Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Tommunist[/i]

Originally posted by: Jack31081

Originally posted by: MadRat
The FACT that we observe similarities among species does not change the FACT that no direct evidence proves the validity of the theory. So its a FACT that there is no link between any two species, right down to the genetic level. There have been plenty of common genomes, but no definitive branches. The "missing links" always exist when the science behind the theories are scrutinized. So what we have here is a bunch of zealous agnostics fervently trying to cram fiction down the population's throat.

Whether you believe in Christ or not has no bearing on the FACT that Evolution is a theory. But it sure would seem that the people taking jabs at christians are adamite that there is a link between denying Evolution as a fact and otherwise. Last time I checked christians weren't the only ones who believes in a Creation theory.

No link between any two species? Is sharing 98.77% of our DNA with chimpanzees not a link??

Human & Chimpanzee Genome Mapping

What do you mean by 'definitive branches'? Please, enlighten us.

there is a theory of gravitation as well - I'm sure this guy doesn't believe in gravity either since it's "just a theory." it's rare that here that I can actually attribute my disagreement with someone as to them simply being ignorant and/or not living in reality.[/quote]


See you must realize...gravity is not a theory...it is a Law

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Then tell me the "Secret of "The Goo"" Were you around back then...or are you just assuming your knowledge based on someone elses made up stuff?

I would but the theory of evolution says nothing about "The Goo" - like I said - do some research about what the theory really says before you try to argue against it.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur
Why do you keep distorting the meaning of the term evolution? Evolutionists' primary concern is not with the origin of life.

Why is that? Are they afraid that their "science" is like house of cards in the eye of a hurricane?

Wouldn't the pre-goo have to evolve into "The-Goo" and then into something else? Also with the wide variety of life on this planet, wouldn't it have had to have happened over and over again?

Move beyond the monkeys....think back to the earth as some floating rock...with some pool of pre-goo....

Did plant life evolve first? Or what would the post-goo creatures have eaten? Each other? doesn't bode well for them then....imagine eating your species out of existence!

You know, Pack. You typically exhibit rather logical thinking. Are you Skoorbing us here now? Surely you can't be this ignorant of the science of evolution.

Im just going back in time without the courtesy of a time machine...

What do you think happened?

I am less interested in the monkey and more interested in "The Goo".

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
See you must realize...gravity is not a theory...it is a Law

You're getting there. Gravity is a fact much like Evolution is. But, the theory of gravity is about HOW it works and WHY. The same for the Theory of Evolution: it's about HOW it works and WHY.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: Tommunist[/i]

Originally posted by: Jack31081

Originally posted by: MadRat
The FACT that we observe similarities among species does not change the FACT that no direct evidence proves the validity of the theory. So its a FACT that there is no link between any two species, right down to the genetic level. There have been plenty of common genomes, but no definitive branches. The "missing links" always exist when the science behind the theories are scrutinized. So what we have here is a bunch of zealous agnostics fervently trying to cram fiction down the population's throat.

Whether you believe in Christ or not has no bearing on the FACT that Evolution is a theory. But it sure would seem that the people taking jabs at christians are adamite that there is a link between denying Evolution as a fact and otherwise. Last time I checked christians weren't the only ones who believes in a Creation theory.

No link between any two species? Is sharing 98.77% of our DNA with chimpanzees not a link??

Human & Chimpanzee Genome Mapping

What do you mean by 'definitive branches'? Please, enlighten us.

there is a theory of gravitation as well - I'm sure this guy doesn't believe in gravity either since it's "just a theory." it's rare that here that I can actually attribute my disagreement with someone as to them simply being ignorant and/or not living in reality.

See you must realize...gravity is not a theory...it is a Law

Nice going - you just proved my point. Newton's "Law" isn't even correct. Check out the theory of relativity for more on this.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Im just going back in time without the courtesy of a time machine...

What do you think happened?

I am less interested in the monkey and more interested in "The Goo".

See my edited post to which you replied.

And, as I said before, if you're interested in "The Goo" go do some research into abiogenisis and exobiology.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
See you must realize...gravity is not a theory...it is a Law

You're getting there. Gravity is a fact much like Evolution is. But, the theory of gravity is about HOW it works and WHY. The same for the Theory of Evolution: it's about HOW it works and WHY.

yeup.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur
Science doesn't yet have that answer. Go do some research on abiogenesis or exobiology.

Evolutionists put so much faith in their beliefs...I would be more willing to accept aliens planting us here as opposed to coming from "The Goo"

Why do you keep distorting the meaning of the term evolution?

Why is that? Are they afraid that their "science" is like house of cards in the eye of a hurricane?

