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

[Rabidwerewolf]

Looks like I've got more reading to do. Maybe I should stick to philosphy, cars and computers.

edit: I have to apologize to techs there for kinda go off topic. Note to self: be careful posting in political and news section after having several pints of Guinness especially if the words start moving on their own.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

More interesting post (is this a discussion about "what is evolution"?):

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

-snip-

Seems there are differing opinions of what one means when says "evolution".

And...? So what?

People have differing opinions on what evolution is, and you say so what?

Then what the h3ll is the point of this thread to begin with?

How can it reasonably be asked "if you believe in evolution" if people veiwing the question don't have a concensus about what evolution even means?

Makes the whole thread nonsensical gibberish. You need to start with a common understanding of the term.

Fern

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Seems there are differing opinions of what one means when says "evolution".

And...? So what?

People have differing opinions on what evolution is, and you say so what?

I sure did.

I also said, "there is a general agreement upon what constitutes evolution among biologists," and there is. That lay people and scientists of different disciplines are confused about what evolution is does nothing to change the fact that there is a general agreement on what is really evolution.

Funny that you would conspicuously omit the very statement in my post that refutes you.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Seems there are differing opinions of what one means when says "evolution".

And...? So what?

People have differing opinions on what evolution is, and you say so what?

I sure did.

I also said, "there is a general agreement upon what constitutes evolution among biologists," and there is. That lay people and scientists of different disciplines are confused about what evolution is does nothing to change the fact that there is a general agreement on what is really evolution.

Funny that you would conspicuously omit the very statement in my post that refutes you.

I omitted it because it's not relevant. This is not a thread in a biology forum, you refute nothing.

Most people here (at a computing forum)n are not biologist, and if we lack a concensus on what evolution means (and how it works to some extent) to ask people if they believe in it is meaningless.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

More interesting post (is this a discussion about "what is evolution"?):

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

-snip-

Seems there are differing opinions of what one means when says "evolution".

And...? So what?

People have differing opinions on what evolution is, and you say so what?

Then what the h3ll is the point of this thread to begin with?

How can it reasonably be asked "if you believe in evolution" if people veiwing the question don't have a concensus about what evolution even means?

Makes the whole thread nonsensical gibberish. You need to start with a common understanding of the term.

Fern

Show me an evolution thread that is not littered with nonsensical gibberish, various opinions of what "evolution" means, and hillarious (albeit depressing) misunderstandings of "scientific theory," and I'll give you a nice shiny nickle

Which begs the question: Is there an unlimited supply of asshats in this world with an insatiable desire to start an AT account if but only to initiate trollish evolution threads?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Seems there are differing opinions of what one means when says "evolution".

And...? So what?

People have differing opinions on what evolution is, and you say so what?

I sure did.

I also said, "there is a general agreement upon what constitutes evolution among biologists," and there is. That lay people and scientists of different disciplines are confused about what evolution is does nothing to change the fact that there is a general agreement on what is really evolution.

Funny that you would conspicuously omit the very statement in my post that refutes you.

I omitted it because it's not relevant. This is not a thread in a biology forum, you refute nothing.

Most people here (at a computing forum)n are not biologist, and if we lack a concensus on what evolution means (and how it works to some extent) to ask people if they believe in it is meaningless.

that makes no sense. It would be far more meaningful to ask computer geeks about their opinion about evolution than it would be to ask Biologists (who certainly do have a general consensus--and being that the field of Biology is inherently dependant on evolution, it would be ridiculous for a Biologist to reject it). Whether or not the OP is somewhat curious about peoples' opinions here, this is still just a troll thread...that I seem to keep bumping for some reason

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Seems there are differing opinions of what one means when says "evolution".

And...? So what?

People have differing opinions on what evolution is, and you say so what?

I sure did.

I also said, "there is a general agreement upon what constitutes evolution among biologists," and there is. That lay people and scientists of different disciplines are confused about what evolution is does nothing to change the fact that there is a general agreement on what is really evolution.

