What are your views on evolution?

[Syed2015]

I don't believe in evolution when it comes to human beings, I do kinda believe in it for other animals such as giraffes

So by implication, going by your giraffe example, an adherent of Lamarcks theory?

 

[Syed2015]

Evolution is a mystery
Full of change that no one sees
Clock makes a fool of history
Yesterday's so long ago, don't agree with what I know.
Tomorrow got no place to be.

I see the line in the sand
Time to find out who I am
Looking back to see where I stand
Evolution
Evolution

See my reflection change
Nothing ever stays the same
But you know the name's The Game
We all know what it means
Nothing's ever what it seems
Unforgiven, unforseen

I see the line in the sand
Time to find out who I am
Looking back to see where I stand
Evolution
Evolution

Oh boy, how i loved this theme song.

 

[ExplicitAI]

So by implication, going by your giraffe example, an adherent of Lamarcks theory?

In the sense that a giraffe's neck became longer

 

[shaz619]

Oh boy, how i loved this theme song.

He's dead now Lemmy what a legend and couldn't agree more, widely regarded as the greatest theme ever

 

[Syed2015]

[MENTION=29597]e[/MENTION]xplicitAl

Yep, that's what I meant.

 

[Syed2015]

He's dead now Lemmy what a legend and couldn't agree more, widely regarded as the greatest theme ever

Damn, totally forgot that he died a couple of days ago. RIP.

Yeah you are right, it really is a masterpiece. One of the reason, why i supported this stable.

 

[Adil_94]

Evolution is a mystery
Full of change that no one sees
Clock makes a fool of history
Yesterday's so long ago, don't agree with what I know.
Tomorrow got no place to be.

I see the line in the sand
Time to find out who I am
Looking back to see where I stand
Evolution
Evolution

See my reflection change
Nothing ever stays the same
But you know the name's The Game
We all know what it means
Nothing's ever what it seems
Unforgiven, unforseen

I see the line in the sand
Time to find out who I am
Looking back to see where I stand
Evolution
Evolution

https://youtu.be/_aDXQCamREA

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Thivagar]

.....that some people remain apes. Can be witnessed when you go through the timepass section.

 

[shaz619]

https://youtu.be/_aDXQCamREA

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I got goosebumps, best tribute ever; involves the faction feuding with each other to ) would have been perfect had it ended with all of them holding the titles from the ending of amargeddon PPV. I love line in the sand even more then ace of spades.

 

[Adil_94]

I got goosebumps, best tribute ever; involves the faction feuding with each other to ) would have been perfect had it ended with all of them holding the titles from the ending of amargeddon PPV. I love line in the sand even more then ace of spades.

https://youtu.be/G-Y8w39qakE compare that to this reaction

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[shaz619]

https://youtu.be/G-Y8w39qakE compare that to this reaction

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I was marking out like a little girl and did't pay attention to anything else was in awe, I was jumping up and down while memories of evolution beating the hell out of everyone during the RAW flash-backed through my mind . Also Evo were one of the greatest heel factions ever and smarks despised them so the reaction wasn't surprising. Bah gawd Evo are back! with bald heads! lmao

 

[Adil_94]

I was marking out like a little girl and did't pay attention to anything else was in awe, I was jumping up and down while memories of evolution beating the hell out of everyone during the RAW flash-backed through my mind . Also Evo were one of the greatest heel factions ever and smarks despised them so the reaction wasn't surprising. Bah gawd Evo are back! with bald heads! lmao

I marked out to but bah gawd I was disappointed with the commies reaction to this. One of the GOAT stables and they reacted like it was some jabronis like sheikh eugene kalandar n the dawah squad coming to tell the wrestlers how long their trunks should be

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[shaz619]

I marked out to but bah gawd I was disappointed with the commies reaction to this. One of the GOAT stables and they reacted like it was some jabronis like sheikh eugene kalandar n the dawah squad coming to tell the wrestlers how long their trunks should be

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Chup oyja marah prah, you don't want JBL to see this post )

 

[Space Cat]

Evolution is an observable process. It can't really be denied at this point.

What causes it is still very much a work in progress.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Went to the natural history museum and it was really interesting to see how they have described evolution and everything.

I am a creationalist and I believe in evolution - for me that should be a dilemma, but it isn't.

 

[yasir]

Seriously??

Evolution is a scientific fact, reason being supported by mountain of evidence....don't hung up on word theory...

Btw theory of evolution does not deal with origin of life, same way Big Bang theory does not deal with what caused the Big Bang.... Those origin problems are more complex specially to gather evidence for, plus they happens once, it's hard to get to the bottom of those problems.... If things don't repeat its hard to verify...

Where as evolution is working every moment, all the time!!!

