species? There are more than 8000 known species of ants.

[Furious_Female]

I believe in both, in no certain terms.

[Furious_Female]

On a side note, don't Praying Mantises look like aliens:

[ServerGenius]

Originally Posted by Furious_Female

On a side note, don't Praying Mantises look like aliens:

They look like aliens.....because they ARE aliens......how's that for a thought.

I mean serious....female Mantises bites the head of a male after they had sex....
that's not how we're making love on earth

[Antonio]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Ants do not evolve.

I think Evolution is selective.

they do, they do...

[The Sultan Of Smut]

Evolution is a fact. You can watch a bacterial culture genetically change and adapt to a new hostile environment (introducing H2S to the medium). I don't get why the idea that a complex life form may have at one point come from a simpler life form is confusing.

The process of our own species evolution is a little more complicated since our life spans stretch further than minutes (making change substantially harder to study) and the amount of money thrown at studying our ancestors is limited relative to the biological sciences. I can't say for sure where we came from but I sure don't believe it's what Sunday school taught me. All I can say is I'm drunk right now and I'll end what I thought was going to be an eloquent reply an arm pit fart.

[jayeff]

If the "survival of the fittest" part of evolutionary theory holds any truth, then the way that humans externalize what determines who is powerful, raises interesting questions.

We routinely hand wealth and therefore power down from generation to generation, largely without regard to the fitness of the individuals concerned and we increase the impact of this practise by usually seeking to marry within our own social/economic group. You can see how destructive this can all be by looking at the physical and psychological defects which afflict much of European royalty/aristocracy and also by the way that although their residual wealth allows many still to live very well, most of their power is now held by others.

The only people in our society who really have to prove their personal fitness are those at the bottom of the economic ladder and perhaps our turning of the natural selection process on its head is one reason our history is so full of conflict. One also has to wonder about the long-term wisdom of allowing our species to be led by people who in Nature's terms often should not be our leaders.

[sleazybunny]

Does anyone with a decent level of intelligence and a rational mind seriously believe in Creationism?

It's Evolution all the way.

Although I'm currently de-volving !!

I.

[drama]

Originally Posted by Almighty Colin

Are you saying they don't evolve because there is little variation amongst ant species? There are more than 8000 known species of ants.

They havent evolved because there hasnt been a need to. As for saying there are many species that could be explained with mating habits prior to us documenting everything.

I saw a show saying how ants have been the same for millions of years.

[PixeLs]

Originally Posted by Furious_Female

On a side note, don't Praying Mantises look like aliens:

Especially when they turn out as big as humans.

[cranki]

ants are so cute, just look at them...

[Ace-wtf]

it seems more possible than creation

[Dirty F]

Whats there not to believe? Its proven.

[Drake]

I can't say that it doesn't exist, but I can say that their isn't enough evidence for it. I believe that natural selection exists but that it only selects for trait(s) qualitatively good or bad depending on the environment. For example, an environment of chaos would benefit mass murderers better than kind folks. So, it's really not a wonderful barometer of merits, morality, or intelligence.

When people say that we observe mutations in germs I agree. Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it. I believe that germs and those living things smaller than germs are more complex then we think. Even when we observe a mutation or evolution of a germ, whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean it has evolved. It could simply mean that it was exposed to a catalyst allowing the mutation to find expression. For example, my cells are healthy but if I'm exposed to radiation they are likely to mutate into cancer cells. They have a disposition to always become cancer cells but they don't because the environment I live in ensures that expression of the cells never comes to the fore. And if the cancer winds up killing me (the host in which the cancer cells dwell), how can this be considered evolution. If this happened to everybody, their would be no more humans.

After evolutionists failed to convingly demonstrate evolution based on fossils records and natural selection, they've moved on to the study of 'speciation', a study that has as many scientists who say it's been demonstrated as those who say it hassn't. It's a study that tries to determine at which point a simple life form can be considered having changed into new species.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why evolution is implausible to me. I could go on at length why for example a cell changing a millions times into something supposedly new doesn't mean man evolved from single cells because at some point those cells would have to become a multi-faceted, multi-celled creature, which is something that has never been observed. I could go on at length about how statistically believing in evolution flies in the face of mathematics. I could go on at length about the gross assumptions about how the environment would have had to exist for millions of years in order to preserve life while in its infancy and most delicate stages. And so much more...