Funny that you would conspicuously omit the very statement in my post that refutes you.

I omitted it because it's not relevant. This is not a thread in a biology forum, you refute nothing.

Most people here (at a computing forum)n are not biologist, and if we lack a concensus on what evolution means (and how it works to some extent) to ask people if they believe in it is meaningless.

that makes no sense. It would be far more meaningful to ask computer geeks about their opinion about evolution than it would be to ask Biologists (who certainly do have a general consensus--and being that the field of Biology is inherently dependant on evolution, it would be ridiculous for a Biologist to reject it). Whether or not the OP is somewhat curious about peoples' opinions here, this is still just a troll thread...that I seem to keep bumping for some reason

Umm. I'm not suggesting the question is better posed in a biology forum. Just that his pointing out that biologist do in fact have a general concensus is irrelevant - we're not in a biology forum. Hence, the non-biologist here do NOT seem to have a concensus (Look on the first page and see how people are telling others that they don't know evolution is etc).

Anyhoo, I care much less about that than one of your earlier posts, which I found intriguing. I hadn't posted about it cuz judging by your disdain for evo threads I didn't you back.

You posted:

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

well, if you assume that that creator "induced" evolution in order to create humans in "that creator's image," then that is highly illogical, and rejects the foundation of evolutionary research.

It is acutally quite difficult to insist that evolution "began" this way...as it is a stark rejection of evolution. It doesn't matter if you, or someone else don' think that these ideas conflict--but they absolutely do.

Man, I love evolution threads! Oh wait...no I don't. damn trolls...

I'm curious how any idea that evo was induced by a higher being is a rejection of the foundation of evo research?

I'm curious how the (hybrid) concept that evo began that way is a "conflict" of those ideas?

Care to 'splain?

TIA,

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Seems there are differing opinions of what one means when says "evolution".

And...? So what?

People have differing opinions on what evolution is, and you say so what?

I sure did.

I also said, "there is a general agreement upon what constitutes evolution among biologists," and there is. That lay people and scientists of different disciplines are confused about what evolution is does nothing to change the fact that there is a general agreement on what is really evolution.

Funny that you would conspicuously omit the very statement in my post that refutes you.

I omitted it because it's not relevant. This is not a thread in a biology forum, you refute nothing.

Most people here (at a computing forum)n are not biologist, and if we lack a concensus on what evolution means (and how it works to some extent) to ask people if they believe in it is meaningless.

that makes no sense. It would be far more meaningful to ask computer geeks about their opinion about evolution than it would be to ask Biologists (who certainly do have a general consensus--and being that the field of Biology is inherently dependant on evolution, it would be ridiculous for a Biologist to reject it). Whether or not the OP is somewhat curious about peoples' opinions here, this is still just a troll thread...that I seem to keep bumping for some reason

Umm. I'm not suggesting the question is better posed in a biology forum. Just that his pointing out that biologist do in fact have a general concensus is irrelevant - we're not in a biology forum. Hence, the non-biologist here do NOT seem to have a concensus (Look on the first page and see how people are telling others that they don't know evolution is etc).

Anyhoo, I care much less about that than one of your earlier posts, which I found intriguing. I hadn't posted about it cuz judging by your disdain for evo threads I didn't you back.

You posted:

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

well, if you assume that that creator "induced" evolution in order to create humans in "that creator's image," then that is highly illogical, and rejects the foundation of evolutionary research.

It is acutally quite difficult to insist that evolution "began" this way...as it is a stark rejection of evolution. It doesn't matter if you, or someone else don' think that these ideas conflict--but they absolutely do.

Man, I love evolution threads! Oh wait...no I don't. damn trolls...

I'm curious how any idea that evo was induced by a higher being is a rejection of the foundation of evo research?

I'm curious how the (hybrid) concept that evo began that way is a "conflict" of those ideas?

Care to 'splain?

