The debate "The Evolution Debate" was started by
June 18, 2018, 4:37 pm.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 17 arguments, Notanidiot posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, mlowe posted 1 argument, SMNR posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
mlowe posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
Notanidiot, historybuff, mlowe, Masonearl, Alicia, Nemiroff, Andji and 20 visitors agree.
Lakshmisree1371, Breeanna104 and 11 visitors disagree.
indeed, but can't we say that about every topic?
there is so much we don't understand about the essence of time, space, gravity. it doesnt mean those things are in question, it just means our answers are not perfectly fleshed out. just cause we cant figure out how gravity behaves in extreme conditions doesn't mean gravity doesnt exist.
Aliens, genetic encoding, carbon dating, specimen documentation, timeline studies and common zoology. Evidence of evolution exists. Is it the end all, be all of creation? Of course not, there is so much we don't understand.
btw, in case your thinking "it's easy to prove gravity, just drop something".
gravity was a mind bending revolutionary concept. people thought things fall because that is their natural state, to fall down. but with gravity, there is no down. our down is china's up. things dont fall down, they fall towards mass. that is just crazy, and was massively controversial in it's time.
gravity cannot be proven by just dropping something, there are many much more logical explanations (like falling down is just obvious and natural). what proves gravity is the mass collection of all the data and observations throughout many experiments and studies. and a concept of down simply does not explain everything. thus gravity is our best, and only, working explanation. just like evolution.
the act of dropping something wont prove gravity, but it will prove the strength of gravity, which is all part of the theory of gravity, the details of which also see much debate amongst scientists. just like evolution.
I'm guessing no amount of evidence will convince you as (sorry for assuming) you are seeking a God centered answer. science will never go there as God is an unprovable/undisprovable matter of faith. it's very possible that God set the whole chain in motion but we can't know that for sure for now, so we make no claims about it. that is all.
if you would like to shift this from a scientific debate to a theological debate I have plenty of points there as well. if God truly created the world as is, then it would be unintelligent design. from our fluid filled eyes, to the inefficiency of chlorophyll, the current state of life is like going from point A to B in concentric circles instead of a straight line. evolution however it would make perfect sense since eyes evolved underwater and chlorophyll evolved in a CO2 rich, oxygen poor environment where they were perfect. I'm not making the claim that God made it bad, I'm making the claim that God wouldn't do this and instead worked thru the most perfect, self improving process: evolution.
you know how when you stick something in a cup of water the light bends it? the bending of the light in sea water is identical the bending of light in our eye. that only makes sense if our eyes were design in water.
I dont recall you providing any studies or any links whatsoever. I've been trying to answer your questions as best I can and have given you no attitude. I'm not sure why you would thumbs down a basic post about how fire denatures proteins and that broken down proteins are easier to absorb... this has nothing to do with evolution and is basic fact. your welcome?
there is no experiment to prove evolution just like there is no experiment to prove time or gravity. there are many many experiments and studies, which in combination build an irrefutable case for evolution. I can reference these studies if you like but I tried to give you a good answer for your questions first and I didnt want to make an unreadable text wall with too much information.
can you point me in the direction of this study? and was it peer reviewed or an opinion piece?
so I can do here shooting study that's a Evolutions not right but you can't show me anything you said it's been proven in labs where are the study where is the evidence Evolution exist
the protein isnt evolution, its nutrition. kinda like if you eat good protein as a kid you'll be taller, except it's for your brain, and while your a fetus.
also, protein wasnt the key, protein is a given. grass is protein. all life is protein, and noone is eating rocks. the magic was cooking.
a bit of fire in minutes does what our stomach would do, if it could, in days. broken down proteins are easy to digest and absorb.
some suggest that because of fire we were also able to have a relatively smaller digestive system that took less energy, diverting even more resources from life support to mental capacity.
Fire solves everything, lol
we have continued to evolve, although slowly. we don't really have many natural pressures so our mode of selection is sexual, like some birds. it doesn't quite demand as much as life and death. also considering we tailor our environment to us, physically we are perfect for it. most evolution will probably happen in the mind, digestion, etc. like lactose tolerance.
im guessing you mean speciation. thats impossible. that requires us to break into groups that don't crossbreed for a while for that to happen.
OK so if evolution exist then why have we not continued to evolve, and as for your protein argument many animals eat protein why are they not still evolving? evolution means change what changes do you see, that will back your theory?
*speculations = speciations
I believe you have some misconceptions, however I feel the root cause is in how you view a theory. I can tell you understand that it's not "a guess" however it also isnt exactly a fact.
a fact is an observation, a phenomena, usually a single statement. the theory of evolution is so far the best, and only explanation for all the facts (that doesn't then rely on a previous assumption).
scientists certainly debate the details of selections, speculations, and rates; and there are certainly unanswered questions. but that goes for gravity and time as well. should we question them to?
i dont see any possible sensible alternative unless your gonna say God, in which case, assuming existence, I would argue God would work in evolution as it is the most perfect system for an imperfect ever changing world.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals?which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs
what are you even talking about? evolution has been observed both in labs and in the field. no legitimate scientists doubt evolution.
it is absolutely scientific. it has been observed. where are you getting this misinformation?
Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on Earth.
Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
1 has nothing to do with biology. it's the same reason no great civilization ever materialized around oppressive empires like Rome. if any people attained anything near Rome, rome would have conquered, sacked, and enslaved them before they had a chance to find their feet.
it's only recently that just some people started seeing animals as beings, and the only animals prospering currently are our enslaved food, beasts of labor, and bugs. so it's not that they can't, but that we are so dominate that without trying we simply wouldnt let it happen. if any animal did start acting advanced, we would probably cage it, isolate it, and turn it into either a freak show or a lab rat.
2. I dont think the final stage of our intelligence had much to do with evolution. evolution sculpted our arms, and then when Africa turned into a Savannah, and we had to master running from cats without trees, our hands had little use and although we are by far not the only animal to use tools, we became the only animal that didnt need to put them down to move properly.
once we had free hands we could manipulate things better with the same brain power, which made it easier to do things like cooking... which is where the magic happened. all that rush of easy to digest protein caused our brains to reach the potential of development they always had, and the proof that it was sudden is that women's hips couldnt keep up and now we are the only example of a species that cant give birth easy.
(also our food animals but it's less to do with giant brains as it does with giant juicy bodies that dont fit)
so back to other animals, it was really coincidence that we were forced to not use our hands for travel and found cooking that we became what we are. evolution got us to that coincidence, but after that it was nutrition and the passing of knowledge that made us superior. not individual intellect in our code. or at least that's the current best theory. cutting edge stuff.
okay so since you're saying we've all for me out of the past Thousand Years human civilization keeping records why then out of hundreds and hundreds of Ames have we not seen one evolve into another human what stop that process from ever happening again
we evolved from an ape, but we are still very much apes: bipedal creatures with opposable thumbs, highly moveable shoulders, and no tails.
I wouldnt consider the beginning of life evolution. evolution is how life changes to different life, not from nonlife. I think that would be closer to chemistry. I doubt the initial life is still around in it's original form, but relatives may be.
I guess my question is are you all saying we evolved from apes are you saying that we evolve living organisms in the beginning the case are these organisms still living today
Ah, ok. I understand it now. Thanks bro.
ah, probably the same thing as what happens after a bottleneck, like a mass extinction.
I forgot the exact name, but it's something like adaptive radiation. when life was first coming out (sea or later on land, or after and extinction) there was so much room and resources that whatever feature you happen to evolve will work well enough.
then when scarcity kicks in and competition becomes tight, new features stop appearing in the fossil record and the old features are refined and specialized.
the most famous such event was called the cambrian explosion, when "complex" animals first appeared in the sea. the same thing happened to mammals after the dinosaurs died. we found a relatively empty planet full of niches to fill and went from rodents to everything from hippos to giraffes to kangaroos and primates.
True. But everything shared a common ancestors. If that's true then what made the first organisms split and create another "species" entirely? What could've been so major they had to adapt to? Probably my biggest question.
if 2 populations of the same species stop breeding (like some birds start singing a different song, or a river floods in and separates them). they start on different paths that will (eventually) make them too different to breed even if they tried
the short answer is isolation of various kinds. the video would explain the details way better then I could
Ooh, thanks. That's what I was referring to.
you mean how adaptation happens in general? I can link you to a series of 10 minute videos that break it down in detail. it's an actual abridged biology course.
actually I think your question is not adaptation but speciation. how they become new species. that video covers that subject specifically.
I was trying to refer to it differently but I understand what you mean. Thanks. I'll let you know of anymore new questions.
the environment didnt need intelligent beings, the environment doesnt need anything. we needed something from the environment, so we were the ones who needed the intellect. and it worked spectacularly.
also, we arent the only ones. evolution gave many animals intelligence, from dolphins, to squids, to pretty much all birds. (and of course some primates). our big boost came not from evolution, but tools. I think the biggest boost evolution gave to us alone is that when Africa turned from tropical to Savannah. there werent alot of trees to swing from and a ton of open space which required fast running to get away from lions and other predators. thus we stood up on 2 feet and our already existing hands with opposable thumbs lost the primary task of swinging on trees and were able to focus 100% on tools and weapons.
after that it was tools that took over our advantage. fire opened up a glut of protein for our brain to grow into the potential it always had (not evolution, nutrition), and writing to pass knowledge down (we are may or may not be smarter, but we are more knowledged).
it was us and our tools, not evolution, that gave us our biggest boon. evolution just gave us thumbs and freed our hands.
but once we took over, which took 10,000s of years, theres no way we would give room for a new species to develop these tools.
Adaptation is one. Why do we have the ability to think and create? We don't have a special kind of environment to adapt to. Why do we need intellect? What kind of environment needs highly intelligent "beings" to live there? Also why is it only us? We have the exact same environment as everything else. What did we need to adapt to?
what questions do you have?
There are questions I have about evolution but it's evidence is very supportive.
u forgot conspiracy theorist.haha. idk could be more. I've heard some crazy ideas from people before.
it's pretty irrefutable.
intelligent design fails to explain horrible mistakes like the massive inefficiency of chloriphil or the eye.
the bible never says anything explicit about evolution or primal "forms", it's amazing that protestants would hold so steady fast to indoctrinated dogma in face of obvious evidence to the contrary.
in a world that goes from ice age to heat wave, no single form can be perfect, thus an adaptive quality is the most perfect choice for a perfect god.
sorry for the presumed religious arguments, but that appears to be the only venue for evolution skepticism nowadays.