[reynold]

Every thing today is evolving, and that makes me a believer.

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by Mike33

I can't say that it doesn't exist, but I can say that their isn't enough evidence for it. I believe that natural selection exists but that it only selects for trait(s) qualitatively good or bad depending on the environment. For example, an environment of chaos would benefit mass murderers better than kind folks. So, it's really not a wonderful barometer of merits, morality, or intelligence.

When people say that we observe mutations in germs I agree. Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it. I believe that germs and those living things smaller than germs are more complex then we think. Even when we observe a mutation or evolution of a germ, whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean it has evolved. It could simply mean that it was exposed to a catalyst allowing the mutation to find expression. For example, my cells are healthy but if I'm exposed to radiation they are likely to mutate into cancer cells. They have a disposition to always become cancer cells but they don't because the environment I live in ensures that expression of the cells never comes to the fore. And if the cancer winds up killing me (the host in which the cancer cells dwell), how can this be considered evolution. If this happened to everybody, their would be no more humans.

After evolutionists failed to convingly demonstrate evolution based on fossils records and natural selection, they've moved on to the study of 'speciation', a study that has as many scientists who say it's been demonstrated as those who say it hassn't. It's a study that tries to determine at which point a simple life form can be considered having changed into new species.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why evolution is implausible to me. I could go on at length why for example a cell changing a millions times into something supposedly new doesn't mean man evolved from single cells because at some point those cells would have to become a multi-faceted, multi-celled creature, which is something that has never been observed. I could go on at length about how statistically believing in evolution flies in the face of mathematics. I could go on at length about the gross assumptions about how the environment would have had to exist for millions of years in order to preserve life while in its infancy and most delicate stages. And so much more...

Unfortunately you are wrong in basically everything you've said here. You should really actually read a few books on evolution so you don't make these mistakes.

"I believe that natural selection exists but that it only selects for trait(s) qualitatively good or bad depending on the environment."

Um.. thats exactly right. Natural selection never claimed to produce the objectively best result only the most adapted to the environment. What you said is like saying "I believe that breathing exists but only insofar as the lungs expand to draw in oxygen for the body"

"Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it."

Wrong. Mutation is the engine of evolution. No evolutionist would say that because a mutation is an aberration it's not an example of evolution.. WTF? Have you even read the theory of evolution or just reading off creationism talking points?

Basically do some reading on a topic before you try and argue it.
I think the reason it seems implausible to you is that you don't want to believe in it in the first place otherwise you'd know the obvious answer to a lot of these questions and erroneous statements.

Try reading a few Richard Dawkins books to explain the basic mechanism so you understand what evolution is.. even if you still don't want to accept it at least you might form some better arguments against it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Unfortunately you are wrong in basically everything you've said here. You should really actually read a few books on evolution so you don't make these mistakes.

"I believe that natural selection exists but that it only selects for trait(s) qualitatively good or bad depending on the environment."

Um.. thats exactly right. Natural selection never claimed to produce the objectively best result only the most adapted to the environment. What you said is like saying "I believe that breathing exists but only insofar as the lungs expand to draw in oxygen for the body"

I said that I agreed with Natural selection so you don't have to tell me what it claims or doesn't. The reason I chose to elaborate on natural selection is because many people mistaken it to be evolution, insofar as it explains how species evolved. I've read the books and stay abreast of them as much as possible.

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

"Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it."

Wrong. Mutation is the engine of evolution. No evolutionist would say that because a mutation is an aberration it's not an example of evolution.. WTF? Have you even read the theory of evolution or just reading off creationism talking points?

Evolution presupposes that traits with benefits will be introduced and reproduced to keep a species alive and flourishing in its environment. Mutations therefore are not an example of evolution in the purest sense because they do the opposite.

Also you won't find any creationist talking points from me. I'm not religious. I don't know if God exists or not nor does it concern me much. I argue that their isn't enough evidence for evolution based on science.

