Are you an evolutionist or a creationist?
| Computers evolved and we can clearly see that, why is is so hard for humans to accept it in nature? Our skin gets darker in the sun, people are taller in hot climates, smaller in cold, etc. we don't have hair over most of our bodies, we learned how to read, then we learned to read in our heads over time. Whether or not a GOD made this nature can be debatable. But Evolution can't be denied, it's there, it happening right now as we speak even if you can't see the immediate results. I think there's even a type of lizard that evolves so fast, that over the past few thousand years it's adapted defence against floods and heat in the desert it lives. Like gaining a new power. For me I guess the only real discussion is if GOD has set out an evolutionary plan for the human race, i.e a set route that we will become some such thing later, like big heads or wings etc. Like choosing a progression path in some RPG, Perhaps we even get to chose which evolutionary path we take. The outcomes are all designed and set. Whether they are set by GOD or if there is some other force at work we are not sure about and could be a point of discussion. But since that discussion ends up in personal belief its hard to have one of any real merit. Also |
sixyearsMay 8, 2012 4:42 AM
Alpha-kudasu said: Our skin gets darker in the sun, people are taller in hot climates, smaller in cold, etc. we don't have hair over most of our bodies, we learned how to read, then we learned to read in our heads over time. Hmmm, I'm not sure if it's your case, but there are some misconceptions about evolution. It is not that giraffes grew taller in order to be able to eat the leaves of tall trees, well at least that is supposedly how tall giraffes came about, that they needed to eat leaves in tall trees to survive, otherwise they wouldn't. It was that the "short" giraffes died out because they couldn't reach the tall trees, and as such the "tall" giraffes became predominant. That is why it is called natural selection. The less adaptable dies and the more adapted lives on. |
 |
RoCSC-006C1BST said: Alpha-kudasu said: Our skin gets darker in the sun, people are taller in hot climates, smaller in cold, etc. we don't have hair over most of our bodies, we learned how to read, then we learned to read in our heads over time. Hmmm, I'm not sure if it's your case, but there are some misconceptions about evolution. It is not that giraffes grew taller in order to be able to eat the leaves of tall trees, well at least that is supposedly how tall giraffes came about, that they needed to eat leaves in tall trees to survive, otherwise they wouldn't. It was that the "short" giraffes died out because they couldn't reach the tall trees, and as such the "tall" giraffes became predominant. That is why it is called natural selection. The less adaptable dies and the more adapted lives on. Yes, but as a result the giraffes grew taller as a species because of that. Thus they grew taller. The evolutionary part is the part where divergence kills off though natural selection the ones who are worthless to the gene pool in reaching high leaves. It just depends on your perspective on it. It's the same thing really. Giraffes got taller to survive. Giraffes put a lot of EXP POINTS into height, but their ABILITY TO DRINK WATER POINTS EXP went down. Also |
sixyearsMay 8, 2012 5:30 AM
| Although some people when they hear of evolution they think giraffes trained to stretch their necks to be taller. |
|
| @Hexis, thanks for clearing that up. We seem to agree on the definition of 'theory', but I suppose my initial confusion arose from our conflicting notions of what a 'law' is. But whatever. RoCSC-006C1BST said: Although some people when they hear of evolution they think giraffes trained to stretch their necks to be taller. That would be Lamarkian evolution. http://www.angelfire.com/bug/darwinvslamarck/ |
Hexis said: Baman said: Hexis said: Except we can actually observe evolution with microorganisms, viruses and such. It's entirely possible to do that in a lab.evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. the theory is observable. but the reason evolution cannot be a law: a law would require a readily observable and repeatable outcome evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen. what happens is anyone's guess because its random chance which genes will cross over, independent assortment and such. Random chance, eh? So you do believe the Dice is the ultimate force of the world. Currently fundamental theory does suggest such things too. After all when faced with Bell's Inequality all we say is MAGIC DID IT |
 「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
| I don't know man, this is pretty convincing to me. |
Hitchens said: @Hexis, thanks for clearing that up. We seem to agree on the definition of 'theory', but I suppose my initial confusion arose from our conflicting notions of what a 'law' is. But whatever. RoCSC-006C1BST said: Although some people when they hear of evolution they think giraffes trained to stretch their necks to be taller. That would be Lamarkian evolution. http://www.angelfire.com/bug/darwinvslamarck/ And people frequently lump both of them together, even though from the evidence so far Lamarck's theory probably does not happen, but there are contradictions. |
|