Watch second or third episode of new Cosmos series that is about evolution... Neil explains it beautifully!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I like evolution and believe it is all Allah's plan. As it says in the Quran, they plan and Allah plans, and Allah is the best of planners. We can see this with evolution what a fantastic job the Almighty continues to do.

 

[Tubs]

Opinion on the fact of evolution?

I know this is a touchy subject in our culture, but usually the more younger, educated people (which this forum seems to mostly consist of) realise it is the truth.

 

[Tubs]

Oh, it seems like my thread has been merged here. Apologies for the weird-sounding post, and for not checking that this thread existed.

 

[barah_admi]

I know this is a touchy subject in our culture, but usually the more younger, educated people (which this forum seems to mostly consist of) realise it is the truth.

I am always curious how you have realised that evolution is the truth?

 

[Ronaldo7]

I am always curious how you have realised that evolution is the truth?

Probably had biology lessons on it recently hence the creation of this thread.

 

[Stewie]

I believe in the evolution theories and some of them make sense, however when it comes to human evolution, there are a lot of gaps. I think the human evolution was definitely a result of some external factors that tampered with the natural process. Whether it was intentional or unintentional I do not know but I think we can thank our evolution to the introduction of some extra terrestrial elements.

 

[Robert]

I like evolution and believe it is all Allah's plan. As it says in the Quran, they plan and Allah plans, and Allah is the best of planners. We can see this with evolution what a fantastic job the Almighty continues to do.

Hmm, the problem with this view is that evolution has no plan. It is completely blind, which would mean that God is blind too. Unless God kicked off the process and sat back to watch what develops.

 

[warcry]

evolution is an attempt to explain how life started from single cell organisms and ended up as complex multicellular organisms.

It is a theory. not a Law. As it is a scientific theory, it has to be proved scientifically. explain the mechanics of evolution, how it occurs.

 

[Tubs]

I am always curious how you have realised that evolution is the truth?

Transitional fossils, vestigiality, comparative genomics, and the fact that evolution has been observed (antibiotic resistance, insects becoming resistant to pesticides). You wouldn't dispute the truth of Germ Theory, would you?

Probably had biology lessons on it recently hence the creation of this thread.

Nice attempt of condescension, but I'm studying Computer Science in the UK (so it's a set course structure). Though I am working on bio-inspired AI, but still, I haven't studied evolution since A Levels.

 

[Tubs]

Hmm, the problem with this view is that evolution has no plan. It is completely blind, which would mean that God is blind too. Unless God kicked off the process and sat back to watch what develops.

The Quran also says that humans are made of clay, which obviously doesn't coincide with evolution.

 

[Stewie]

My question for those here who are smart. How come evolution occurred once or in a certain way over a period of time and now it has stopped? I mean if humans evolved from primates, how come nothing else has evolved from us?

 

[Tubs]

My question for those here who are smart. How come evolution occurred once or in a certain way over a period of time and now it has stopped? I mean if humans evolved from primates, how come nothing else has evolved from us?

Not claiming to be smart, but I think I can answer that somewhat.

First of all, humans didn't evolve from primates- we are primates.

Regarding why humans haven't evolved, that can be said about all currently living animals. Macroevolution occurs after a very long period of evolutionary time, it can't be observed within our lifetime. To give an example, humans diverged from chimps approximately 7 million years ago.

 

[barah_admi]

Probably had biology lessons on it recently hence the creation of this thread.

That was funny ut let us keep this civil, it does not help him by making such comments....until we figure out if he has a genuine scientific interest or not.

Transitional fossils, vestigiality, comparative genomics, and the fact that evolution has been observed (antibiotic resistance, insects becoming resistant to pesticides). You wouldn't dispute the truth of Germ Theory, would you?

Come on now, do not just use words for words sake, imagine I am a complete layman in this, explain to me what all of that, which you stated, actually means? Why is it proof? Why is that that the THEORY of evolution is fact to you on the basis of fossils or bacteria?

Also, you said you have not studied evolution since A level biology, which is quite scary since you are so sure of its truth. For example, your claim that antibiotic resistance is equivalent to evolution is entirely un-scientific. Bacteria which become resistant to anti microbial agents have ADAPTED to their environment, that is certainly true but adaptation is only a step in the supposed process of evolution.

Evolution of bacteria or anything else has never been observed, because no one has observed bacteria evolving into another form of life.

I know another example you may wish to counter me with would be that so called evolution observed of certain bacteria living in a citric acid environment. I think it may have been e. coli...yet it always remained e. coli, it just adapted to being able to survive in a citric acid environment.

I repeat, adaptation is part of the supposed evolutionary process but it is not evolution itself.

 

[Stewie]

That was funny ut let us keep this civil, it does not help him by making such comments....until we figure out if he has a genuine scientific interest or not.