No, it's because they're two different areas of biology. Abiogenesis is an exciting new area of research, with many plausible hypotheses, but it's an in progress work and we have no theory to explain abiogenesis yet.

Wouldn't the pre-goo have to evolve into "The-Goo" and then into something else? Also with the wide variety of life on this planet, wouldn't it have had to have happened over and over again?

No, that's the point of common descent. Natural selection prediced that we're all descended from a single early species. A century later DNA evidence confirmed this prediction.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
See you must realize...gravity is not a theory...it is a Law

Law is an archaic term for theory. In any case, Newton's Law of Gravity has been replaced by our modern theory of gravity: the theory of general relativity, which produces correct predictions in areas where Newton's theory cannot, such as Mercury's orbit and the effects of gravitational time dilation on GPS satellites.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
See you must realize...gravity is not a theory...it is a Law

Law is an archaic term for theory. In any case, Newton's Law of Gravity has been replaced by our modern theory of gravity: the theory of general relativity, which produces correct predictions in areas where Newton's theory cannot, such as Mercury's orbit and the effects of gravitational time dilation on GPS satellites.

Those are magic situations that God put into action to test our faith in Him - as is the overwhelming scientific data that seems to support evolution....

 

[crooked22]

Why is that? Are they afraid that their "science" is like house of cards in the eye of a hurricane?

No, evolution, while it strives to acquire knowledge of how we got here, is more interested (and understandably so) in how we got from point B to C.

Wouldn't the pre-goo have to evolve into "The-Goo" and then into something else? Also with the wide variety of life on this planet, wouldn't it have had to have happened over and over again?

What about the pre-pre-goo and the pre-pre-pre-goo? Thing is, the pre-goo you talk about could be amino acids. Which are pretty much the organic building blocks of everything in our planet. Having proof of this could somewhat explain the fantastic goo. However, I dont think we have fossils dating *that* far back.

Move beyond the monkeys....think back to the earth as some floating rock...with some pool of pre-goo....

Did plant life evolve first? Or what would the post-goo creatures have eaten? Each other? doesn't bode well for them then....imagine eating your species out of existence!

Monkeys are another branch of the tree. The earth was no floating rock but a rock filled with hot sulfur-flavor water probably loaded with these aminoacids and electrolytes. Pretty much an electro-chemical bath of sorts. Given that current age dna, is not a living organism, I can guess it probably it was not a living organism back then. I do not know how it happen (let me check my digicam) but somewhen along those times very basic life forms (algae or bacteria) could have formed. Hell, given that evolution is open when it comes to what might have happen, we could say that life on this planet might have existed, evolved, died, and then try 2 would begin a couple million years later. But our minds can barely survive 80 years. A million is a long time. Millions are incomprehensible.

This is inconsequential because evolution is about the origin of the species, not the beginning of life.

 

[0roo0roo]

and frankly its disengenuous to argue about the perfection of logic when you turn around to believe in magic instead

 

[0marTheZealot]

Denying evolution is the same, without hyperbole, as denying gravity, electricity, magnetism, physics and chemistry.

actually there are scientific laws governing gravity electricity magnetism physics and chemistry.

there are no laws of evolution as it remains a theory, much like string theory, something that seems like it makes sense but we can't test in a laboratory.[/quote]

No, there are not. Chemisty was understood fairly poorly until quantum mechanics came along. Then there was a theoritical background to which we could base chemical reactions.

Gravity is once again a theory. Einstein's THEORY of general and special relativity are one of the best tested theories in modern times. So far, very few tests have violated the theory.

The misnomer "law" is a holdover from back in the day when science hadn't yet solidified its terminology. Pretty much everything in science is a theory.

And remember, Newton's law of gravity is wrong. It breaks down at extreme cases. So if anything, this refutes your argument.

If everything in science was simply a theory (in the layman's sense of the word), it's a miracle anything would work in the modern world. As a quick example, quantum mechanics is responsible for many electronics today (TVs, computers). If there was no theoritical basis (scientific sense of the word), then quantum mechanics would be simply voodoo that was reliable.

Like it or not, Evolution is in the same category as these concepts we hold so dear.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: crooked22
[This is inconsequential because evolution is about the origin of the species, not the beginning of life.

lots of people seem to get the two mixed up.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Whaspe
You had to bring string theory into this didn't you :evil:

You know....
Membrane string theory gives us a completely reasonable explanation to why we exist as we do without having to get evolution involved.

No, cosmology is separate from evolutionary biology. The Big Bang doesn't explain why humans exist.

But so does ?intelligent design theory?