Hexis said: Yea, but that's random in every specific generation. But if you keep going at it long enough, isolate all unwanted elements and keep the same environment all throughout, you will get the same result every time, just maybe with some +/- number of generations before the actual changes manifest. So as far as the experiment is concerned, it's still inevitable, the chances of how quickly the changes manifest is just another variable, even if it is impossible to control, that doesn't really matter for the end result.the theory is observable. but the reason evolution cannot be a law: a law would require a readily observable and repeatable outcome evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen. what happens is anyone's guess because its random chance which genes will cross over, independent assortment and such. |
| so i came back to this thread few days later i read parts of few posts > when you don't know what to say or someone says something which violates the beliefs enforced on you by your enivorument or by chance on what you've stumbled across the net you just go ahead and call him a troll , denial at its finest. > other retarded guy with blue avatar who's dumb on a cosmical scale its not "i don't know therefore aliens", its "all the evidence suggests > aliens therefore its logical to conclude that and not some ridiculous theory which hasn't even been proved and more importanly theres no evidence to support it whatsoever" sayonara |
lots of music -  |
RoCSC-006C1BST said: It is not that giraffes grew taller in order to be able to eat the leaves of tall trees, well at least that is supposedly how tall giraffes came about, that they needed to eat leaves in tall trees to survive, otherwise they wouldn't. It was that the "short" giraffes died out because they couldn't reach the tall trees, and as such the "tall" giraffes became predominant. That is why it is called natural selection. The less adaptable dies and the more adapted lives on. actually giraffes necks didnt evolve because of leave being hard to reach. they evolved because of the giraffes mating ritual of necking. when picking who will mate with the female giraffe, male giraffes slam each other with their necks, much like Rams smash heads, deer smash antlers etc. the giraffe with the bigger and longer neck could whip it with more velocity and would usually win and pass on his genes. check it out its crazy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7HCIGFdBt8 |
HexisMay 8, 2012 1:40 PM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Baman said: Hexis said: Yea, but that's random in every specific generation. But if you keep going at it long enough, isolate all unwanted elements and keep the same environment all throughout, you will get the same result every time, just maybe with some +/- number of generations before the actual changes manifest. So as far as the experiment is concerned, it's still inevitable, the chances of how quickly the changes manifest is just another variable, even if it is impossible to control, that doesn't really matter for the end result.the theory is observable. but the reason evolution cannot be a law: a law would require a readily observable and repeatable outcome evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen. what happens is anyone's guess because its random chance which genes will cross over, independent assortment and such. no matter how many times you essentially "reset" earth and fast forward 4 billion years, keeping all events the same, humans would never evolve again. yes intelligent life can evolve, but the chance of getting 100% human genome is infinitely small. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Hexis said: Uh, of course they would. If it's happened once, it will happen again, given the exact same situation.no matter how many times you essentially "reset" earth and fast forward 4 billion years, keeping all events the same, humans would never evolve again. yes intelligent life can evolve, but the chance of getting 100% human genome is infinitely small. And besides, who's talking about some huge ass project like that, might as well just do it with microorganisms, much cheaper and easier. Your example is pretty farfetched either way because it contains countless millions of mutations that would be a royal hell to keep track of, but merely evolving in terms of a single or so gene would be pretty easy. |
incisorr said: so i came back to this thread few days later i read parts of few posts > when you don't know what to say or someone says something which violates the beliefs enforced on you by your enivorument or by chance on what you've stumbled across the net you just go ahead and call him a troll , denial at its finest. > other retarded guy with blue avatar who's dumb on a cosmical scale its not "i don't know therefore aliens", its "all the evidence suggests > aliens therefore its logical to conclude that and not some ridiculous theory which hasn't even been proved and more importanly theres no evidence to support it whatsoever" sayonara Im dumb because I dont believe in every detail of a tv show that is purely hypothetical scenarios in a attempt to fill a few gaps in history? Did you even miss the part that I said I would believe that before I would believe anything from christianity? You called me an idiot for pointing out the flaws in your logic while also partially agreeing of a possibility of such things. How weak and hypocritical. |
traedMay 8, 2012 7:09 PM