Come on now, do not just use words for words sake, imagine I am a complete layman in this, explain to me what all of that, which you stated, actually means? Why is it proof? Why is that that the THEORY of evolution is fact to you on the basis of fossils or bacteria?

Also, you said you have not studied evolution since A level biology, which is quite scary since you are so sure of its truth. For example, your claim that antibiotic resistance is equivalent to evolution is entirely un-scientific. Bacteria which become resistant to anti microbial agents have ADAPTED to their environment, that is certainly true but adaptation is only a step in the supposed process of evolution.

Evolution of bacteria or anything else has never been observed, because no one has observed bacteria evolving into another form of life.

I know another example you may wish to counter me with would be that so called evolution observed of certain bacteria living in a citric acid environment. I think it may have been e. coli...yet it always remained e. coli, it just adapted to being able to survive in a citric acid environment.

I repeat, adaptation is part of the supposed evolutionary process but it is not evolution itself.

Here is the thing with science. You have to go by evidence and try to use logic to justify how events happened. You have to believe in the scientific method. If you are not a scientist and don’t believe in its methods and theorizing, you won’t understand it.

 

[Robert]

My question for those here who are smart. How come evolution occurred once or in a certain way over a period of time and now it has stopped? I mean if humans evolved from primates, how come nothing else has evolved from us?

Evolution has not stopped. Humans are evolving. 3000 years ago our jaws closed differently - now we all have overbites, due to a switch in diet. 3000 more years and we will look a little different again, and in another million years our ancestors will class themselves as something other than Homo sapiens.

 

[Robert]

For example, your claim that antibiotic resistance is equivalent to evolution is entirely un-scientific. Bacteria which become resistant to anti microbial agents have ADAPTED to their environment, that is certainly true but adaptation is only a step in the supposed process of evolution.

No, bacterial resistance is evolution. Adaption to the environment is the mechanism of evolution.

Evolution of bacteria or anything else has never been observed, because no one has observed bacteria evolving into another form of life.

Bacterial resistance has been observed, so evolution has been observed. If you want a more complex example, look at dark moths living in cities and light moths in the countries, adjusting over thousands of generations to pollution.

I know another example you may wish to counter me with would be that so called evolution observed of certain bacteria living in a citric acid environment. I think it may have been e. coli...yet it always remained e. coli, it just adapted to being able to survive in a citric acid environment.

That is evolution. It’s classified as a different strain of Escherichia coli for convenience, but it could have be classified as a new species instead.

 

[Madplayer]

Hmm, the problem with this view is that evolution has no plan. It is completely blind, which would mean that God is blind too. Unless God kicked off the process and sat back to watch what develops.

If you see no plan with your couple of senses that doesnt mean that there is no plan. It simply means that you are too puny to comprehend it..however, because of the temdency to overestimate yourself (i mean humans in general) you think that you understand everything perfectly.

 

[barah_admi]

The Quran also says that humans are made of clay, which obviously doesn't coincide with evolution.

Clay is formed from deposits of soil and the various elements that make up the human body have a near 100% match with soil.

 

[barah_admi]

No, bacterial resistance is evolution. Adaption to the environment is the mechanism of evolution.



Bacterial resistance has been observed, so evolution has been observed. If you want a more complex example, look at dark moths living in cities and light moths in the countries, adjusting over thousands of generations to pollution.



That is evolution. It’s classified as a different strain of Escherichia coli for convenience, but it could have be classified as a new species instead.

Robert, no offence but I have seen you post on here too many times and been in too many discussions with you. I could counter all your points upon scientific basis but you would still not accept that you are wrong so I have decided not to continue this with you.

If the person I replied to decides to reply, I will continue my discussion, aimed specifically at him.

We can stick to discussing cricket only.

 

[Realromeo]

My brain is fried after reading some of these posts lol.

 

[barah_admi]

Here is the thing with science. You have to go by evidence and try to use logic to justify how events happened. You have to believe in the scientific method. If you are not a scientist and don’t believe in its methods and theorizing, you won’t understand it.

The thing with scientific fact is that, whether you like it or not, whether you believe in the method or not, it is true.

The heart pumps blood, you can disbelieve in that all you want, it will not change the fact of the matter.

Evolution is not a scientific fact, thus, for someone to claim it is is untrue.

 

[hadi123]

There's more proof for evolution than there ever has been for proof of any God.

 

[Chrish]

How come only religious people have something against evolution? I don’t see atheists arguing against it.

Anyways based on the proof, evolution IS real. But so far we haven’t found a single scientific proof about the existence of God.

 

[Stewie]

The thing with scientific fact is that, whether you like it or not, whether you believe in the method or not, it is true.

The heart pumps blood, you can disbelieve in that all you want, it will not change the fact of the matter.

Evolution is not a scientific fact, thus, for someone to claim it is is untrue.

Are you familiar with occam’s razor?