TIA,

Fern

no problem

simply put: evolution has no goal. it has no intention. It does not strive to create better, more adapted species (plenty of mutations lead to less-adaptable critters, these essentially die off). In the end, the much smaller number of those that receive beneficial mutations adapted towards changing environments, tend to survive.

The majority of theists maintain that humans are created by a loving God (well, God used to hate us and be spiteful...but that changed at some point. go figure...), and in that God's image. Those of such a mind that are able to accept evolution accept it in such a way that "God created man through the process of evolution." i.e, evolution occured (past tense important here) b/c its goal was to create humans. Of course, evolution has stopped occuring, as it has reached its "goal." This is ridiculous.

Evolution works because it is random. It works through natural order--not the divine will of some sky fairy.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
no problem

simply put: evolution has no goal. it has no intention. Yes, that makes perfect sense to me It does not strive to create better, more adapted species I suppose it cannot "strive", as that would require an intention. But I thought it was supposed to result in better more adapted species? (plenty of mutations lead to less-adaptable critters, these essentially die off). In the end, the much smaller number of those that receive beneficial mutations adapted towards changing environments, tend to survive.Ok, it does at least result in better species

The majority of theists maintain that humans are created by a loving God (well, God used to hate us and be spiteful...but that changed at some point. go figure...), and in that God's image. Those of such a mind that are able to accept evolution accept it in such a way that "God created man through the process of evolution." i.e, evolution occured (past tense important here) b/c its goal was to create humans. Of course, evolution has stopped occuring, as it has reached its "goal." This is ridiculous.

Do you think it can proven that evolution continues? Would doing so require that we know what causes evo to happen? Do we actually claim to know that? I ask because I have seen "science" type sites say we don't.

Would your answer change if I suggested that we are still being "created" in God's image. Thus evo is part of an ongoing process of creation?

What if it was suggested God him/herself was also continually undergoing evo, thus so would we if we were in his image. Would your answer change? (That is, admit the possibility of a hybrid theory - the two are not mutually exclusive)

Evolution works because it is random. It works through natural order--not the divine will of some sky fairy.

I suppose part of my lack of interest in evolution stems from something that intrigues me far more. Everytime I start to ponder the old "primordial soup" thingy I get hung up on "well, where the h3ll did that stuff come?" question.

Roll it back all the way the to "Big Bang", still bugs me "where did that stuff come from?"

I must confess I cannot grasp the concept of infinity. I understand what it is, but can't really wrap my head around it. Lacking infinity, you're left with a "begining". I can't really shake the nagging thought in the back of my mind that if there is a begining, something or someone started the "begin" thingy.

If that someone or something is the "Sky Fairy" then natural order = divine will. If something or someone "began" stuff, then they created the law of physics etc. and everything that flows from them, which would include evolution.

I suppose my profession/training tends to force one to start with the begining of a "problem" or task in order to resolve it. Starting half-way through and working to the end is guaranteed 100% of the time to produce erroneous results/conclusions. Hence I cannot feel confident that even if we knew everything about evolution it could disprove the existance of a higher being (as many here assert). In effect, they've merely started working the problem/task in the "middle' and gone on to the end, thus it is "unnatural" for me to have confidence in the conclusion.

Oh, and thanks for the response above

Fern

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Fern

Seems there are differing opinions of what one means when says "evolution".

And...? So what?

People have differing opinions on what evolution is, and you say so what?

I sure did.

I also said, "there is a general agreement upon what constitutes evolution among biologists," and there is. That lay people and scientists of different disciplines are confused about what evolution is does nothing to change the fact that there is a general agreement on what is really evolution.

Funny that you would conspicuously omit the very statement in my post that refutes you.

I omitted it because it's not relevant. This is not a thread in a biology forum, you refute nothing.

How in the world can you suggest that the fact a general consensus exists is not relevant to your contention that there isn't a general consensus? There does not exist a debate about what evolution is. There only exist ignorant individuals who have yet to come up-to-speed with regard to what the biologists have already decided evolution is.

Most people here (at a computing forum)n are not biologist, and if we lack a concensus on what evolution means (and how it works to some extent) to ask people if they believe in it is meaningless.