| @traed You're wasting your time. |
Hexis said: no matter how many times you essentially "reset" earth and fast forward 4 billion years, keeping all events the same, humans would never evolve again. yes intelligent life can evolve, but the chance of getting 100% human genome is infinitely small. Is that not because of the high number of variables involved though? And given that evolution occurs over long periods of time, what makes you so sure we wouldn't get the same results without a change to the conditions? Finally this does not make the theory of evolution any less true, since it also applies to other animals. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Hexis said: no matter how many times you essentially "reset" earth and fast forward 4 billion years, keeping all events the same, humans would never evolve again. yes intelligent life can evolve, but the chance of getting 100% human genome is infinitely small. If all the events did occur again exactly, humans would evolve again in the same process. Natural selection is a non-random process and is biased in the genes it decides to purport forward. If all the events occurred again exactly as our history has, humans would have evolved again in the same fashion since all these events would press species to mutate in the same fashion. |
Baman said: Hexis said: Uh, of course they would. If it's happened once, it will happen again, given the exact same situation.no matter how many times you essentially "reset" earth and fast forward 4 billion years, keeping all events the same, humans would never evolve again. yes intelligent life can evolve, but the chance of getting 100% human genome is infinitely small. And besides, who's talking about some huge ass project like that, might as well just do it with microorganisms, much cheaper and easier. Your example is pretty farfetched either way because it contains countless millions of mutations that would be a royal hell to keep track of, but merely evolving in terms of a single or so gene would be pretty easy. How 'exact' is the 'exact' same situation? How much freedom from this set events that has led to the conception of 'humans' is allowed? If the set of events is to be given a small deviation(I'm not sure if I should say 'perturbation'), what is the maximal deviation that gives, with a 5-sigma confidence that humans will occur as a result? (i.e. in the event of one million resets, less than 1 reset will result in no humans.) Citizeninsane said: Hexis said: no matter how many times you essentially "reset" earth and fast forward 4 billion years, keeping all events the same, humans would never evolve again. yes intelligent life can evolve, but the chance of getting 100% human genome is infinitely small. If all the events did occur again exactly, humans would evolve again in the same process. Natural selection is a non-random process and is biased in the genes it decides to purport forward. If all the events occurred again exactly as our history has, humans would have evolved again in the same fashion since all these events would press species to mutate in the same fashion. Natural selection is non-random but all mutation according to current theory is random. (Unless I'm very backward on this, and we're so good with molecular biology theory that mutation is a fully deterministic(as deterministic as, say, Newton Laws) theory) And you never choose what (edit) does not result out of mutation. You also cannot choose what doesn't exist. (i.e. is an invalid option because it does not exist) |
ZmffkskemMay 9, 2012 9:05 AM
「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
Zmffkskem said: How 'exact' is the 'exact' same situation? How much freedom from this set events that has led to the conception of 'humans' is allowed? If the set of events is to be given a small deviation(I'm not sure if I should say 'perturbation'), what is the maximal deviation that gives, with a 5-sigma confidence that humans will occur as a result? (i.e. in the event of one million resets, less than 1 reset will result in no humans.) Those must be rhetorical questions. If every thing, every single event, that occurred during and before human evolution were to be repeated in the exact manner of occurrence, then the likely-hood that humans will emerge approaches infinity. A number can't be put on it, since we haven't run the tests yet (and probably never will). Natural selection is non-random but all mutation according to current theory is random. Of course they are random; but it's not magic, it can be repeated, given that (again) every single event that occurred during and before the mutation were to be repeated in the exact manner of occurrence. Now this is highly unrealistic since mutations during the most important 9 months of your life (when DNA replicates) and some even occur due to cosmic rays, and it will be an astounding task on an intergalactic scale to have to repeat those circumstances - the exact same supernovae, the exact same pair production, etc. - in order to get the exact same mutation to occur. Impossible in practice, but not in principle. |