 

[Stewie]

By the way there actually is scientific evidence regarding evolution believe it or not. Its not very comprehensive in terms of homo Sapien evolution but for the most part the rest of it pretty well verified and documented by the scientific community. Now if you disagree with them and the scientific method, that’s your own personal thing but most of it will have to be filling the blanks with the evidence you have. Carbon dating, fossil studies, etc. if you don’t want to consider that as evidence, well that’s your opinion then.

 

[ElRaja]

people can choose to believe in evolution or not, it literally doesn't make a difference. the problem is when religious people guilt kids into not even learning about evolution.

i saw from the time i went school here, in secondary school you had kids from religious families openly saying evolution was wrong before the teachers even started talking about it, because their parents taught them that even entertaining the idea was a sin.

one thing id like to point out tho, people keep saying evolution is a theory, not a law. that is true, however a scientific theory has a contextual rigour which belies the everyday use of the word theory, as speculative

if you are willing to accept gravitation, heliocentricity, quantum physics, cell theory, etc, yet choose to reject evolution for its "theoretical" nature, you are either ignorant of the scientific rigour of a theory or a hypocrite.

 

[Tubs]

That was funny ut let us keep this civil, it does not help him by making such comments....until we figure out if he has a genuine scientific interest or not.



Come on now, do not just use words for words sake, imagine I am a complete layman in this, explain to me what all of that, which you stated, actually means? Why is it proof? Why is that that the THEORY of evolution is fact to you on the basis of fossils or bacteria?

Also, you said you have not studied evolution since A level biology, which is quite scary since you are so sure of its truth. For example, your claim that antibiotic resistance is equivalent to evolution is entirely un-scientific. Bacteria which become resistant to anti microbial agents have ADAPTED to their environment, that is certainly true but adaptation is only a step in the supposed process of evolution.

Evolution of bacteria or anything else has never been observed, because no one has observed bacteria evolving into another form of life.

I know another example you may wish to counter me with would be that so called evolution observed of certain bacteria living in a citric acid environment. I think it may have been e. coli...yet it always remained e. coli, it just adapted to being able to survive in a citric acid environment.

I repeat, adaptation is part of the supposed evolutionary process but it is not evolution itself.

I have not formally studied evolution since A Level, yes, but that doesn't mean I haven't researched in my own time since, from people who understand the process far better than I, and far, far better than you. Funny how some random guy thinks 99.9999% of the scientific community are wrong.

I mentioned previously that macroevolution happens over a much longer period of evolutionary time, something that we cannot observe within our lifetime, which is why we used fossils and compare anatomy. This is where the vestigial characteristics come in. Don't worry, I'll explain the 'words I'm using for words sake'. Vestigial means a trait in an organism which is retained from evolution, but no longed used by the organism. For example, birds have vestigial claws, from their ancestors, extinct feathered dinosaurs (organisms never grow out of their ancestry, so birds are still dinosaurs like we are still apes). [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] has already eloquently explained why antibiotic resistance is a form of evolution, as adaptation to the environment is evolution.

If religion is the reason why you deny evolution, then that is silly. To take one hypothesis of abiogenesis (origin of life)- the primordial soup hypothesis, which is basically a sea full of compounds where it is thought that life came from, you could think of it as God created that primordial soup, and then evolution started from there. While I am an atheist, it isn't impossible to believe in both God and evolution.

 

[Tubs]

Robert, no offence but I have seen you post on here too many times and been in too many discussions with you. I could counter all your points upon scientific basis but you would still not accept that you are wrong so I have decided not to continue this with you.

If the person I replied to decides to reply, I will continue my discussion, aimed specifically at him.

We can stick to discussing cricket only.

I am intrigued, please do counter the points Robert has made 'upon a scientific basis'.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Nice to see I started this thread years back.

Now I believe, I was in error.

I am open to evolution, in which different events happened and by a process of natural selection "those that adapted had the most chance to survive".

But behind this Big Bang (laughable, but lets take it at face value), there is definitely a master planner and creator.

I could accept Big Bang, as one of the way, Universe came into being, if there is a pre-condition that the Big Bang was created by Allah as one of the way the Universe came into being.

 

[babajee]

There's more proof for evolution than there ever has been for proof of any God.

The dumbest thing I have read on PP ever.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

And I might add physical proof of God is a ludicrous thing to ask for.

The people of yore saw many miracles during the time of Moses, Jesus, Mohammad yet the still refuted that as black magic etc.

It is almost a certainty that any physical proof of God will be treated with contempt even in contemporary age because man is an arrogant creature.

 

[Tubs]

Tell me your proof then.
Where are the peer reviewed journal articles about the existence of God?

 

[Adijazz1706]

Tell me your proof then.
Where are the peer reviewed journal articles about the existence of God?

Peer reviewed journals into the supra-natural do not and cannot exist so the point is moot

 

[Stewie]

Well they found the God particle!

