Evolution - Do you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? [Archive]

Sasafrás

20th March 2002, 01:26

And, wasn't Darwin a cleric or at least studying to be one anyway?

His ideas/theories/facts (whatever) couldn't have conflicted too much with the religious beliefs he already had. Surely, he did have a belief in the same God that those 'lame super Christians' believe in.

Either way, I do believe (to a certain extent). Darwin did a load of studying and observing and he managed to come up with some pretty good shit. People need to get off of that guy, he wasn't bad.. Evolution is occuring as we type...

DestinDisaster

20th March 2002, 05:34

Yes, MJM I'm talking about how man came into existence, not life. But if anyone has any idea's on how life came into existence I would LOVE to hear your ideas.

I defiantly believe in the Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, it has defiantly proven to explain a lot about how we humans, and other animals are today. It also helps to explain how some animals go extinct, while others placed in the same condition's, survive.

But what I have problems with is his theory that man evolved from (what was it again) a chimp. If man evolved from them, why are those animals here, and still fully intact? Why haven't they evolved?

I can see how Darwin drew correlations between us, and them, but why have we progressed and they haven't? Or, at least why haven't they progressed in as many stages as man has.

The pieces of the puzzle don't connect. There are still too many questions that I have that are left unanswered.

Any ideas?

MJM

20th March 2002, 07:05

Disinformation is rife in this area.
We share a common ancestor with the chimps and great apes, we didn't evolve directly from them.
Think of us as 2 strains of flu for example, both coming from the 1 original we are now 2 separate species.
Or 2 types of dolphin. It's been observed that different species of dolphin will mate(or have sex more precisely)
The offspring of the 2 will be sterile and unable to mate, but nonetheless the 2 species do mate and create off spring. Here you can see that the 2 species have similar biology but can't create viable offspring. Evidence of a common ancestor which they have evolved from.

Fires of History

20th March 2002, 11:47

There's a million things to say about this topic.....

I will start by saying that geologists have proved that about 700,000 years ago there was a major drought in Africa. The forests that were spread all over began to shrink, slowly turning into smaller and smaller 'islands' of forest in a 'sea' of dry grassland.

This made the density of trees, and the size of trees change radically. Suddenly, only the smaller primates could successfully live in these shrinking 'islands' of trees and find enough food to survive. Over time, the larger primates were forced to make the bold journey across the 'sea of grassland' to another 'island of forest' (mostly because these shrinking islands of trees were easily exhausted of their resources).

So, the larger primate had to move from one 'island' to another. And over time, those that could move faster survived, because they were not the slowest ones chased down by predators. Eventually, this is how this larger primate went from moving on all fours to walking on two feet (try it, see which is faster, all fours or two feet).

So, now you have a larger primate that walks on two feet, what is called 'bipedal.'

There is also the theory that this massive move from 'island' to 'island' required the development of crude communication, mostly because it's takes a little communication and organization to move an entire tribe of primates from one place to another. This crude communication evolved into language, which in my opinion is the basis of consciousness.

So, this larger primate, forced from it's home in the trees by a drought (which lasted almost 150,000 years by the way), had to learn to move faster and communicate organized movement.

Not to mention my belief that this moving from 'island' to 'island' is why early humans had a nomadic instinct. They had been on the move from the time they even started walking....

Thank you drought, I think...

OOH OOH OOH OOH!
Another Slightly Conscious Primate With A 'Name'

P.S. What I have said is all very basic, any book on anthropology would be a good reference. Have you read "Origins"? I highly recommend it.

TheDerminator

20th March 2002, 15:43

I agree with natural selection as the process for all evolution of life in nature.

However, I must admit, I disagree with the theory of gradual change, and accept the later theories that there was sudden change due large climatic changes to the environment. All the evidence backs this up. When there is no need to change due to a constant environment, animals do not evovle which is why there are still some animals which are very close to the very first life forms on Earth still existing during our present times.
At the same time the example of the white peppered moth, shows what occurs when the environment has changed due to industrial pollution. Animals can still change.
If we use the metaphor of a staircase to illustrate the evolution of life on our planet, we can see why that there has not been a numerous amount of transition animals found in fossilisation. These transitory forms were the exceptions. As soon as there is climatic stability, only the adapted form of the new species possesses longevity. The unadapted are indeed least fit to survive, thus the die out due to the competition for still scarce food, and it is not illogical that climatic conditions brought about a great scarcity in the food chains.
The latter combined with the conditions themselves are huge driving forces, and although I know a few people who could be the missing link, I don't know how they got hold of a time machine!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

Supermodel

20th March 2002, 22:15

Darwinism and Christianity are not incompatible. Fundamentalist bible study would have you believe that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of humanity but most people who believe in Christ know that the bible is a moralist fable. I'm sure Darwin and God are having a good laugh about it right now.

deadpool 52

20th March 2002, 23:49

I read that there is a one in infinity chance in the big bang actually happening.