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Basically do some reading on a topic before you try and argue it.
I think the reason it seems implausible to you is that you don't want to believe in it in the first place otherwise you'd know the obvious answer to a lot of these questions and erroneous statements.

Try reading a few Richard Dawkins books to explain the basic mechanism so you understand what evolution is.. even if you still don't want to accept it at least you might form some better arguments against it.

I've done the same reading as you and was taught the same things as you in evolution class. I would like to believe in evolution. I want to know how we got here but I won't force myself to believe because of my longing for an answer, any answer. I think most people believe in it because it is a crutch and they need something to believe in.

I will read Richard Dawkin however if what he writes is no different than what scientists on the cutting edge of this science purports, his conclusions and writings will offer nothing new.

[Manowar]

Evolution rules, it's a fact.

[Manowar]

none of this jesus shit.

[tranza]

just accept it, it's proven

[Cassie]

evolution "creates" the next step in life. therefore, you can believe in "Creationism" as it correlates to evolution. however, you cannot prove that a "god" or "supreme being" created life.

i was watching a special on the discovery channel about 2 wks ago and they found a human skull of a woman they call Eve that predates any other human skull found to date.

seeing how much we have evolved in sheer physical form is amazing.

now those who believe that god created us still, to this date, cannot prove as such. with all the research being done, i have yet to hear of any remains of jesus, joseph, mary, moses, etc... being found. i have yet to see that a god actually exists. where are the remains of adam, eve and that nasty snake? as of now, it is all a myth written by people who needed to believe in something and have others believe in it as well.

start talking about evolution...something which is tangible and can be seen on a daily basis, and you will destroy all that which someone needs to believe in.

i personally believe in evolution, i also believe in free will and lastly, i believe other life exists out there in addition to what is on this planet. i can say this because organisms/bacteria from other planets have landed here. those orrganisms/bacteria have evolved.

bottom line is one is foolish to believe in something which has not and will most likely not be proven. but, then again, whatever gets one through the day right?

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by Mike33

So, it's really not a wonderful barometer of merits, morality, or intelligence.

That part absolutely kills me lol.. evolution and morality hahahha isn't the whole point to fucking kill and eat the things that keep you alive? Yeah really "moral"... evolution with a "point" or "goal" in mind? lol. evolution as a barometer of anything other than whats the best adapted creature for it's niche in it's environment? man.. hilarious. No wonder you don't get it.. you're coming at it from a creationism viewpoint.. as though there is purpose.. a goal.. a design...
Evolution is cold and blind.. there is no goal.. no point.. only the environment and mutations changing organisms to best cope with their surroundings... Evolution isn't a linear progression onward to better and better things either.. if the environment changes back to what is was before creatures evolved they will tend to evolve back to how they were... ie more creatures will get hairier again next ice age..

[Drake]

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

That part absolutely kills me lol.. evolution and morality hahahha isn't the whole point to fucking kill and eat the things that keep you alive? Yeah really "moral"... evolution with a "point" or "goal" in mind? lol. evolution as a barometer of anything other than whats the best adapted creature for it's niche in it's environment? man.. hilarious. No wonder you don't get it.. you're coming at it from a creationism viewpoint.. as though there is purpose.. a goal.. a design...
Evolution is cold and blind.. there is no goal.. no point.. only the environment and mutations changing organisms to best cope with their surroundings...

I don't attach those meanings to evolution but many do, including scientists. In fact one of the arguments put forth to explain the differences between humans and races in terms of intelligence comes from evolutionists. So although it may be laughable to you, many of your ilk believe that morality and intelligence do derive from evolution.

But since you disagree with that, let me ask you how do you explain human societies functioning? How could they function without morality? You don't see this as a product of evolution?

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Evolution isn't a linear progression onward to better and better things either.. if the environment changes back to what is was before creatures evolved they will tend to evolve back to how they were... ie more creatures will get hairier again next ice age..

The dictionary definition disagrees with you
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. "

"The process of developing." (note: developing is "better" or "positive")


Don't try to stonewall me by calling me a Creationist or coming from a Creationist standpoint. I'm coming from a purely empirical scientific standpoint. Again, I'm NOT religious.