 

[Technics 1210]

people can choose to believe in evolution or not, it literally doesn't make a difference. the problem is when religious people guilt kids into not even learning about evolution.

i saw from the time i went school here, in secondary school you had kids from religious families openly saying evolution was wrong before the teachers even started talking about it, because their parents taught them that even entertaining the idea was a sin.

one thing id like to point out tho, people keep saying evolution is a theory, not a law. that is true, however a scientific theory has a contextual rigour which belies the everyday use of the word theory, as speculative

if you are willing to accept gravitation, heliocentricity, quantum physics, cell theory, etc, yet choose to reject evolution for its "theoretical" nature, you are either ignorant of the scientific rigour of a theory or a hypocrite.

Science works on the principle of falsification. While you are correct laws and theory are different, with laws, one can test and predict with absolute certainty (NASA use Newtonian laws of physics to send rockets etc in space) but with theories, any new evidence can either falsify or substantiate a theory. This is precisely why since Darwin, there have been numerous changes to the Theory of Evolution itself, but the laws of say mass motion, have barley changed.

Personally the theory of evolution is a hypothesis - as Macro Evolution cannot be tested.

 

[Robert]

Robert, no offence but I have seen you post on here too many times and been in too many discussions with you. I could counter all your points upon scientific basis but you would still not accept that you are wrong so I have decided not to continue this with you.

If the person I replied to decides to reply, I will continue my discussion, aimed specifically at him.

We can stick to discussing cricket only.

I am quite happy to be proven wrong and have changed my view many times on PP as information and convincing arguments are presented to me.

You appear to misunderstand the principle of evolution - change in response to environmental factors is all there is to it - some mutations result in a marginally greater chance of survival and those characteristics are passed on. Multiply little incremental mutations a thousandfold and a species becomes sufficiently different to its ancestor as to be classed as a different species.

 

[Technics 1210]

I am quite happy to be proven wrong and have changed my view many times on PP as information and convincing arguments are presented to me.

You appear to misunderstand the principle of evolution - change in response to environmental factors is all there is to it - some mutations result in a marginally greater chance of survival and those characteristics are passed on. Multiply little incremental mutations a thousandfold and a species becomes sufficiently different to its ancestor as to be classed as a different species.

If changes are in response to the environment, then the process is adaptive mutagenesis; changes resulting in functional advantages, as opposed to being random - meaning Random Mutation and Natural Selection are dead mechanics which cannot explain the diversity/survival of life.

Clearly there is more to evolution that what science knows, but the idea life evolved from one cell to present through nothing but chance, time, and death, requires one giant of leap of faith for mankind!

 

[Tubs]

Peer reviewed journals into the supra-natural do not and cannot exist so the point is moot

I agree, my point being that it is not even possible for their to be evidence of God, let alone more evidence than the fact of evolution.

 

[Technics 1210]

And I might add physical proof of God is a ludicrous thing to ask for.

The people of yore saw many miracles during the time of Moses, Jesus, Mohammad yet the still refuted that as black magic etc.

It is almost a certainty that any physical proof of God will be treated with contempt even in contemporary age because man is an arrogant creature.

If there was physical/empirical proof of God, it wouldn't be called faith.

 

[Tubs]

If changes are in response to the environment, then the process is adaptive mutagenesis; changes resulting in functional advantages, as opposed to being random - meaning Random Mutation and Natural Selection are dead mechanics which cannot explain the diversity/survival of life.

Clearly there is more to evolution that what science knows, but the idea life evolved from one cell to present through nothing but chance, time, and death, requires one giant of leap of faith for mankind!

But the adaptation is bought about by mutation and natural selection. The adaptations which are more applicable to the environment survive and thrive within the gene pool.

Regarding evolution of cells, it is widely accepted that single cellular life did transition to multicellular life, but as far as I'm aware much research is being done on this subject (I myself am quite ignorant of cellular evolution as it's a very specialist field).

The evidence is here, and more is being procured, and there is still no sign of an omnipotent being needed to orchestrate it all.

 

[Technics 1210]

But the adaptation is bought about by mutation and natural selection. The adaptations which are more applicable to the environment survive and thrive within the gene pool.

Regarding evolution of cells, it is widely accepted that single cellular life did transition to multicellular life, but as far as I'm aware much research is being done on this subject (I myself am quite ignorant of cellular evolution as it's a very specialist field).

The evidence is here, and more is being procured, and there is still no sign of an omnipotent being needed to orchestrate it all.

The point is not of a mutation, the point is how and what triggers a mutation. Is it random? (Random mutations lead to things like cancer), or adaptive mutations which have purpose? Natural Selection is just a fancy way of saying, death.

Being? There is no man with a beard sitting in the clouds. You mean entity.