And an extremely small chance of two amino acids coming together in lab circumstances.

Fires of History

21st March 2002, 07:42

Quote: from deadpool 52 on 11:49 pm on Mar. 20, 2002
And an extremely small chance of two amino acids coming together in lab circumstances.

But you see, it didn't happen in a lab.......

Julianemre

21st March 2002, 11:54

For Darwin's theory of evolution to be correct it involves the notion that at one specific moment in time, at some point, a non-living inanimate object would have had to transform into a living creature/being (of whatever description).

Now surely, for an object to suddenly come to life, the chemical conditions for such a change are equally miraculous to the religious notion of creation.

Also...what Darwin has said does not completely go against the teachings of the bible which says that God created a male and a female of each species. These original animals were not in any way immune to evolution or survival of the fittest and the bible does not rule out the idea that they may develop over time, however, fundamentally, however much an animal may change from its original form, it still remains that particular animal and does not change species.

FtWfTn

21st March 2002, 13:23

Yep I'm gonna have to side with Darwin on this. . . ..here's one for ya. .. .. .will Socialism evolve into more or less as the years pass? hmmm maybe I'll start a new thread.

deadpool 52

21st March 2002, 15:26

In lab conditions, would there be a greater chance of this happening?

Valkyrie

21st March 2002, 17:06

Well Deadpool, I got what you said the first time around - i.e. if it is hard to bind two amino acids together under the most favorable conditions ( in a lab, isolated in a sterile petrie dish, etc) then the chances of it happening by chance under unfavorable conditions, (contaminated by other elements that would strive to see it's death) would even be more improbable. That two amino acids binding together time and time again as a rule, could conclude more than causation by accident since they obviously don't operate under the laws of magnetism.

I could see evolution being a continuum of intelligent energy.

(Edited by Paris at 5:59 pm on Mar. 21, 2002)

I Will Deny You

21st March 2002, 22:46

As long as it's possible for two amino acids to come together, that's all that matters. It sure isn't very likely, but let's remember that evolution took trillions (gadzillions?) of years. Surely, it is likely that two amino acids would come together a few times every trillion years.

MJM

22nd March 2002, 01:07

The process may not have happened on earth. The universe really is beyond our comprehension as far as size goes. We can imagine, but we can't truely understand the size of it.
So if you look at it, the universe is essentially infinite in size, the number of stars is much the same, so odds of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:1 are quite good odds.

Valkyrie

22nd March 2002, 02:54

Well, science says the universe is expanding, so it's still in the process of creating, so to speak.

Fires of History

22nd March 2002, 04:42

Quote: from I Will Deny You on 10:46 pm on Mar. 21, 2002
As long as it's possible for two amino acids to come together, that's all that matters

I Will Deny You,

You are a scholar and a gentleperson.

THANK YOU for stating the obvious, I was on my way to saying this glad I read your post :)

Power To The People,
Trance

Fires of History

22nd March 2002, 04:45

I see evolution AS THE MIRACLE!

Forget 'god.'

Doesn't it cheapen the thought of life to think that some deity just snapped his fingers and there was life? What's so special about that!?

I think evolution RAISES the value and miracle of life! Not vice versa...

Power To The People,
Trance

Valkyrie

22nd March 2002, 17:56

Does it have to always be a deity?

Just a small observation: Tis amusing that the most on this board cannot concieve of a state without organization, even be it a hierarchial one, but yet can see an anarchic universe...

(Edited by Paris at 9:46 pm on Mar. 22, 2002)

deadpool 52

23rd March 2002, 01:32

I was just posting an opinion that would offer some more viewpoints.

Two unicellular organisms don't meet up and say "Hey, why don't we form into a two celled organism?"

Time plays a large role. As it takes time for things to "evolve."

As environment changes, organisms will try to adapt. Thus, incorporating "Survival of the Fittest." Those who aren't inclined to adapt will die off.

anyways, if you can move so much faster on two legs, then how come four legged animals (dogs, lions, cheetahs, etc...) can easily outrun humans?

trillions or gadzillions of years eh? now that is pretty funny, because not even those scientist that believe in all that mess put the earth anywhere near that old. hell, they only put it at a few billion if I remember correctly, which kinda slashed down the amount of time amino acids have to form more complex organisms now doesn't it?

if you say it cheepens life that "some deity just snapped his fingers and there was life" and that there is nothing special about it, then how is saying that we came from some "pool" of single celled organisms just by pure chance is any more special?

(Edited by deadpool 52 at 8:48 am on Mar. 23, 2002)

Guest

23rd March 2002, 06:18

[quote]Quote: from deadpool 52 on 1:32 am on Mar. 23, 2002

anyways, if you can move so much faster on two legs, then how come four legged animals (dogs, lions, cheetahs, etc...) can easily outrun humans? ]

That is exactly why I have problems with Darwin's theory.