I don't see how that follows. Even if there wasn't a general consensus with regard to the flat-vs-round earth ideas, it would still be meaningful to ask others their position, and perhaps even moreso to ask them to qualify their position with a basis.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: zinfamous
no problem

simply put: evolution has no goal. it has no intention. Yes, that makes perfect sense to me It does not strive to create better, more adapted species I suppose it cannot "strive", as that would require an intention. But I thought it was supposed to result in better more adapted species? (plenty of mutations lead to less-adaptable critters, these essentially die off). In the end, the much smaller number of those that receive beneficial mutations adapted towards changing environments, tend to survive.Ok, it does at least result in better species

The majority of theists maintain that humans are created by a loving God (well, God used to hate us and be spiteful...but that changed at some point. go figure...), and in that God's image. Those of such a mind that are able to accept evolution accept it in such a way that "God created man through the process of evolution." i.e, evolution occured (past tense important here) b/c its goal was to create humans. Of course, evolution has stopped occuring, as it has reached its "goal." This is ridiculous.

Do you think it can proven that evolution continues? Would doing so require that we know what causes evo to happen? Do we actually claim to know that? I ask because I have seen "science" type sites say we don't.

Would your answer change if I suggested that we are still being "created" in God's image. Thus evo is part of an ongoing process of creation?

What if it was suggested God him/herself was also continually undergoing evo, thus so would we if we were in his image. Would your answer change? (That is, admit the possibility of a hybrid theory - the two are not mutually exclusive)

Evolution works because it is random. It works through natural order--not the divine will of some sky fairy.

I suppose part of my lack of interest in evolution stems from something that intrigues me far more. Everytime I start to ponder the old "primordial soup" thingy I get hung up on "well, where the h3ll did that stuff come?" question.

Roll it back all the way the to "Big Bang", still bugs me "where did that stuff come from?"

I must confess I cannot grasp the concept of infinity. I understand what it is, but can't really wrap my head around it. Lacking infinity, you're left with a "begining". I can't really shake the nagging thought in the back of my mind that if there is a begining, something or someone started the "begin" thingy.

If that someone or something is the "Sky Fairy" then natural order = divine will. If something or someone "began" stuff, then they created the law of physics etc. and everything that flows from them, which would include evolution.

I suppose my profession/training tends to force one to start with the begining of a "problem" or task in order to resolve it. Starting half-way through and working to the end is guaranteed 100% of the time to produce erroneous results/conclusions. Hence I cannot feel confident that even if we knew everything about evolution it could disprove the existance of a higher being (as many here assert). In effect, they've merely started working the problem/task in the "middle' and gone on to the end, thus it is "unnatural" for me to have confidence in the conclusion.

Oh, and thanks for the response above

Fern

I know what you're getting at. And you can look at it this way. You can't get past the big bang b/c something had to put that matter there, right? well, many like ot say God. OK, not bad. but since you see something (or accept the possibility that some matter was present), it seems necessary for you to say "something had to come before it." OK, fine. Here'e where science and religion have a vast fall-off, and maynever be reconciled.

So, "Where did that matter come from?"
1. Thesists: God. God put it there, no more questions asked, please.
2: Science: Who put God there?

In religion, you like to argue this circular reasoning, that constantly drives you back to origins. This is identical to science; however at some point, a theist deems it perfectly logical to stop asking questions, and accept without pretense that God needs no answer. Theists are willing to accept scientific investigation and logic, yet arbitrarily determine it's point of irrelevence.The scientific counter being that a theists logic disagrees with itself.

Science aims for discovery and questioning. As soon as questioning halts, there is no more science. It's a slow progression, but as the church continues its history of caving into irrefutable logic and evidence, it could very well find itself in relagated to the mythology section in bookstores. Honestly, I don't think I really want to see this happen....but it seems logical (they caved to heliocentrism, to evolution--hell, they even thought Jesus never laughed and posessed wealth (to justify Papal splendor, naturally))

 

[piasabird]

I think some of these pro-evolunists are practicing a cult religion; Evolutionism.