What happens if I take fish out of the water? They die. Yet Darwinists want us to believe that fish come crawling out of water an evolve into amphibians.

Replication of cells is a characteristic of life, beyond the theory of evolution, there is abiogenesis, the process of inanimate matter transforming into animate matter.

Basically there's so much we do not know, but can only speculate when it comes to life.

 

[hadi123]

The dumbest thing I have read on PP ever.

Really? You're saying you disagree?

 

[Robert]

If changes are in response to the environment, then the process is adaptive mutagenesis; changes resulting in functional advantages, as opposed to being random - meaning Random Mutation and Natural Selection are dead mechanics which cannot explain the diversity/survival of life.

Ah, I was unclear. There is no adaptive mutagenesis. Mutation is random. Some mutations will kill the mutant. Others will convey a slight advantage - a random mutation of a slightly longer neck means a mammal can graze on taller trees and be better fed, so better able to run from predators and survive to procreate. A randomly expressed mutation produces a darker wing in a polluted area means a moth is less likely to be eaten by birds, so survives to procreate.

This does not however explain some of the big evolutionary jumps such as from procaryote to eucaryote a few billion years back.

 

[Tubs]

The point is not of a mutation, the point is how and what triggers a mutation. Is it random? (Random mutations lead to things like cancer), or adaptive mutations which have purpose? Natural Selection is just a fancy way of saying, death.

Being? There is no man with a beard sitting in the clouds. You mean entity.

What happens if I take fish out of the water? They die. Yet Darwinists want us to believe that fish come crawling out of water an evolve into amphibians.

Replication of cells is a characteristic of life, beyond the theory of evolution, there is abiogenesis, the process of inanimate matter transforming into animate matter.

Basically there's so much we do not know, but can only speculate when it comes to life.

Mutations can be advantageous, disadvantageous, neutral- that is the nature of a random process. It doesn't have a thought behind it, or a process. It. Is. Random.

That's an awfully reductionist interpretation of natural selection. If anything, natural selection is about the survival of the best adapted individuals, and the passing on of their advantageous genes.

Regarding God, here is how The Oxford Dictionary defines it:
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

And again, there is no need for God in evolution. It works with or without one (and if there is a God, it is almost certainly not the God of Abraham).

Firstly, 'fish' don't technically exist within the field of cladistics. And this is because all life evolved from water. But, I know what you mean, so we'll use fish as it is commonly used. From some quick research, it appears that early fish had evolved some limb-like features to crawl on the sea floor, and others had evolved primitive lungs, due to the low amount of oxygen in some of the swamps. So, if one of those fish with limb-like features lived in a swamp with low oxygen levels, lungs would eventually be evolved, and those limbs-like features would eventually evolve into actual limbs, leading to the earliest amphibians. Obviously, me not being an expert in the field means that this is a rather rough explanation, but it should suffice.

Yes, I am aware of abiogenesis and its uncertainty. I don't understand why you'd mention cell replication for seeming no reason, but okay.

Of course there are many more things to discover, but to say evolutionary biology is based off speculation is simply disingenuous.

 

[babajee]

Really? You're saying you disagree?

First of all, there is no "proof" of evolution.

Only some evidence.

 

[pillionrider]

First of all, there is no "proof" of evolution.

Only some evidence.

God right now only exists in the gaps of scientific knowledge.

If and when we achieve the intellect to fill those gaps, He will have nowhere to hide

 

[Tubs]

First of all, there is no "proof" of evolution.

Only some evidence.

The multitude of proof is useless for people like you. You don't want to believe it. You believe that we descend from someone who was 60 cubits tall and made of clay. I'm much happier knowing the truth.

 

[Technics 1210]

Mutations can be advantageous, disadvantageous, neutral- that is the nature of a random process. It doesn't have a thought behind it, or a process. It. Is. Random.

That's an awfully reductionist interpretation of natural selection. If anything, natural selection is about the survival of the best adapted individuals, and the passing on of their advantageous genes.

Regarding God, here is how The Oxford Dictionary defines it:
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

And again, there is no need for God in evolution. It works with or without one (and if there is a God, it is almost certainly not the God of Abraham).

Firstly, 'fish' don't technically exist within the field of cladistics. And this is because all life evolved from water. But, I know what you mean, so we'll use fish as it is commonly used. From some quick research, it appears that early fish had evolved some limb-like features to crawl on the sea floor, and others had evolved primitive lungs, due to the low amount of oxygen in some of the swamps. So, if one of those fish with limb-like features lived in a swamp with low oxygen levels, lungs would eventually be evolved, and those limbs-like features would eventually evolve into actual limbs, leading to the earliest amphibians. Obviously, me not being an expert in the field means that this is a rather rough explanation, but it should suffice.

Yes, I am aware of abiogenesis and its uncertainty. I don't understand why you'd mention cell replication for seeming no reason, but okay.

