does evolution exsist

I agree. It sounds exactly like a religion. If you work very hard at remaining ignorant about it.

Wrong again. You're at least keeping up your average (which, in fact, is decidedly below average). Evolution has evidence for it, and will change to accommodate more evidence as it comes along. Religion has neither evidence nor the ability/ willingness to change to accommodate facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's hard to think how you could display more ignorance if you tried.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I see very little evidence for deity. I choose to believe in multiple deities because it pleases my brain wrinkles to do so.

I see a lot of evidence for evolution, bith living and fossil record-a lot more than for the existence of any particular deity.

I've got to have a good look at a chimp skull, a gorilla skull, and a human skull side-by-side...ook. Actually, we look most like a baby chimp.

As far as that goes, we've domesticated ourselves, so where we go is really up to us; unless our civilization collapses and we get exposed to selective pressure again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you read and refute my post a few posts back?

You can even see evolution going through its stages upon an embryo in the womb. Look it up. Billions of years compressed into 9 months.

 

More often than not it's simply because it threatens their already established world view. I'm sure you already realize this and that you are posing the question as a largely rhetorical one, but let's extend upon it so it might serve it's purpose more effectively.

For our purposes here let's say that there are just two kinds of people in the world. Those who continually revise their world view as new information comes to light and those who have already accepted a world view, at least for the most part, as taught by others. One of the fundamental differences between the two is that it is not tragic if people in the first category find out that they are wrong. They simply assimilate the new information and revise their understanding. But people in the second category typically have so much more to lose because they've embraced the legitimacy and permanence of their world view to the extent that they've built everything else around it. In the case of creationists, even though evolution doesn't serve to disprove the existence of God, it still threatens one of the cornerstones of their faith. To them, a literal interpretation of the creation story is inseparable from God. The Christian science overlay can no longer be removed.

The most unfortunate part of all this is of course, as has been pointed out previously, that it's an unnecessary conflict. There are many Christians and Muslims (most Muslims in fact) who interpret scriptural teachings with our current scientific understanding in mind, realizing that the two should be complimentary instead of contradictory. It's a much more enlightened perspective that I wish more people would embrace.

 

thats a very preculiar viewpoint - particularly as you have had a great deal of evidence for evolution presented to you in your short stay on these forums - very little faith at all - its almost as if you are either just making that statement up or you havent even read the replies to your posts.

lets go for a practical statement about evolution from an organisation that you will no doubt have some familiarity with, The Botanical Society of America.

Not only does it outline ways in which evolutionary theory has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt and why creationism has been falsified, but also describes in great detail (without any application of faith) a practical example of both the need to follow an understand evolutionary theory in order to make sense of, and apply the botanical sciences to real world problems, and contrasts this with the utter uselessness of creationism when attempting the same task.

 

The fossils of animals, including us, match the turned off, unused, so-called junk DNA of their modern day descendants, so evolution is true. The only debate is about the method, such as if there are more methods than natural selection (in which death 'chooses').

 

well as usual and true to form it looks like the fundies abandoned the thread the moment they were in danger of learning something or were caught out lying

 

fundamental: fun with da mentals.

 

Creationist make no logical predictions and never can test anything, but Evolutionist can and do:

The quote in post 166 is long. here is one paragraph of it, an example, that shows how evolution was, understood from historical evidence, and then reproduced as an experiment:

For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, most creationist are too dumb to be able to understand the paragraph above.
Fortunately, intelligence increases one's chance of reproduction, so they are being selected against.

 

Evolution has even actually been seen, in an experiment with 40,000 generations of bacteria.

 

and even in a new species of mammals evolving in 8000 years due to highly unusual conditions. For details, and photo of them, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2688946&postcount=1053
and first reported in English, with the evidence, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2205207&postcount=83

 

i ask everyone here,
doesn't it bother you at all that science has never demonstrated macro evolution?
i would be extremley leery of a data set that fits but cannot be proved despite our best efforts.

now i ask, who are the real scientists around here?

RAV,
aren't you going to denigrate iceaura for their inclusion of lifes origins in evolution?
aren't you going to accuse them of knowing nothing?
no, you won't. you seen what appears to be a creationist you got your panties all up the crack of your ass over it.

my last words on this topic:
science has never demonstrated that macro evolution has or even can happen.
i also believe science has made a discovery which proves could not have arisen naturally which why evolutionist are distancing themselves from it.

 

Do you promise? Please do us all a favour and live up to your words.

Maybe if you keep saying that, it might become true. Maybe. :shrug:

Your belief demonstrates your level of understanding.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then why the pesky fact that every major institution of higher learning on planet earth, not least of which all those in the USA, teach evolution as a fact? Are all those PhD's from every major nation on earth duped into believing in it while creationists (with NO history of being brainwashed) somehow seeing the truth?

Side note: Um. Yeah it has. See: the fossil records.

~String

 

Wrong beaver breath. God started every thing with the big bang and evolution is a mechanism of creation . Evolution don't do away with that. Future anchors in time cause the evolution and how did those anchors get there bucko. Owl Magic . No ? By the same way the big bang started Dingus Muggy . You could think of our space -time as a luugy spit out of the mouth of god . Wa La our universe. You are a bag of water beaver tail. It is in the water

 

So, even though they can demonstrate change, and know of no barriers that would prevent changes from accumulating as we do see all over, you can't accept it until they change something to a degree that by any measure would take millions of years? There just isn't time, and it isn't necessary. So-called macroevolution is just a word for the accumulation of genetic changes over longer periods of time.

 

All you Xians : Evolution is real macro and micro. Get a grip and join the modern world. We will find heaven on earth as soon as you wake up to reality. You can still have your God . We won't take that from you. You can still love Jesus , after all he was a pretty good guy in the scheme of things .

 

Me!! I am the real Scientist. The Mad Scientist . Lots of little micros added together = Big Face Macro Man
The Earth is not 6000 years old. That is ridiculous to think. That thought is left over from Humans thinking they are the center of the universe. Do you still believe that too. O.K. we where all just pulling your leg. The world is flat and there is an edge to fall off of. Man staged the moon landing and has never been there. O.K. we came clean now you can go back to sleep and sacrifice your self in the name of your ancient religion

 

Kinky

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seriously though, if you'd like to avoid being lumped in with the creationists it might be a good idea to stop regurgitating their 30+ year old material and actually bother to learn something about evolution.

The thing is that I'm actually pretty reasonable. If someone clearly demonstrates that they understand what evolutionary theory actually teaches then I'll engage them in civil and respectful debate assuming that there's some good faith between us. But if someone jumps in with a flawed understanding and an agenda, I consider that to be disrespectful. Rude even. It sets the tone for the discussion.