The problem is that every piece of evidence can be made to fit creationism (under whatever nom de jour), so it's not a scientific theory or even a useful explanation.

i agree, now, intelegent design theory on the other hand...

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: crooked22

Why is that? Are they afraid that their "science" is like house of cards in the eye of a hurricane?

No, evolution, while it strives to acquire knowledge of how we got here, is more interested (and understandably so) in how we got from point B to C.

Wouldn't the pre-goo have to evolve into "The-Goo" and then into something else? Also with the wide variety of life on this planet, wouldn't it have had to have happened over and over again?

What about the pre-pre-goo and the pre-pre-pre-goo? Thing is, the pre-goo you talk about could be amino acids. Which are pretty much the organic building blocks of everything in our planet. Having proof of this could somewhat explain the fantastic goo. However, I dont think we have fossils dating *that* far back.

Move beyond the monkeys....think back to the earth as some floating rock...with some pool of pre-goo....

Did plant life evolve first? Or what would the post-goo creatures have eaten? Each other? doesn't bode well for them then....imagine eating your species out of existence!

This whole passage is intellecutally bankrupt. First, it shows your ignorance about phylogenetic trees. Ribosomal RNA (along with other DNA testing) testing has shown that there are three fundementally distinct branches of life. The Eubacteria (bacteria like e. coli, pseudomonas, etc etc), the Archea (usually extreme environment livers) and the Eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi). As domains, the Eukaryotes and Archea are much more similar than the Eubacteria. The various kingdoms, Plants, Animals, Fungi are mere offshoots off the Eukaryote branch. There is very little genetic difference, at this level when viewing the domains, between plants, animals and fungi.

LUCA (last universal common ancestory) was probably a bag of DNA surronded by a phosolipid bilayer preforming glycolysis and making some sort of NTP. This can be inferred because every living organism has DNA as it's genetic material, has a phosolipid bilayer of some sort, preforms glycolysis as the first step (or only) in metabolism and uses an NTP as a carrier of chemical energy. What came before that, it is really anyones guess.

My suggestion to you is to take a university level course in Evolution to understand the nuances of the theory and evolution refutes many of these strawmen arguments.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. The ignorance, denial, and outright lying in this thread is outstanding.

If you "*don't* give two shits", then WTF are you posting in this thread for and why are you so emotional about it?

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, I guess. :roll:

Anyway, I think modern science is just as good a religion as any other.

I think you are confusing the kind of faith that water will run down hill with religious faith that believes there is, say, a god. To conflate these two is reasoning falsely, I think.

Scientific faith is there because it is testable and disappears when the tests fail.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
intelegent [sic] design theory on the other hand...is complete and utter tripe

You forgot to end your sentence.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

lots of retarded people seem to get the two mixed up.

I corrected your statment for you....

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
intelegent [sic] design theory on the other hand...is complete and utter tripe

You forgot to end your sentence.

i respect your faith in beliving that, though scientificly you can't prove or disprove it, just as you can't prove or disprove evolution at all.

Scientific faith is there because it is testable and disappears when the tests fail.

so why the faith in evolution, which is an un-testable theory?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
intelegent [sic] design theory on the other hand...is complete and utter tripe

You forgot to end your sentence.

i respect your faith in beliving that, though scientificly you can't prove or disprove it, just as you can't prove or disprove evolution at all.

You're wrong on the latter. Way wrong.

On the former, it can't be proven, ever.

 

[GoPackGo]

Conjur,

Have/Will scientists try to play with the DNA of the chimps to see what kind of creatures they can make?

Sort of a forced evolution? They aren't humans, so we can play with their DNA and stem cells right?

perhaps create a monkey with four a$$es

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
intelegent [sic] design theory on the other hand...is complete and utter tripe

You forgot to end your sentence.

i respect your faith in beliving that, though scientificly you can't prove or disprove it, just as you can't prove or disprove evolution at all.

Scientific faith is there because it is testable and disappears when the tests fail.

so why the faith in evolution, which is an un-testable theory?

Natural selection is a testable theory.

It's made a variety of predictions which have been satisfied such as the existence of a genetic material that works as natural (not Lamarckian) selection says it would, which was fulfilled by the discovery of DNA. It predicted the existence of speciation, which we've since observed. Common descent is another testable provision of natural selection, which our accumulation of genetic evidence is continuing to confirm.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
i agree, now, intelegent design theory on the other hand...

...is a disingenuous attempt to insert religion into the discussion, made by a group devoid of any sense of intellectual honesty.

Exactly.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
so why the faith in evolution, which is an un-testable theory?

No, it's not. A rabbit dated to the pre-cambrian period would disprove evolution pretty damn quick.

You probably don't even understand why it would, though, and that's the ironic part.