I dont see any real evidence of Evolution. All I see is some overpaid scientists and researchers who speak martian and talk down to anyone who disagrees with them. If you dont believe in what they call the truth, then they call you names.

If you can not get the concept that a Virus is not on the same level as say a monkey or a human, I can not help you. I have not seen or been shown any concrete evidence of evolution. No one can prove Humans evolved from anything. Show me the irreputable chain of Genetic Evidence.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

You can't get past the big bang b/c something had to put that matter there, right?

Yep, pretty much. I've never heard much about science adressing it. What hypotheses have been put forth etc.?

I can imagine that perhaps the Big Bang and then some ulimate contraction could occur billions of years later, with this cycle repeating itself. (Bang, universe expanding creating suns and planets, organism evolving, universe getting old, suns dying, universe contracting upon itself into a single mass, Bang all over again - wash - rinse - repeat etc.) Where are we on the cycle? Don't know.

What I explained above about infinity & my inability to grasp it was poorly done - I can grasp something with no end. But I can't grasp the concept of something with no begining - something that allways "was". Thus my nagging thought that there was a begining and something/someone to cause the begining.


2: Science: Who put God there?

Interesting question, but makes my head hurt. I gave up thinking about it a long time ago (It includes the infinity - "no begining" thingy) .

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think some of these pro-evolunists are practicing a cult religion; Evolutionism.

I dont see any real evidence of Evolution. All I see is some overpaid scientists and researchers who speak martian and talk down to anyone who disagrees with them. If you dont believe in what they call the truth, then they call you names.

If you can not get the concept that a Virus is not on the same level as say a monkey or a human, I can not help you. I have not seen or been shown any concrete evidence of evolution. No one can prove Humans evolved from anything. Show me the irreputable chain of Genetic Evidence.

Are you really basing your argument on the fact that scientists are arrogant and use words you don't understand? It would seem likely that arguing with you is pointless, and so I won't bother. Calling evolution a religion and demanding incontrovertible proof are the hallmarks of an argument that has been backed into a corner and has already lost.

As for Fern, a fairly common argument against a creator god (which again, is outside the scope of evolution) is that while the universe simply always existing/popped into existence one day is certainly improbable... any being who would have the power/majesty/desire to pop a universe such as ours into existence would be even more improbable as he would be far more complex. The only science I can think of that really relates to it are the laws of thermodynamics... but that's not really doing much.

It's sort of a crappy answer to a problem that is likely unsolvable by humans, but I think that in that case it shows that atheistic explanations for the universe are at least as probable as theistic ones from a logical standpoint.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

As for Fern, a fairly common argument against a creator god (which again, is outside the scope of evolution) I agree, yet started this line of discussion mostly because some evo proponents seem to think otherwise, but I could be wrong. is that while the universe simply always existing/popped into existence one day is certainly improbable... any being who would have the power/majesty/desire to pop a universe such as ours into existence would be even more improbable as he would be far more complex. The only science I can think of that really relates to it are the laws of thermodynamics... but that's not really doing much. Whew! That's a whole other can of worms. I see some argue Evo is apparently contrary to the 2nd Law, others argue it is't. Too far over my head though to bother with. As to the 1st, I thought Hawkings was for a while argung in his Theory of Black Holes that the 1st was violated (I think he got it wrong), but then adapted his theory to accomodate it (still think he's got it wrong). But that's a whole other topic far afield from this one

It's sort of a crappy answer to a problem that is likely unsolvable by humans, but I think that in that case it shows that atheistic explanations for the universe are at least as probable as theistic ones from a logical standpoint. Yeah, agreed

 

[mattpegher]

After tirelessly reading this thread, I apoligize to anyone who beleives that they have addressed anything, I am about to say.

I am a physician and have thus studied all the biology, anatomy and biochemistry that supports the theory of evolution. I was also raised Catholic, and although my own beliefs have changed over time and study of the arguments, I still believe in a noncorporial intelligence (what ever that may be I do not know).

