Darwin is an idiot.

Evolution does not describe how life started on Earth. It describes how life evolves into other organisms through genetic mutation, genetic drift and natural selection.

There is loads of evidence of Evolution which was discovered after Darwin created his theory.

There are many fossiles showing how life has evolved over time.
What do you expect to find? A monkey cucumber hybrid fossil?
There are loads of fossil records, you just have to look and deny ignorance!

Scientists have also used D.N.A and genetic evidence to trace the evolution of life. Science can trace genes through species. With gene FOX P2 (which is present in all mammals) there are more variations/differences from humans in this gene the older the species is. This Dawkins video explains this better than I am:
www.youtube.com... 8 minutes 50 seconds in....

reply to post by doubleplusungood


Thats what I was thinking, but some people seem to be of the opinion that the theory of evolution is about primodial soup and stuff, so now I am confused, whose right, or are there just different views?

Originally posted by Ashyr
cant agree more,

these people seem to not see the blatant contradictions. the stupid statement "OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME ALL OF A SUDDEN!"

2 monkeys give birth to a human,


any proof of evolution. would still be continuing. so what monkeys only popped out humand for a certain period of time. and over a long period of time these SMALL changes happend. oh no its adaption. no wait. its so small the mutation over millions of years... COMON!> get out of here.


hahah. its like this. u put a pen to paper with a stop watch and a keen eye and you say.

HAS IT CHANGED YET? no.... HAS IT CHANGED YET?......no..... HAS IT CHANGED YET?........NO

OOOOOOOOOO look it changed... "ALL OF A SUDDEN" so its not over millions of years. it wasnt and now it is. thats all a sudden. so u add lots of these up and u have "EVOLUTION" hahahah what a crock.

the only think i think thats close to what people are saying is.
adaptation. survival of the fittest as in . adapt or die.
harsher climates. new surroundings. new ways of life. adapt or die.! pretty much.
a animal will grow to the size of its environment.

Your post is nothing but one long rambling strawman attack on evolution. By saying, "2 monkeys give birth to a human," you're just showing that you have no idea what constitutes the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
I'm not sure where you got your information, but you really should check your fact's first, other wise you look like an uninformed or uneducated fool.

Irony, thy name is bootsnspurs33...

Darwin was NOT a scientist, he was simply a philosopher ...

This is akin to saying that what the Wright Brothers flew wasn't an airplane because it didn't have a jet engine. Darwin wasn't "simply a philosopher", he was a natural philosopher. If you have checked your facts first, you'd know that there was no one labelled a scientist back then. Natural philosophers are the ones who studied the natural universe. Newton was a natural philosopher. The Chairs of Natural Philosophy at older university are now occupied by physicists, not philosophers.

(read "The origin of the species" i mean really read it, including the COMPLETE title.) also he was a racist, & a sexist.

I have, and it's pretty clear that you've never read it. The example of races that Darwin uses to elucidate that favored races are more likely to survive? Cabbages. Races meant species back then. You'd know that if you had actually read it.

Some other uninformed or uneducated fool posted that "we dont see transitional species because we are all transitional species". Really? Really? That's what you came to the table with? Making a statement that is that, well, that SILLY should have him or her hiding in shame. Does one individual JUST wake up one morning and he's different, what magic wand was used to make him different, does this "magic moment" just happen to individuals or whole species? Is your magic wand "billons & billons of years"?

This is what you come to the table with? Personal incredulity in the face of presented evidence?

Evolution is NOT science, it is a philosophy, it HAS no scientific evedince to support it, those clinging desperately to it do so simply to avoid acknowledgement of a Creator, again, it is a philosophy that has to be accepted on faith, LIKE most religions.

Except the theory of evolution has a century and a half of evidence that's done nothing but strengthen the theory. Saying that it has no scientific evidence to support it is either a lie or willful ignorance.

Originally posted by WatchRider
No Darwin was someone who created the disease of Atheism. He himself NEVER said that man came from evolution but that animals did.

Darwin didn't create atheism, it was around long before he was. Darwin wasn't the beginning and the end of the theory of evolution. He provided one part of it that has been combined with the studies of genetics, paleontology, and systematics in the early 20th century.

Yet all his worship-people like to somehow hijack the theory of evolution (A THEORY, not necessarily a fact) and somehow make the flimsy connection of man jumping from the tree's from a monkey-guise.

Another person who doesn't understand the relationship between facts and theories in science and how scientific theories are different from the common use of the word.. Shocking.

Facts are verifiably accurate data. Evolution is a fact, it's observable and verifiable. Laws are statements which are always true under specific circumstances. Like the law of gravity. A hypothesis is a testable explanation of facts and laws. A theory is the underlying framework which explains facts, laws, and the results of testing hypotheses. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. This should explain the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word:

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Got it now? Great. I think I'm going to make a macro for this, since it's the sixth time in two weeks I've had to post it for the edification of someone who obviously had a shoddy science education.

Originally posted by WatchRider
You know that Darwin converted to Catholicism on his death-bed right?

