If you really don't believe in Evolution, shouldn't you be extinct.

[techs]

OK, so you don't believe in evolution. Which as proposed by Darwin says that the law of natural selection is responsible for changes in species. And as later learned was only partially correct since large changes in species are due to mutations, to which natural selection then applies.
So if don't believe in evolution why would you take the newest antibiotics? Shouldn't good old WW2 penicillin be just fine? After all those nasty bacteria haven't evolved.

 

[GoPackGo]

Because evolution doesn't work that way.

Lets say you have a headache and you take aspirin.

Now lets say the the aspirin doesn't work anymore and you move up to ibuprofen.

As your body gets used to different medications they become less effective.

Have you evolved?

 

[GoPackGo]

Oh I forgot to add...

If when you as a human reproduced you split from 1 techs to 2 techs...both techs would be resistant to aspirin...because you would be 2 but completely identical.

Thats how bacteria works.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Oh I forgot to add...

If when you as a human reproduced you split from 1 techs to 2 techs...both techs would be resistant to aspirin...because you would be 2 but completely identical.

Thats how bacteria works.

Your example is bad. Your body isn't getting used to the medication, whatever is causing the headaches is getting worse, which, ironically, could be a bacteria that isn't being treated properly (well, yeah, since you're not using an antibiotic).

 

[Gunslinger08]

I've never understood how people can't believe in evolution. It's not a controversial subject.. it's just logical. I think most people who don't believe in it don't really know what it is.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Because evolution doesn't work that way.

Lets say you have a headache and you take aspirin.

Now lets say the the aspirin doesn't work anymore and you move up to ibuprofen.

As your body gets used to different medications they become less effective.

Have you evolved?

I don't think you have the slightest clue what evolution is. But then again, you can't deny evolution without being incredibly ignorant, or employing doublethink extensively.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

So what percentage of democrats believe in creationism? Democrats don't go to church?

Oh wait... No link, snide comment, techs is OP...

This is another troll thread. Nevermind.

 

[fskimospy]

Drug tolerance does not equal evolution, nor would an exact DNA copy of someone who had acquired tolerance to drugs have the same tolerance. The reason bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics isn't because it somehow "gets used to it". People tend to develop tolerance to drugs, etc when the receptors in your body that take in those drugs become less sensitive to them. (there are lots of other reasons too, but that's a common one) Evolution is something completely different.

This is a troll thread though.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The 68 percent don't believe that evolution was the (sole) means by which humans and other species were created, that is quite different from not believing it occurs at all.

For example, the Catholic church accepts that evolution is natural law, they just insist that Man was not created by that law, but by divine intervention.

Other deists believe that Man did evolve over time from single-celled organisms, but that the deity still created the natural laws that allowed this to happen, and may have overruled chance where Man was concerned.

As an agnostic I accept that either counter-explanation is possible.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The 68 percent don't believe that evolution was the (sole) means by which humans and other species were created, that is quite different from not believing it occurs at all.

For example, the Catholic church accepts that evolution is natural law, they just insist that Man was not created by that law, but by divine intervention.

Other deists believe that Man did evolve over time from single-celled organisms, but that the deity still created the natural laws that allowed this to happen, and may have overruled chance where Man was concerned.

As an agnostic I accept that either counter-explanation is possible.

As a scientist, I tend to reject alternative theories if not accompanied by evidence. Yes, either of those is POSSIBLE, just as it's POSSIBLE that we were delivered here by interstellar travelers hundreds of thousands of years ago. But why waste time on theories that have no proof as to their validity?

 

[Jaskalas]

Is it so difficult to conclude that evolution is a design by our creator? It?s such a logical step to make.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Is it so difficult to conclude that evolution is a design by our creator? It?s such a logical step to make.

You have to believe in a "Creator" first.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Is it so difficult to conclude that evolution is a design by our creator? It?s such a logical step to make.

You have to believe in a "Creator" first.

It's hopeless to argue faith against science. The very fact he finds it "logical"step that there is a creator, and a "logical" step that he designed evolution is, of course, completely unsupported by any facts.

Even someone like myself who believes their is a Higher Power, or God, would not try to say that my reasoning is 'logical'. It is faith.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Is it so difficult to conclude that evolution is a design by our creator? It?s such a logical step to make.

You have to believe in a "Creator" first.

Good one...

 

[Fern]

If you really don't believe in Evolution, shouldn't you be extinct.

Evolution is a theory. To "believe" imply's faith. I do not see why theories need faith.