Evolution is like any theory a work in progress. To be honest even the human understanding of gods, God or other dieties, has been modified over our existence from multitheistic pantheons in which the members were little more than natural phenomenon to those that where immortal humanoids to the current monotheistic religions.

Evolution thus is merely an explanation for the way our species and other species have developed based on the scientific record. The evidence suggests that over the course of thousands of generations species have changed creating divergent populations with different attributes and when that process proceeds repeatedly a broad spectrum of creatures develop. The theory of evolution implies that when a certain attribute changes the likelyhood that that individual will bear offspring that the likelyhood that that attribute will be carried on is increased and in very minute ways this leads to changes that can eventually produce very significan results.

Since the vast majority of these changes are on the level of protein production. A multitude of changes need to take place just to get a dinosaur to change from scale production to feather production.

The anatomic record of humans includes many examples of structures that are altered slightly from other mammalian species and this pattern is used to trace the connections and suspected common ancestry of all species. The human sacroileac joint was never designed to hold a creature on two legs, but it was adapted to allow it ( and poorly so ).

Although the current development of resistance patterns in bacteria to modern antibiotics may shed light on the mechanisms of evolution, it is a bit simplistic to use it as a human timeframe example to evolution in action.

The main problem with any argument regarding evolution is that the evidence that has lead to the development of our current understanding of evolution is to vast to discuss. The empiric evidence for nonrandom changes brought on by some intelligent design is nonexistant. That does not mean that science has disproven the existence of a supreme being. But many people cannot separate the two arguments. Unfortunately many of those at the extremes of religious belief are pushing their agenda and many more moderate believers are being manipulated.

The detriment comes when we allow the religious discussion to invade the objective observational understanding of science.

God created the quark, and he saw that it was truth, beauty and strange.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

As for Fern, a fairly common argument against a creator god (which again, is outside the scope of evolution) I agree, yet started this line of discussion mostly because some evo proponents seem to think otherwise, but I could be wrong. is that while the universe simply always existing/popped into existence one day is certainly improbable... any being who would have the power/majesty/desire to pop a universe such as ours into existence would be even more improbable as he would be far more complex. The only science I can think of that really relates to it are the laws of thermodynamics... but that's not really doing much. Whew! That's a whole other can of worms. I see some argue Evo is apparently contrary to the 2nd Law, others argue it is't. Too far over my head though to bother with. As to the 1st, I thought Hawkings was for a while argung in his Theory of Black Holes that the 1st was violated (I think he got it wrong), but then adapted his theory to accomodate it (still think he's got it wrong). But that's a whole other topic far afield from this one

It's sort of a crappy answer to a problem that is likely unsolvable by humans, but I think that in that case it shows that atheistic explanations for the universe are at least as probable as theistic ones from a logical standpoint. Yeah, agreed

The reason the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated by evolution is the same reason why it's not violated when you clean up your house. The 2nd law deals with closed systems and the earth is not a closed system, and really the 2nd law deals with transfer of heat, pressure, etc anyway. The earth is acted on by tons and tons of other things in our solar system, galaxy, blah blah. So, entropy universe wide continues to increase through the heat radiated by the sun, from the core of the earth, etc... etc... while we can still safely make things look nice for when company comes over.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: piasabird
No one can prove Humans evolved from anything. Show me the irreputable chain of Genetic Evidence.

There is extensive evidence that shows that humans evolved from primates and it can be easily found on the web (try wikipedia). If you are going to take issue with evolution then at least create a reasonable argument. We aren't here to spoon-feed you knowledge that is easy to find and refutes your dumb claims.

EDIT: Link

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: piasabird
No one can prove Humans evolved from anything. Show me the irreputable chain of Genetic Evidence.

There is extensive evidence that shows that humans evolved from primates and it can be easily found on the web (try wikipedia). If you are going to take issue with evolution then at least create a reasonable argument. We aren't here to spoon-feed you knowledge that is easy to find and refutes your dumb claims.