Absolute fabrication. Maybe you should do a little fact-checking next time. From "The Survival of Charles Darwin: a Biography of a Man and an Idea" by Clark:

`Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."

`With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston _Watchman Examiner_. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the _Reformation Review_ and in the _Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland_ in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the _Christian_ for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."'

That should basically tell all you atheist's and Darwin-lovers something more than evolution is going on.
Enough said also

Again, you should do some fact-checking. Most of the world's population is theistic in some way and a majority of the population of developed countries, with the exceptions of the United States and Turkey, are proponents of the theory of evolution. You don't have to be an atheist to subscribe to the theory of evolution. Look up Dr. Kenneth Miller some time.

reply to post by Cobra.EXE


According to his daughter, the deathbed quote is a lie.
Who are you going to believe?
His kids or someone who wasn't even present at his death?

Racism?
I hate racism but what has that got to do with anything?
He lived in the 19th century, cultural and social morals were different back then. You cannot hold someone who lived in the past to todays moral standard.
Does being racist mean that whatever else he did be discounted?
That is patently ridiculous.

There are many great people throughout history who helped change or shape the world but who held beliefs that would be considered a bit dodgy today. Ghandi and Winston Churchil were both a bit racist, but they were both still amazing people.

Originally posted by doubleplusungood
Racism?
I hate racism but what has that got to do with anything?
He lived in the 19th century, cultural and social morals were different back then. You cannot hold someone who lived in the past to todays moral standard.
Does being racist mean that whatever else he did be discounted?
That is patently ridiculous.

Except he wasn't a racist by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the opposite. He was an abolitionist who wrote that there was no real difference between people of different races, as we think of race today:

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races.

Many people like to quote mine the bit about race in the full title of On The Origin Of Species: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Anyone who does this clearly hasn't actually read the book, as the "races" Darwin uses as an example are... wait for it... cabbages. The word race was synonymous with species in the mid 1800's.

Pointing a finger at Darwin and calling him a racist is a favorite tactic of those who don't understand enough science to try and refute his theories on that level. Don't believe the hype!

reply to post by iamaperson


Hi iamaperson

Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life is created. Think rockpools and sunlight and definitely primordial soup!
en.wikipedia.org...

As soon as any life is created, by whatever reason (I have an open mind and nothing has been proven yet!) then it undergoes evolution. This is how all life on our planet came to be came to be. Evolution is fact. Like maths and gravity.

Unless of course, you believe otherwise. We are on a conspiracy website after all. I bet there are many people who have many different ideas about how we got here. I quite like the ideas behind the extra terrestrial origins of life, I don't necessarily believe in it (ok, maybe meteorites but not aliens) but I love reading about it.

I have digressed, sorry.

Ahem, so,
Evolution does definitely not describe how life starts, that is abiogenesis' purpose

Cheers

reply to post by iterationzero


Hi

Thanks for clarifying the racism thing. I didnt think he was a racist. I should really have put "even if he was one", it was my original intention but I didn't. I felt it was just an ad hominem attack anyway, it really has nothing to do with anything. However, I now see what they are trying to suggest with the racism statement.

This is why I usually stay away from the evolution and creationism argument. It is filled with misinformation and seemingly willfull ignorance. But only on one side. It feels like you can show as much proof as you want to someone, but they will be there with their eyes closed, ears covered and singing lalalalalalalalalalalalalalaalalaalalala.

It just seems like a pointless argument to me. If you are an adult and reject evolution then you need to educate yourself. If you have and still reject it, then you should be ashamed. They are not mutually exclusive anyway, you can believe in both. I personally am not a theist but there are loads of people who are and still belive in evolution. Why can't their creator god have created evolution? That doesn't make sense to me.

However, I couldn't ignore the thread title and some of the responses. The theory of evolution is an amazing, paradigm shifting thing. It saddens me to see someone from the home of Darwin be so disrepectful towards him.

As a scientist:

1. If you don't believe that there are ET and there has always been ET presence then you are in denial. The evidence is all around you.

2. If you believe that 97% of DNA is "junk DNA" then you are being misled and don't even know it.

3. Because the aliens have been present for millions of year and there is clear evidence of tampering with our DNA then we were genetically modified throughout time.

4. 400,000 years ago the original monkey-man had no concept of self-awareness. All of a sudden the human changed 30,000 years ago and can think. There is a missing link. Science and Darwin can't explain it because they are not using the full knowledge available to us.

5. What Darwin claims to be changes in evolutionary process are aliens playing and changing life by small amounts in this vitro dish for their enjoyment. Yes - we are one of them.

Originally posted by true-life
3. Because the aliens have been present for millions of year and there is clear evidence of tampering with our DNA then we were genetically modified throughout time.