People should be asked whether or not they are familiar with evolution, not if they have "faith" in it.

Otherwise, who cares? I fail to see how it is important in any meaningful way.

Fern

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Fern

If you really don't believe in Evolution, shouldn't you be extinct.

Evolution is a theory. To "believe" imply's faith. I do not see why theories need faith.

People should be asked whether or not they are familiar with evolution, not if they have "faith" in it.

Otherwise, who cares? I fail to see how it is important in any meaningful way.

Fern

Hey, he's not trying to be meaningful... he's trying to bash Republicans.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Is it so difficult to conclude that evolution is a design by our creator? It?s such a logical step to make.

You have to believe in a "Creator" first.

Veger believes in "The Creator".

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The 68 percent don't believe that evolution was the (sole) means by which humans and other species were created, that is quite different from not believing it occurs at all.

For example, the Catholic church accepts that evolution is natural law, they just insist that Man was not created by that law, but by divine intervention.

Other deists believe that Man did evolve over time from single-celled organisms, but that the deity still created the natural laws that allowed this to happen, and may have overruled chance where Man was concerned.

As an agnostic I accept that either counter-explanation is possible.

As a scientist, I tend to reject alternative theories if not accompanied by evidence. Yes, either of those is POSSIBLE, just as it's POSSIBLE that we were delivered here by interstellar travelers hundreds of thousands of years ago. But why waste time on theories that have no proof as to their validity?

That's true, and I accept that Xenu may have put us here, but it's not relevant to the original troll, er post.

For those with faith that there is more to the universe than natural law, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy (as the post attempts to argue) in using drugs created to deal with the effects of natural law.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Fern

If you really don't believe in Evolution, shouldn't you be extinct.

Evolution is a theory. To "believe" imply's faith. I do not see why theories need faith.

People should be asked whether or not they are familiar with evolution, not if they have "faith" in it.

Otherwise, who cares? I fail to see how it is important in any meaningful way.

Fern

People playing this semantic crap with the word believe is really getting tiresome. It's as lame as people who pull the "just a theory" nonsense.

v., -lieved, -liev·ing, -lieves.

v.tr.
To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
To credit with veracity: I believe you.
To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

Only two of the definitions include faith. The word, as a whole, does no have some religious requirement. Or, in some way shape or form, does it require the ability to reject facts to accept whatever it is as real.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Is it so difficult to conclude that evolution is a design by our creator? It?s such a logical step to make.

why does a creator need to be involved when it works as is?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Fern

If you really don't believe in Evolution, shouldn't you be extinct.

Evolution is a theory. To "believe" imply's faith. I do not see why theories need faith.

People should be asked whether or not they are familiar with evolution, not if they have "faith" in it.

Otherwise, who cares? I fail to see how it is important in any meaningful way.

Fern

do we really need to go through the "what is a theory" crap again? You would think that after 20 times it might start to sink in.

 

[uli2000]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I've never understood how people can't believe in evolution. It's not a controversial subject.. it's just logical. I think most people who don't believe in it don't really know what it is.

Here's what keeps me from fully embracing evolution. If we evolved from apes, I'd expect one of two things:

1-Apes would continue to evolve and we would have the 'in betweens' (cro-magnons, neaderthols, alot more of the geico cavemen) living among us today.

2. Being human>being ape, so all the apes would have evolved long ago into humans.

But there are no real 'cavemen' living among us and there are still apes. Why did evolution all of a sudden stop?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The 68 percent don't believe that evolution was the (sole) means by which humans and other species were created, that is quite different from not believing it occurs at all.

For example, the Catholic church accepts that evolution is natural law, they just insist that Man was not created by that law, but by divine intervention.

Other deists believe that Man did evolve over time from single-celled organisms, but that the deity still created the natural laws that allowed this to happen, and may have overruled chance where Man was concerned.

As an agnostic I accept that either counter-explanation is possible.

As a scientist, I tend to reject alternative theories if not accompanied by evidence. Yes, either of those is POSSIBLE, just as it's POSSIBLE that we were delivered here by interstellar travelers hundreds of thousands of years ago. But why waste time on theories that have no proof as to their validity?

That's true, and I accept that Xenu may have put us here, but it's not relevant to the original troll, er post.

For those with faith that there is more to the universe than natural law, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy (as the post attempts to argue) in using drugs created to deal with the effects of natural law.