Hitchens said: Those must be rhetorical questions. If every thing, every single event, that occurred during and before human evolution were to be repeated in the exact manner of occurrence, then the likely-hood that humans will emerge approaches infinity. A number can't be put on it, since we haven't run the tests yet (and probably never will). Of course they are random; but it's not magic, it can be repeated, given that (again) every single event that occurred during and before the mutation were to be repeated in the exact manner of occurrence. Now this is highly unrealistic since mutations during the most important 9 months of your life (when DNA replicates) and some even occur due to cosmic rays, and it will be an astounding task on an intergalactic scale to have to repeat those circumstances - the exact same supernovae, the exact same pair production, etc. - in order to get the exact same mutation to occur. Impossible in practice, but not in principle. That's the problem. I have huge doubt that every single event would, on a whim, repeat itself as shown. We certainly can postdict events, but our prediction of events even on a geologic timescale is not absolute. |
「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
Zmffkskem said: That's the problem. I have huge doubt that every single event would, on a whim, repeat itself as shown. We certainly can postdict events, but our prediction of events even on a geologic timescale is not absolute. Ah, well no one is saying that we have to predict anything. In fact, we're opting for the antithesis of predicting, we're recreating the events that have already occurred (making their probability of occurrence, given the same circumstance, unity). |
Zmffkskem said: If we had every single fact involved in our evolution mapped out in full detail, then surely, that would be enough? It might take more or less time for each mutation to manifest itself, but other than that, as long as we introduce all the key elements in the environment step by step, then I see no reason why we would not succeed with time. That's the problem. I have huge doubt that every single event would, on a whim, repeat itself as shown. We certainly can postdict events, but our prediction of events even on a geologic timescale is not absolute. The real impossibility, of course, would be to actually collect all the relevant information, and without that, success is a lot less likely. |
Baman said: If we had every single fact involved in our evolution mapped out in full detail, then surely, that would be enough? It might take more or less time for each mutation to manifest itself, but other than that, as long as we introduce all the key elements in the environment step by step, then I see no reason why we would not succeed with time. The real impossibility, of course, would be to actually collect all the relevant information, and without that, success is a lot less likely. Because mutations are random, no. Many evolutionary strategies can solve the problems of the environments we evolved in - as evidenced by the plethora of other animals who also lived there. Humans were rarely the most successful in their environment for most of our existence (even discounting bacteria, which have always been the most successful everywhere, and will continue to be so forever). We were apex predators, sure, but never as exclusively dominant as we are now with our civilization. And even if we had been, evolution does not necessarily go the most successful route, just a successful one. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
| Sure, but the argument is that given enough time, it has to go the same path again. I mean, if we somehow managed to start some experiment like this, we'd obviously successively monitor each generation and see if they evolved into the next stage towards humans, if they didn't we'd just have to redo that stage. It might have taken aeons, but surely we would get there given enough time. As such, evolution is repeatable, just damn hard to get right and with a significant random element. |
| That's a pointless thing to say. Repeatability is only worth something if it is empirical. You've posed a thought experiment, an entirely rationalistic endeavour. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
| in science we always use accuracy and precision for repeated trials with a large random variability, precision is of concern. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I accept the fact that I don't know much about Evolution but I do believe that Evolutionists know what they're doing in their line of work. I'm very open-minded that way. :) |
 |
Kaiserpingvin said: And it is empirical if you've calculated the chances of the genes mutating. If the random chance is narrowed down to a uncontrollable, but nonetheless observable and quantifiable factor, then why wouldn't it be empirical? That's a pointless thing to say. Repeatability is only worth something if it is empirical. You've posed a thought experiment, an entirely rationalistic endeavour. Hexis said: But if that's not possible, then obviously, you'd make do with what you have, until you know enough to make accurate predictions. And it's not like the mutations would be completely unpredictable, there's only so many genes, surely given enough time we'd be able to identify all the possible mutations caused by a specific environment and outside stimuli.in science we always use accuracy and precision for repeated trials with a large random variability, precision is of concern. |
| For whoever's interested, there is an ongoing experiment which partially deals with the topic of whether or not mutations are repeatable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment - "an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988." |