[jas1552]

Originally Posted by Mike33

I don't attach those meanings to evolution but many do, including scientists. In fact one of the arguments put forth to explain the differences between humans and races in terms of intelligence comes from evolutionists. So although it may be laughable to you, many of your ilk believe that morality and intelligence do derive from evolution.

But since you disagree with that, let me ask you how do you explain human societies functioning? How could they function without morality? You don't see this as a product of evolution?



The dictionary definition disagrees with you
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. "

"The process of developing." (note: developing is "better" or "positive")

Damn, you're an idiot! That's not what he said at all. Not even close.

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by Mike33

Evolution presupposes that traits with benefits will be introduced and reproduced to keep a species alive and flourishing in its environment. Mutations therefore are not an example of evolution in the purest sense because they do the opposite.

See.. you haven't studied it properly or read the same books mutations don't neccessarily do the opposite at all. Mutations are how the traits come about in the first place.. Stop thinking about mutations as deformed limbs and more as what they actually mean.. 1% more body hair in a cold environment.. 1% more melatonin in a hot environment etc. Are there a lot of mutations that go along the lines of 1% less body hair in a cold environment? sure there are, they die out gradually as the 1% more's take over..

your statement

"Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it."

is seriously uninformed. firstly as i've pointed out no evolutionist says mutations aren't positive - it's the whole crux of the whole bloody idea it's like saying "creationists on one hand tell us that theres no way creationism could possibly have happened" Then you go onto the even worse line of "But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution".. I mean sure.. if you don't understand most of whats being said then yeah i can understand how you can fabricate the misguided notion there is no evidence.. but hey.. if you want to ignore the elephant in the living room thats your problem.
*yawn* anyways bedtime...

[Quagmire]

Creationism requires a person to believe in intelligent design, not God in the white robes and the big beard. People tend to forget this.

While I don't doubt that somewhere in the universe there are intelligent beings many very likely more intelligent than us, I don't think any of them created us.

If you believe in Creationism you then have to ask the question, who created that which created you? And in an infinite universe how can there be a God. If everything and nothing exists, there can't be a God.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

See.. you haven't studied it properly or read the same books mutations don't neccessarily do the opposite at all. Mutations are how the traits come about in the first place.. Stop thinking about mutations as deformed limbs and more as what they actually mean.. 1% more body hair in a cold environment.. 1% more melatonin in a hot environment etc. Are there a lot of mutations that go along the lines of 1% less body hair in a cold environment? sure there are, they die out gradually as the 1% more's take over..

your statement

"Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it."

is seriously uninformed. firstly as i've pointed out no evolutionist says mutations aren't positive - it's the whole crux of the whole bloody idea it's like saying "creationists on one hand tell us that theres no way creationism could possibly have happened" Then you go onto the even worse line of "But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution".. I mean sure.. if you don't understand most of whats being said then yeah i can understand how you can fabricate the misguided notion there is no evidence.. but hey.. if you want to ignore the elephant in the living room thats your problem.
*yawn* anyways bedtime...

Ok you're right that mutations don't necessarily have to be negative. It simply means a change. My argument was alluding to the people that point to healthy cells mutating into diseased cells.

The other point though was that a mutation in a simple cell may be just a different expression of that cell. For example, who says that a cancer cell can't be 'reverted' into a healthy cell again.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by jas1552

Damn, you're an idiot! That's not what he said at all. Not even close.

Thanks for shedding light on the matter.

[J-$]

yo no way im reading this fucking long thread
i figure evolution goes two ways either positive or negative. when you damage yourself you evolve negatively and when you get smarter you evolve cuz everything you do from now on will take this new knowledge for granted

[Alex From San Diego]

So did we or did we not come from monkeys?...LOL

[The Truth Hurts]

has evolution come to a complete halt?
did the monkeys stop fucking?
we still got monkeys.. we still got men... where are all the in betweens?

[websiex]

we still got monkeys.. we still got men... where are all the in betweens?

Yeah, where are they guys?

You people blabbering about how evolution is fact have no proof that humans evolved from anything. You just keep spewing out the same old God-hating nonsense.