How about you put your money where your mouth is and show us this clear evidence for tampering of our DNA? Are you talking about some specific locus perhaps? Where's this clear evidence?

intelligent design?


paradigm ?

this universe ( probably infinite of them ) have infinite outcomes, so in theory i guess i have lived this EXACT life and typed this EXACT sentence infinite amounts of times, every decision and out come of everything that happens at the quantum level has happened before infinite amounts of times.

reply to post by BrawleR


Only problem with your somewhat humorous graphic is that these are all ALLEGORIES! Not to be taken literally.

I mean just take a look at the story of Jesus... the man taught using parables. Hello! Duh.. all these other things you listed are ALSO PARABLES!!!!!

Your kind of anti-religiosity is the most idiotic form of it. You don't look at Aesops fables and ridicule them because of talking animals do you? No, you still see the moral being communicated... and yes, there are primitive minds out there which will take these allegories literally... evidently you are one of them.

Originally posted by true-life

As a scientist:

1. If you don't believe that there are ET and there has always been ET presence then you are in denial. The evidence is all around you.

ETs are a very real probability. They would be 1 million to 1 billion years ahead of us, and would not care at all about us, except as entertainment. Exsistence of ETs doesn't equate to ET intervention.

4. 400,000 years ago the original monkey-man had no concept of self-awareness. All of a sudden the human changed 30,000 years ago and can think. There is a missing link. Science and Darwin can't explain it because they are not using the full knowledge available to us.

Evolution implies that we could have evoled from something that was not human. It need not be a monkey. The human ancestry could be along a line completely separate from the modern monkeys and apes. Maybe we always had the biggest brain amoung the primates, and that particular fossil han't been found.

5. What Darwin claims to be changes in evolutionary process are aliens playing and changing life by small amounts in this vitro dish for their enjoyment. Yes - we are one of them.

Possible.


I like the aquatic ape theory. It explains

1) why we sweat. No other land animal wastes water sweating

2) Why we can hold our breath.

3) Why we stand up right.

4) Why we lost our hair

5) Why we don't have a twitch reflex in our skin. All land mammals have a twitch reflex to repel insects.

6) Why we have subcuteaneous fat all over our bodies. Animals have it in their muscles but not under their skin.

Big breasts are made for floating, and long hair is made for gripping.

Maybe humans were always separate from the apes.

Originally posted by roughycannon
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

not long till this is removed...

And you were wrong again. But such is life ...

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Evolution implies that we could have evoled from something that was not human. It need not be a monkey. The human ancestry could be along a line completely separate from the modern monkeys and apes. Maybe we always had the biggest brain amoung the primates, and that particular fossil han't been found.

Genetics very clearly shows that we have common recent ancestry with modern primates. You don't get practically identical genomes without shared recent ancestry.

1) why we sweat. No other land animal wastes water sweating

A myth.

2) Why we can hold our breath.

Care to name an animal that can't hold its breath?

3) Why we stand up right.

How would aquatic ape hypothesis explain this? I think the current hypothesis (a shrinking forest surrounded by a savannah) explains our upright stance well.

4) Why we lost our hair

Many aquatic mammals have hair. Many land mammals don't have hair.

5) Why we don't have a twitch reflex in our skin. All land mammals have a twitch reflex to repel insects.

I don't even know what this is supposed to be.

6) Why we have subcuteaneous fat all over our bodies. Animals have it in their muscles but not under their skin.

Wrong wrong wrong

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Genetics very clearly shows that we have common recent ancestry with modern primates. You don't get practically identical genomes without shared recent ancestry.

Recent? Do you mean 1 million years or 50 million years? All mammals are recent.

A myth.

Actually it was an error, not a myth.

I am wrong about no land animal sweating. Horses sweat for sure. Dogs pant to relieve excess body heat though.

Care to name an animal that can't hold its breath?

Humans have voluntary breath control, this enables speech. Animals have reflexive breath control.

How would aquatic ape hypothesis explain this? I think the current hypothesis (a shrinking forest surrounded by a savannah) explains our upright stance well.

If pre-humans went straight from tree to savannah, they were effectively lame animals for a million years.

In chest or neck deep water, the body naturally maintains an upright posture. A wading ape has less weight on its feet (which are hands). There is more time to evolve an upright lower body and neck/skull junction with this theory.

Many aquatic mammals have hair. Many land mammals don't have hair.

The aquatic mammals that have hair, have short hair. Seals and sea lions, the ones that do have hair, also spent alot of time out of the water.

The sea mammals that spend their whole life in the water, whales and dolphins, have vestigal hair only.

Land mammals that don't have hair are exceptions(are there any in North America?), and they also have thick hides.

I don't even know what this is supposed to be.

When an insect lands or bites, the skin it is on will twitch in an attempt to frighten or otherwise compel the insect to move on to easier pickings. Human skin doesn't twitch in response to insect stimuli.

Wrong wrong wrong

Humans put fat under every square inch of our skin, such as fat hands and ankles. Fat in animals tends to stay on the torso.

Obese Animals

Originally posted by doubleplusungood
reply to post by iamaperson

 

Evolution does definitely not describe how life starts, that is abiogenesis' purpose

Cheers

Thanks, so thats abiogenesis. I thought so.