You see, for me there are too many differences that really flaw Darwin's theory. For instance, our brain and theirs. How come our brain evolved into one that has a cerbral cortex and a cerebellum, whereas a primate's brain only consists of a cerebellum?

Is it also safe to say that believing in Dawrin's theory is the same as christians who believe that humans were created from Adam and Eve? They are both just theories.

I think chance had more to do with our creation, not that we are descendants of primates, or fish, or butteflies or aliens, or whatever explainations were ever given.

But then again, that's only because I can't find a parallel between Dawrin's theory and human life. His theory, to me, in essence, is really survival of the fittest.

I believe in evolution, but not that we are a sub-species of primates.

Fires of history almost made me a believer, almost. Deadpool 52 reassured me as to why I doubted Darwin in the first place.

vox

23rd March 2002, 20:46

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html).

Pretty compelling.

vox

Fires of History

24th March 2002, 12:23

Quote: from deadpool 52 on 1:32 am on Mar. 23, 2002

if you say it cheepens life that "some deity just snapped his fingers and there was life" and that there is nothing special about it, then how is saying that we came from some "pool" of single celled organisms just by pure chance is any more special?

Because there was LESS chance for life to be from the pool than from a 'god.' I mean, you must admit that the far, far less the chance of life existing, once it does, the more precious it is. Which has less odds? A 'god' created life or an evolved life? That's right, an evolved life, hence the reason it's more special.

Why does a 'god' have to make us to make life signifigant?

The very fact that we are here, by whatever means, is enough.

And why does the possibililty of a 'pool' bother people?

Better that than a 'god,' at least we know the pool exists.

Fires of History

24th March 2002, 12:26

Quote: from Guest on 6:18 am on Mar. 23, 2002
[quote]

Fires of history almost made me a believer, almost. Deadpool 52 reassured me as to why I doubted Darwin in the first place.

I'm glad!

If you changed your opinion because of my post, then you'd be a dumbshit anyway!

I can tell you aren't asking any good questions anyway.

Read a book lately?

Here's a thought:

You can PROVE Darwin.

You CAN'T PROVE anything else.

Read A Book Dumbshit,
Trance

deadpool 52

24th March 2002, 19:38

Always go for Darwin over creationism.

"All great thoughts start out as blasphemies."

I heard that Darwin actually denounced his whole theory on his deathbed. I doubt it.

TheDerminator

24th March 2002, 21:06

Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species [1859], when he was still quite alive. Funny enough. [Died in 1882]

May the Force be with U!

derminated

RedRevolutionary87

25th March 2002, 03:02

the reason monkeys are still alive is because we did not evolve from monkeys, instead we evolved from the same relative who is no longer around. ive noticed alot of people asking this question so i thought id clarify it

Guest

25th March 2002, 07:44

this is so sad
u guys seriously think complex creatures as we humans are, that we just evolved
not only that but evolved from a lifeless soup?
the premordial soup didn't even contain life within
oh but wait
there was a perfect and precise lightning created in the atmoshpere that zapped the soup and out pops aminio acids
hmmm... how long did that take
well lets say 1000 years
then we proceed to the amino acids
did it ever occur to you that there is not only one type of amino acids?
well i guess u weren't listening in biology
anyways
what are the chances for these random AA to form in to a single prokaryotic cell?
hmm.... that means more thunder storms to create the right kind of AAs huh?
well let's say 10.000 years
where was i ?

oh were still at single cell
u know i can go on for eternity until i reach homo sapien
but to make things easier i think i'll stop here and let u do the calculations

but obviously some of u will question
what are the chances of a God creating the world
hmmm.
just as much as a freakin soup create our diverse world in which we live in

sure i believe in micro evolution
bull dog +shitzu= bullshit

but i don't believe in macro evolution...

MJM

25th March 2002, 07:53

Of course the fact that the universe is beyond our comprehension as far as size is concerned doesn't even enter your mind guest.
I guess there's only one planet in your universe eh?

Fires of History

25th March 2002, 08:08

Guest,

I think your the guest troll running through here.

You're still a fucking idiot.

You're still 13 years old. At least your writing ability is at that level.

Why do you think complex beings cannot evolve? What's the explanation, 'god'!?!

SIMPLE MINDS!!!

You simple thinking freak.

See ya, 'Guest.'

alphaq

26th March 2002, 06:54

What are the chances of two amino acids coming together? Not high but of course in the "premordial soup" there were billions of amino acids, not just two, and their collisions and interactions are diffusion controlled processes where the collision rate is obviously proportional to the molar concentration. Whether you realize it or not most of the processes that occur within our own cells are diffusion controlled, including protein synthesis. Therefore a solution with a high concentration of the twenty amino acids could very easily create protiens provided a large amount of time with the help of random catalysis (increased temperature, UV rays, etc.)