flipperish said: Let's say humans did evolve from apes. That still leaves another question unanswered. Who created apes? After the big bang and the stars and earth were formed, the earth happened to be the only planet to occupy a space where water could exist on the surface without freezing or boiling away... So.. How did life start on this planet? Some people might say, well we don't know yet but that doesn't mean God did it. I don't say God did it because I don't know the answer, I say it because it's in my religion. Some other people might argue, you know abiogenesis this and that.. But then how is creation any different from abiogenesis? Man made from clay/mud. I say God made it happen, it wasn't random/chance etc. I'm a theistic-evolutionist. Noo whyyyyyy did you bump this thread!?!?!?!?!??! Just think of the horrors lupadim will cause here OTL OTL OTL |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
| Evolution is scientiffically proven. There is no need for a debate. The real question is, what created the Universe? Was it the Big Bang? or was it some higher being? No proof has ever been found for either of those, so this is a truly intresting subject to debate about. |
| All worship the great Tatsuya-nii-sama. Kronie said: Only those who are lost and empty seek guidance and fulfillment. |
| if god made us god is a dick i can't fly or shoot laser out my eyes no fun. |
| anime with cute girls is my thing. |
| Until either group conclusively proves their side is the right side, fuck 'em both. |
| Never forget, that if you post a topic, you're not allowed to post in it yourself, by order of MAL administration. |
| We have overwhelming evidence that evolution and speciation exists. To not believe in it would be siding with the less convincing argument, which is a choice selected by the Jehova's witnesses who come by every few months. Ultimately it comes down to people trying to be experts in something they know nothing about and preaching to others about what they've read from one source. If only all scientific knowledge could be taken from one book, we wouldn't even need the hundreds of specialized professions that take several years of study, and the compounded information provided by many scientists' lifetimes over the past hundreds of years. A question for any creationist: Did God create races, too? Ethnic differentiation is a form of natural selection and evolution: their physical features reflect the environment in which they live. Where is the line drawn for what God creates and what is accomplished in accordance with scientific theory? Can you explain this? http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/ In 100 years, there are some pretty significant physiological changes. Why do you feel that 40,000,000 times that amount isn't enough to make even more significant changes? You really feel that no change from environmental and genetic factors will be made over that period of time? |
FuiJan 15, 2014 12:40 PM
UnculturedWhitey said: Until either group conclusively proves their side is the right side, fuck 'em both. Unfortunately people like you are easily misguided into thinking there still is some controversy or conspiracy regarding evolution. This is why scientific literacy (irrespective of your potential career path) is very important. |
OP said: lol no it's not.Evolution vs. Creation is indeed the Great Debate of our scientific times. |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
| I'm a theistic evolutionist, but I don't think humans "just evolved" from whatever it is. I believe something apart from evolution happened, but just believe. I've reading Spiritism's theory and seems to be interesting. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| This topic should've stayed dead. JD2411 said: Samurnor said: No it isn'tEvolution is scientiffically proven. There is no need for a debate. But creatures have pretty much changed from one thing to another over time. The fact that animals can be domesticated, which requires changing them on a genetic level, pretty much proves evolution. Animals change from one thing to another over an extremely long period of time, perhaps to adapt to environmental changes, etc. Whenever people say "Evolution VS Creation" what they really mean is "Did God create everything, or did The Big Bang occur and everything after it slowly occurred through evolution and whatnot". Evolution itself doesn't really mean The Big Bang and all that jazz. Its a very misused term. Now if you're trying to say that evolution doesn't occur or hasn't been proven (the changing of creatures from one thing to another over time (at least how I see it anyways), then why? |
JD2411 said: MrsKotobuki said: Its called the theory of evolution because it hasn't been provedEvolution isn't up for debate, it's a scientific fact. Scientists give everything the benefit of the doubt, unlike some other groups of people who are 100% convinced that ____ exists and you're being controlled by the devil for saying otherwise. Even though they are all in agreement that, without doubt from overwhelming evidence, this theory is indeed true, they still reserve the fact that it's possible that there is another explanation. It's not called a "theory" so that random people can use it as an excuse to disregard it as a credible explanation. It's called a theory to encourage further research to gain more understanding of how things work in the world to bring more evidence to support it or discover any findings that may say otherwise. |