That's the problem, this isn't a debate as to whether or not something exists beyond what science can see and measure, it's about whether the science we CAN see and measure should be supplanted by creationism taken only on pure faith. I would argue that it is good, even essential, for spirituality and faith to be present in those parts of life that science and reason alone cannot handle, but faith is not a SUBSTITUTE for scientific understanding, especially when science DOES provide an answer to the question.

The problem with creationists is that they are taking well established and understood science, discarding it, and replacing it with religious faith. Evolution explains the "how", but it does not explain the "why"...the latter being the question faith and spirituality are best left to answer. But rather than embrace the idea that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, creationists wish to replace science with religion.

While I'm not sure it's entirely fair, I can see why some people would find that hypocritical. It's really part of the whole anti-science and anti-intellectualism "movement" in this country. Creationists and others like them seem to despise science and critical thinking and the folks who form their understanding of the world using those tools. Yet they live in a world that's made possible almost entirely because scientists and engineers and intellectuals pushed the bounds of our understanding of the world and were NOT content to just say "God did it!", throw up their hands and go back to burning heretics at the stake. Had we listened to creationists, we'd all still be living in caves and dying at the age of 25. Not because of their beliefs, exactly, but because of their general approach to life and the world we live in.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I've never understood how people can't believe in evolution. It's not a controversial subject.. it's just logical. I think most people who don't believe in it don't really know what it is.

Here's what keeps me from fully embracing evolution. If we evolved from apes, I'd expect one of two things:

1-Apes would continue to evolve and we would have the 'in betweens' (cro-magnons, neaderthols, alot more of the geico cavemen) living among us today.

2. Being human>being ape, so all the apes would have evolved long ago into humans.

But there are no real 'cavemen' living among us and there are still apes. Why did evolution all of a sudden stop?

Common ancestor. Humans did not evolve directly from apes, it was probably a branch from a common ancestor. That really answers both your questions if you think about it, but I'll do you one better.

The answer to your first question is that, up until very recently (relatively speaking) there WERE "in betweens" living with our own species. The reason there aren't STILL "cavemen" among us today should be obvious, they wouldn't be able to compete. There was competition for who would be the dominant "human" on earth, and our species won.

As for why apes didn't keep evolving into cavemen and or humans; evolution is not a path that every animal walks equally. Species branch, and evolve differently, and the conditions that created humans in the first place might not create the same thing again...apes haven't stopped evolving, and neither have humans for that matter. It is not a simple deterministic process.

The main thing to keep in mind is that evolution happens EXTREMELY slowly on our time scale. The most recent "caveman" is thought to have lived about 18,000 years ago, relative to the amount of time modern humans have been evolving, cavemen DO live among us today. The entirety of recorded human history is a blip on the evolutionary time scale, it shouldn't be surprising that nothing has changed in all that time, we haven't waited long enough.

 

[uli2000]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: uli2000

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I've never understood how people can't believe in evolution. It's not a controversial subject.. it's just logical. I think most people who don't believe in it don't really know what it is.

Here's what keeps me from fully embracing evolution. If we evolved from apes, I'd expect one of two things:

1-Apes would continue to evolve and we would have the 'in betweens' (cro-magnons, neaderthols, alot more of the geico cavemen) living among us today.

2. Being human>being ape, so all the apes would have evolved long ago into humans.

But there are no real 'cavemen' living among us and there are still apes. Why did evolution all of a sudden stop?

Common ancestor. Humans did not evolve directly from apes, it was probably a branch from a common ancestor. That really answers both your questions if you think about it, but I'll do you one better.

The answer to your first question is that, up until very recently (relatively speaking) there WERE "in betweens" living with our own species. The reason there aren't STILL "cavemen" among us today should be obvious, they wouldn't be able to compete. There was competition for who would be the dominant "human" on earth, and our species won.

As for why apes didn't keep evolving into cavemen and or humans; evolution is not a path that every animal walks equally. Species branch, and evolve differently, and the conditions that created humans in the first place might not create the same thing again...apes haven't stopped evolving, and neither have humans for that matter. It is not a simple deterministic process.

The main thing to keep in mind is that evolution happens EXTREMELY slowly on our time scale. The most recent "caveman" is thought to have lived about 18,000 years ago, relative to the amount of time modern humans have been evolving, cavemen DO live among us today. The entirety of recorded human history is a blip on the evolutionary time scale, it shouldn't be surprising that nothing has changed in all that time, we haven't waited long enough.

Thanks for the explination. Though I cant say Ive been completly 'converted' to evolutionism, that has answered a few question.