Fires of History

26th March 2002, 09:52

Quote: from alphaq on 6:54 am on Mar. 26, 2002
What are the chances of two amino acids coming together? Not high but of course in the "premordial soup" there were billions of amino acids, not just two, and their collisions and interactions are diffusion controlled processes where the collision rate is obviously proportional to the molar concentration. Whether you realize it or not most of the processes that occur within our own cells are diffusion controlled, including protein synthesis. Therefore a solution with a high concentration of the twenty amino acids could very easily create protiens provided a large amount of time with the help of random catalysis (increased temperature, UV rays, etc.)

Well said!

Especially if you give it a few million years to happen, which so happens to be the case.

Well said!
Trance

eudaimonia

27th March 2002, 03:20

Quote: from Guest on 3:44 am on Mar. 26, 2002
this is so sad u guys seriously think complex creatures as we humans are, that we just evolved not only that but evolved from a lifeless soup? the premordial soup didn't even contain life within oh but wait there was a perfect and precise lightning created in the atmoshpere that zapped the soup and out pops aminio acids hmmm... how long did that take well lets say 1000 years...

now that professor science has had his say... i'd like to point out the functions of the virus as a hint as to the origins of life. granted, none of us here are evolutionary biologists, so none of what any of us say can be considered totally true, but look - viruses are not considered to be alive. yet they still exhibit cell specificity, and are very effective at what they do. they of course evolved to infect living cells with DNA, so they are not our ancestors, but the fact that they exist at all means that we had non-living "ancestors." my question is, if evolution is not the explanation, then what is? Did "god" just ZAP create life, and oh my, it just happens to have DNA in common, as well as a whole bunch of other things? Did "god" just decide to make life have a logical set of genotypic/phenotypic similarities? Creationism is ignorance. EXTREME ignorance, or perhaps chance lack of fundamental scientific knowledge. Evolution may seem like a stretch when you look at what we started with and what we have now, but it absolutely makes sense. In my opinion, "god" will be explained out of society by science until only pantheism, atheism, and ignorance are the only options. Or perhaps that is already the case.
by the way, Fires of history and alphaq you are my heroes because of this thread. i feel your pain.

Fires of History

28th March 2002, 00:16

Quote: from Paris on 5:56 pm on Mar. 22, 2002
Does it have to always be a deity?

Just a small observation: Tis amusing that the most on this board cannot concieve of a state without organization, even be it a hierarchial one, but yet can see an anarchic universe...

Paris, very, very well put!

Yes, most people, especially when it comes to our origins, must think in terms of a 'person' in charge, you know, someone who carefully managed our creation and existence, because you know we are just so darn special and significant to the universe after all; we are the center of it all, right!?

Self-centric thinking insists on a 'manager,' a 'project coordinator,' a 'god,' why could something as special as us deserve any less? And thus we start in with the religion....

People simply reject a chaotic origin, not really based on any scientific facts or serious analyzation, simply because it would lessen their internal view of themselves and their cosmic significance. And that can't happen! We are eternally special!

I personally believe that talking about Evolution among non-scientists reveals more about one's mode of thinking than anything else. We can read all day and all night, but the fact is that when we do actually study, we will focus on the data that might reinforce our worldview.

As such, when somebody acknowledges the possibility of choas in creation through evolution, or when somebody just plain insists that 'god' did it, we are really learning more about them than any actual evolutionary or creationist theory.

Any statement on Evolution is a value statement,
Trance

P.S. This need for a 'manager' to feel so darn special is also the basis for most religious thinking, at least historically.

P.S.S. And yes, Paris, totally, the hierarchical mindset is very, very related to this need to feel cosmically significant.

PCommie

25th April 2009, 23:20

It's not a matter of "I agree with Darwin" or "I disagree with Darwin." If I say the grass is naturally green, and you say it's naturally purple, then I'm right, and your wrong, and that's just it. In the same way, all one has to do to prove Darwin's theory is open up a high school biology book and read the evolution chapter. The thought that some god said "Boom, life," is impossible, at least, from the Christian perspective. Here's why:

-God created life "As is." He didn't necessarily create it soon after Earth, but the Bible says he created "fowl of the air." The birds are all we need. If this is true, that birds were created out of nothing, then at some point in history, bird fossils should suddenly appear. They don't.

-Lightning, solar rays, and certain gasses combine to form simple amino acids. This has been proven years ago. The though that over several billion years this could not happen is absurd.

-The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This has been proven by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is a fact. The Earth may well be older. End of story.

One thing though, my Ag teacher said something about a dig where they found human and dinosaur footprints next to each other. Any speculation?

H&S forever,
-PC