I'm definitely not agreeing with Creationism, but it is a lot more believable than humans coming from apes. You guys really need to buy a clue, and fast.

[daxmonster]

you were saying?



Evolution it is...lol

[Drake]

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Unfortunately you are wrong in basically everything you've said here.

I may have been wrong in some of the points but show me where I went wrong with the following:

1) "evolutionists failed to convingly demonstrate evolution based on fossils records"

-show me the fossil records that support your evolutionary claims (note that even intact fossils are a poor representation of the past/lineage - because statistically insiginificant numbers are fossilized; also are their better means of dating bones than carbon dating which we all know to be inaccurate?)

2) Speciation is a new science with scientists in tremendous disagreement at which point a organism can be classified as a new species and that they disagree that this has been observed. And yet this is the crux of true evolution as it relates to species evolving.

-Show me that this is not true. Are you saying that scientists are in agreement on this?

3) Cells can divide and change a million times without ever becoming anything more than a single cell organism.

-Is this not true? Show me evidence that suggests species derive from single cells

4) It is implausible for simple life forms to exist in harsh climates and to develop into more complex life forms. The statistically probability of this being able to happen is virtually none existant unless the environment is more or less hospitable to life for millions of years.

-Is this or is this not true?


5) Just for the record, do the following two statements mean that the same thing or do they have slightly different connotations:

a) A creature mutated into another creature
b) A creature evolved into another creature

They mean the same thing but when we speak we usually use one over the other depending on if the result is interpreted as a positive or negative change, no? This was just to illustrate why I was using the term mutation to denote negative rather that positive or benign changes.

You've tried to pick apart my natural selection point which was not something I was arguing over to begin with. In that respect things do change. If you want to conclude that the myriad of life we see on earth incuding humans derived from this process that's your belief but you can't reasonably expect it to be plausible for many to swallow given what little we know and our crude methods of studying the past.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by nicchick

I just saw a poll that says more people in the U.S. believe in Creationism (55%) than in evolution. Any thoughts ?

I doubt that 55% of the US population even know what these two words mean. After all 25% of the population believe the sun rotates around the earth.

[SomeCreep]

Originally Posted by nicchick

I just saw a poll that says more people in the U.S. believe in Creationism (55%) than in evolution. Any thoughts ?

Evolution is not a belief. It is science.

[andrej_NDC]

Of course I do not believe. I also do not believe that the earth is round.

[Lev]

if you do not believe in evolution you must:

1) Be so brainwashed by religion

2) So dumb that you do not see how evolution occurs every minute from viruses to insects to humans

[The Sultan Of Smut]

Originally Posted by Mike33

Evolution presupposes that traits with benefits will be introduced and reproduced to keep a species alive and flourishing in its environment. Mutations therefore are not an example of evolution in the purest sense because they do the opposite.

I don't pretend to be an 'expert' in evolutionary theory but here's what I understand of it. A species thrives in the environment it's most suited to live in. Within every species there are mutations that almost never give an advantage until there is a dramatic shift in the environment. At that point what was originally a disadvantage is now an advantage and that mutation is now spread through out the surviving members of that species.

[paperboy]

Originally Posted by nicchick

I just saw a poll that says more people in the U.S. believe in Creationism (55%) than in evolution. Any thoughts ?

Yeah, I?m sure all those fucktards voted for George W. Bush

[paperboy]

Originally Posted by DynaSpain

Sometimes when I browse here I have serious doubts about the evolution
Theory.....I came to the conclusion that evolution is selective....it obviously
doesn't apply to ALL living creatures.....GFY is the proof

[Screaming]

no i dont but then again i havent really researched it too much

[BV]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Ants do not evolve.

I think Evolution is selective.

Ants do evolve, especially when it comes to killing them with pesticides, they become more tolerant to them to eventually they quit working at all.

[drama]

anyone who doesnt believe in evolution is a bible thumping idiot

[Drake]

Ok let me rephrase what I was getting at (or trying to get at).
Evolution exists. However, species changing into new species either doesn't exist or there is a lack of evidence showing this, as is the lack of evidence showing that we and all animals derived from single cells. So that particular assertion or sub discipline of evolution theory needs some work in my opinoin.

Does that work better?