flipperish said: Let's say humans did evolve from apes. That still leaves another question unanswered. Who created apes? You don't know how evolution works if you have to ask that question. flipperish said: After the big bang and the stars and earth were formed, the earth happened to be the only planet to occupy a space where water could exist on the surface without freezing or boiling away... So.. How did life start on this planet? Earth is the only planet that we currently know of capable of supporting life. In all likelihood it is far from the only one. The answer to how life first started is currently unknowable though. Early experiments on the hypothesis of abiogenesis have shown promise, but it is still largely inconclusive at this time. Note that I said it is inconclusive and most importantly unknowable. This means exactly as it says. The floodgates aren't suddenly open for anyone to make up a bullshit answer instead. flipperish said: Some people might say, well we don't know yet but that doesn't mean God did it. I don't say God did it because I don't know the answer, I say it because it's in my religion. This is a cop out. The logic is still the same. You're just assuming that because the answer is unknowable that it's OK to insert your God explanation instead. Otherwise you wouldn't have noted science's current lacking explanation for it. This is a classic case of God of the Gaps which is a version of an argument from ignorance fallacy. As I said before though, when something is unknowable that means it's unknowable. I know, crazy right? Sometimes people legitimately just don't have an answer for something, and that's perfectly OK. flipperish said: Some other people might argue, you know abiogenesis this and that.. But then how is creation any different from abiogenesis? The difference is Occam's razor and the scientific method. We tend to explain things in terms of other things we already understand and know to exist. Abiogenesis attempts to explain the origins of life through naturalistic mechanisms that we can actually confirm to exist through empirical observation and the scientific method. "God" is just a placeholder answer for when there is no real answer, and has no demonstrable real world application. That's the difference. If we could create life in the laboratory, this would open up whole new fields of study in biology wherein scientists could create entire isolated ecosystems from scratch and learn so much more about how early life might have adapted and evolved. Tell me, what real world applications would your God explanation have? flipperish said: Man made from clay/mud. I say God made it happen, it wasn't random/chance etc. I'm a theistic-evolutionist. OK... good for you...? Prove it. All you've done is pull a giant god of the gaps while needlessly bumping an old thread. Speaking of this thread by the way, "evolutionist" is a loaded term. Either you accept science or you don't. Pretending that evolution and creationism are two legitimately competing theories is as silly as pretending Pastafarianism is a legitimate competing religion with the Abrahamic faiths. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
JD2411 said: Fui said: Scientists once thought the Earth was flat and that the sun orbited around the EarthJD2411 said: MrsKotobuki said: Its called the theory of evolution because it hasn't been provedEvolution isn't up for debate, it's a scientific fact. Scientists give everything the benefit of the doubt, unlike some other groups of people who are 100% convinced that ____ exists and you're being controlled by the devil for saying otherwise. Even though they are all in agreement that, without doubt from overwhelming evidence, this theory is indeed true, they still reserve the fact that it's possible that there is another explanation. It's not called a "theory" so that random people can use it as an excuse to disregard it as a credible explanation. It's called a theory to encourage further research to gain more understanding of how things work in the world to bring more evidence to support it or discover any findings that may say otherwise. I don't disagree with evolution but there isn't enough evidence to say it is truth at this moment in time so it will remain as a theory Ironically, the Church made it difficult to publish the theory that supported a heliocentric solar system... You're obviously free to believe whatever you want. I seriously doubt you've spent enough time looking into evolution to make that conclusion, but sure. Homo habilis says hi. |
More topics from this board
» How do you know other people actually exist?purple_rayn - Yesterday |
16 |
by Adverrito
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » strawberry, chocolate or banana milk?bobbysalmon - Apr 17 |
20 |
by KenaiPhoenix
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Today |
26 |
by KenaiPhoenix
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» What hobbies, skills, or common views do you wish a significant other had?IpreferEcchi - 9 hours ago |
9 |
by 0arche
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» what is "love" to you ? what makes you feel loved and how you love people ?ame - Today |
14 |
by traed
»»
49 minutes ago |