EDIT: Link

I agree. Just because you(piasabird) are too ignorant ("choose to ignore") to research the available evidence doesnot make it cease to exist. The primary evidence is in the commonality of anatomic structure dispite markedly different function.

If you believe that God made us anatomically and genetically similiar to other life forms intentionally, then the logical conclusion is that he wished us to believe in evolution. To follow that argument, I propose that the universe was created last night and we were programmed to believe that prior events that didnot really occur preceeded our creation.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

As for Fern, a fairly common argument against a creator god (which again, is outside the scope of evolution) I agree, yet started this line of discussion mostly because some evo proponents seem to think otherwise, but I could be wrong. is that while the universe simply always existing/popped into existence one day is certainly improbable... any being who would have the power/majesty/desire to pop a universe such as ours into existence would be even more improbable as he would be far more complex. The only science I can think of that really relates to it are the laws of thermodynamics... but that's not really doing much. Whew! That's a whole other can of worms. I see some argue Evo is apparently contrary to the 2nd Law, others argue it is't. Too far over my head though to bother with. As to the 1st, I thought Hawkings was for a while argung in his Theory of Black Holes that the 1st was violated (I think he got it wrong), but then adapted his theory to accomodate it (still think he's got it wrong). But that's a whole other topic far afield from this one

It's sort of a crappy answer to a problem that is likely unsolvable by humans, but I think that in that case it shows that atheistic explanations for the universe are at least as probable as theistic ones from a logical standpoint. Yeah, agreed

This so-called argument that evolution somehow violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics can only by called gross dishonesty. There's no debate. There's no ambiguity. What the 2nd law states is completely clear: For any isolated system, order can decrease or (wildy improbably) stay the same; it cannot increase.

They crucial phrase here is "isolated system." Life on planet Earth is NOT an "isolated system" - a system that does not interact with its surroundings. The "system" to which Earth life belongs includes the sun. The sun becomes increasingly disordered by fusing hydrogen into helium, thus converting a portion of its mass into energy, which is emitted into space. A tiny fraction of that energy makes its way to Earth, where a still tinier fraction of the original energy drives most of the processes of life on Earth, including evolution.

If life on Earth viewed in its totality could be considered to have increased order by (let's make up a number) a trillion "order units" since the first vestiges of life appeared on Earth, then that increase must be weighed against the vastly many-times greater DECREASE in order caused by the sun converting an appreciable percentage of its mass into energy that has spread out over billions of light years of the universe. There's simply no comparison: The total "ordered mass" of life on earth (live bodies, the remains of dead bodies, and the artifacts created by life [for example, bird's nests and coral reefs]) as compared with, say, a tenth of the mass of the sun spread out over much of the electromagnetic spectrum and perhaps 50 nonillion cubic light-years of space.

The above is a simplified discussion, but anyone educated in physics who claims that evolution would violate the 2nd law is just being grossly dishonest. 100% (not 99.999%) of physicists will tell you that the 2nd law applies to isolated (aka "closed") systems. This distinction - between closed and open systems - is virtually the first thing taught when the 2nd law is introduced in even the most rudimentary physics course. Thus, anyone with even a superficial education in physics just has to know that life on Earth cannot possibly be considered a closed system. The fact that Evolution naysayers make just that argument is proof of how little regard for truth they have. No "debate." No "opinion."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Not arguing, just supplementing what you said...

Originally posted by: shira

This so-called argument that evolution somehow violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics can only by called gross dishonesty. There's no debate. There's no ambiguity. What the 2nd law states is completely clear: For any isolated system, order can decrease or (wildy improbably) stay the same; it cannot increase.

The claim is often made that the Universe is an isolated thermodynamic system, and that therefore the cosmological evolution of galaxies, stars, planets and such represents a decrease in entropy across the universal system.

Of course, the to the best of our knowledge, the universe is not a thermodynamic system, isolated, closed, nor open.