Of course there are many more things to discover, but to say evolutionary biology is based off speculation is simply disingenuous.

Who claimed thought is behind mutations? I said purpose, or simply put, Teleology.

Survival of the fittest is just that, tautology, it does not predict anything - it is like predicting water is wet. Natural selection is death, it does not bring about survival - all it does produce the effect of survival by attrition, in other words, what is left after *Selection* has taken place. The weak shall perish, the fit shall survive. This observation is perceived as a mechanism of evolution, when it fact it is not a mechanism, not a selection, that brings about change - just left overs.

Citing God in your post above tells me you think there are only two sides of the coin, Theists who believe in creation, and Atheists who believe in random evolution. There are many scientists who question Evolution based on evidence and scientific date - no need to evoke God in discussions.

Oh the reason I mention cell replication is that YOU mentioned "single cellular life did transition to multicellular life". This is not possible without cell replication.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The multitude of proof is useless for people like you. You don't want to believe it. You believe that we descend from someone who was 60 cubits tall and made of clay. I'm much happier knowing the truth.

Then be at peace, no need to worry about 'useless people' on an internet forum.

 

[Technics 1210]

The multitude of proof is useless for people like you. You don't want to believe it. You believe that we descend from someone who was 60 cubits tall and made of clay. I'm much happier knowing the truth.

Nope. There is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence.

Nothing is proven in science, not even the theory of Gravity or even Laws.

Science must allow for falsification and is based on observation which allow predictions to be made on repeatable tests - otherwise it is not science, and this is the reason why supernatural is not considered science because not only is it beyond observation, but cannot be falsified.

 

[Stewie]

How come of all the species on the planet only humans evolved to possess higher brain functions and consciousness? How come evolution was /is so picky?

 

[KingKhanWC]

The dumbest thing I have read on PP ever.

lol. It was a poor statement but I think we know what he was trying to say.

Evolution exists but this doesn't mean humans evolved from hairy beasts known as apes or primates. The evidence regarding this claim is very weak and arguably racist in nature.

 

[babajee]

The multitude of proof is useless for people like you. You don't want to believe it. You believe that we descend from someone who was 60 cubits tall and made of clay. I'm much happier knowing the truth.

I believe in the principles of evolution though.

 

[Technics 1210]

I believe in the principles of evolution though.

This is the crux of the matter.

It is the mechanics of evolution that are under question, not the principle itself.

If people want to believe the process is completely random, blind, with no purpose - it just happens - then good on them. However said people have no right to question cause and effect in every aspect of life and existence.

The ramifications of believing something is random has a disastrous effect in particular the approach towards discovery. Case in point, there is no way to predict when the next mutation will occur, or why - this is why mainstream evolution theory at present is open ended - it allows for anything to happen, no matter how illogical, given the fundamental mechanics are random. However if the theory is tested against teleological principle, then we may get to know more about the evolutionary process.

Purposeful evolution is all around us - simple example being resistance to antibiotics. Darwinist will claim resistance is the result of a fluke rather than the result of a purposeful mutation.

 

[Tubs]

Nope. There is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence.

Nothing is proven in science, not even the theory of Gravity or even Laws.

Science must allow for falsification and is based on observation which allow predictions to be made on repeatable tests - otherwise it is not science, and this is the reason why supernatural is not considered science because not only is it beyond observation, but cannot be falsified.

Oops, thank you for pointing out my error, I did indeed mean 'evidence' rather than proof.

Regarding your previous points, you'd be hard pressed to find any scientific consensus that mutation is 'purposeful' or anything other than random. But to your own I suppose.

lol. It was a poor statement but I think we know what he was trying to say.

Evolution exists but this doesn't mean humans evolved from hairy beasts known as apes or primates. The evidence regarding this claim is very weak and arguably racist in nature.

You don't have to believe in human evolution (even though it is the truth), but you're misinterpreting it. We did not evolve from apes or primates, we are apes (and therefore primates). And the evidence is by no means weak, and it is not at all racist.

 

[Tubs]

Then be at peace, no need to worry about 'useless people' on an internet forum.

I do apologise for my provocative comment, it is just irritating when an iron age book is hold in higher regard than scientific research and evidence.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Oops, thank you for pointing out my error, I did indeed mean 'evidence' rather than proof.

Regarding your previous points, you'd be hard pressed to find any scientific consensus that mutation is 'purposeful' or anything other than random. But to your own I suppose.


You don't have to believe in human evolution (even though it is the truth), but you're misinterpreting it. We did not evolve from apes or primates, we are apes (and therefore primates). And the evidence is by no means weak, and it is not at all racist.

Should I just take your word for it? lol

Please list some points to prove this. Thanks :monkey

 

[Technics 1210]

You don't have to believe in human evolution (even though it is the truth), but you're misinterpreting it. We did not evolve from apes or primates, we are apes (and therefore primates). And the evidence is by no means weak, and it is not at all racist.

Just because we look similar to primates or share their DNA doesn't mean we evolved from them. Human DNA is 60% identical to that of a Banana's DNA - Does this mean we should entertain the notion that humans evolved from fruit? No. Humans are made of the same elements to that of a rock, does it mean humans evolved from a rock? No.

The problem with Primates to Human evolution is the number of chromosomes. Primates have 24 pairs, humans have 23 pairs. The problem? Removing chromosones leads to death. A fetus will not survive the pregnancy if there is a missing chromosome - this is a well documented biological fact. It is simply not possible for a 24 pair biological process to give birth to 23 pairs. The biological process would collapse and end in death.

 

[Technics 1210]

I do apologise for my provocative comment, it is just irritating when an iron age book is hold in higher regard than scientific research and evidence.

What people fail to realise is that so called iron age books do NOT contradict evolution.

 

[Tubs]

Should I just take your word for it? lol

Please list some points to prove this. Thanks :monkey

I don't think my words can do it justice. I am not an expert.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species?sort_by=field_age_timeline_maximum_value

For a concise list of human fossil record.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11128

Shows the similarity between humans and our closest relatives from the Genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos).

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/chimps-humans-96-percent-the-same-gene-study-finds/

Shows similarity between humans and chimpanzees

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9990-introduction-human-evolution/
Introductory text, shows that despite it being known that we did indeed involve, there are still some uncertainties which are being researched.

Hope that helps.

 

[Tubs]

Just because we look similar to primates or share their DNA doesn't mean we evolved from them. Human DNA is 60% identical to that of a Banana's DNA - Does this mean we should entertain the notion that humans evolved from fruit? No. Humans are made of the same elements to that of a rock, does it mean humans evolved from a rock? No.

The problem with Primates to Human evolution is the number of chromosomes. Primates have 24 pairs, humans have 23 pairs. The problem? Removing chromosones leads to death. A fetus will not survive the pregnancy if there is a missing chromosome - this is a well documented biological fact. It is simply not possible for a 24 pair biological process to give birth to 23 pairs. The biological process would collapse and end in death.

Simply disingenuous to conflate 60% with 96% (some studies site 98.5%).

Regarding the chromosome question, it is a very good question. First of all, it's wrong to say that all primates apart from humans have 24 pairs. You mean all great apes aside from humans have 24 pairs. Lemurs, for example, have 28 pairs.
I don't know the answer to your question. Luckily, there are more qualified people who do know the answer.

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

If you don't want to watch the video, 2 ancestral chromosomes fused, which accounts for the perceived 'loss' of a chromosome in humans.

 

[Tubs]

What people fail to realise is that so called iron age books do NOT contradict evolution.

It is possible to believe in both.

But if you take the literal interpretation, it means that the first two humans were created, 60 cubits tall, and out of clay. That just doesn't hold up in evolution.

But, it could be a metaphor, or there's another interpretation which means you can reconcile both beliefs.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I don't think my words can do it justice. I am not an expert.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species?sort_by=field_age_timeline_maximum_value

For a concise list of human fossil record.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11128

Shows the similarity between humans and our closest relatives from the Genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos).

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/chimps-humans-96-percent-the-same-gene-study-finds/

Shows similarity between humans and chimpanzees

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9990-introduction-human-evolution/
Introductory text, shows that despite it being known that we did indeed involve, there are still some uncertainties which are being researched.

Hope that helps.

No it doesnt. I do know how to access articles lol.

If you cant debate in your own words, then Im not interested.

 

[Technics 1210]

Simply disingenuous to conflate 60% with 96% (some studies site 98.5%).

Regarding the chromosome question, it is a very good question. First of all, it's wrong to say that all primates apart from humans have 24 pairs. You mean all great apes aside from humans have 24 pairs. Lemurs, for example, have 28 pairs.
I don't know the answer to your question. Luckily, there are more qualified people who do know the answer.

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

If you don't want to watch the video, 2 ancestral chromosomes fused, which accounts for the perceived 'loss' of a chromosome in humans.

Whether 28 pairs, 24 pairs, the theory - if we are to believe it - is humans evolved into lesser pairs via a biological system that process a higher number of pairs. This is simply not possible. a 28 or 24 pair system cannot give rise to a system with less number of pairs.

Turner syndrome. Where a female has one less chromosone:

About 1 in every 1,500 to 2,500 newborn babies have Turner syndrome. Yet according to research, monosomy X is present in about 3 percent of all conceptions, but about 99 percent of affected babies are miscarried or stillborn. The condition is thought to be a factor in roughly 15 percent of all miscarriages.

.

This is just one example of a higher pair system giving rise to a lower pair system.