Belief in evolution around the world (1 Viewer)

[ur_inner_child]

evolution can be observed. the misuse of anti-biotics in hospitals have created superbugs from what were relatively easy to cure bacteria. ZoMG liEk eVoluTIoN

hence intelligent design is bullshit, along with a whole host of other reasons.

I agree, although some may argue that this is an example of natural selection, not evolution. Yes natural selection is the large element in the evolution theory, but vast changes that appear to be far removed from just the small "improvements" of natural selection are what non-evolutionists do not accept. e.g. a common ancestor for chimpanzees and humans.

Humans haven't 'evolved', per say, for a lot longer than a thousand years, silly. I assume you are thinking of the kind of evolution rhat results in extra fingers or getting rid of a tail )) etc. Humans certainly have undergone social evolution...and a certain amount of physical upsizing, as over the generations we've become taller and taller. The Japanese are the most obvious, they are on average significantly taller than they used to be a hundred years ago.
The fact is that humans have evolved in the past, and the fact that they have stopped means only that they have reached their pinnacle, the form that suits the world they live in.

Why would the enviroment change? Please Hotshot, read a book. That question, to be properly answered, requires an essay I don't have time to write.

Why do you get taller? There's no reason for it, it needs external force. It must be God, stretching you as you sleep.

Although I'm not so sure myself, considering we eat up anti-biotics and we preserve every human (eg every malfunction, birth abnormality is tolerated/fixed and let live in society) you'll find many articles relating to humans still evolving around, both on the net and in books, whether it be concerns the brain, senses of taste and smell, digestion, and brain function...

http://www.google.com.au/search?hs=...l_s&q=humans+still+evolving&btnG=Search&meta=

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Although I'm not so sure myself, considering we eat up anti-biotics and we preserve every human (eg every malfunction, birth abnormality is tolerated/fixed and let live in society) you'll find many articles relating to humans still evolving around, both on the net and in books, whether it be concerns the brain, senses of taste and smell, digestion, and brain function...

…yeah. That’s true. I was trying to cover that in my very general ‘up-sizing’…Lol. I just meant that we haven't evolved as much as previously, like the evolution from homo habilis to erectus, or erectus to sapiens sapiens...if you accept that that is how human ancestory has gone...because obviously Hotshot doesn't know much about...evolution or indeed science in general.
But I tend to agree with you because we even let people with genetic defects have children…gosh that sounds terrible putting it that way

 

[lengy]

If you actually studied human evolution, you'd know it takes thousands of years for evolution to be noticable.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Bshoc doesn't get science. He thinks because theories have been proven to be wrong in the past that science is discredited... well no, that actually makes it alot better. He thinks that the cambrian explosion disproves evolution... we can see evolution now (see dog breeders) and have examples of it from the past, yes the cambrian explosion does pose the question of 'how did all that evolution happen so fast?' but it does not in any way disprove the ToE.

 

[katie_tully]

There has been the occasional anomaly in evolution. Species that have evolved at a faster rate than what was previously expected.

Some see these anomalies as 'proof' that evolution is a farce, but I think it does quite the opposite.

 

[bshoc]

There has been the occasional anomaly in evolution. Species that have evolved at a faster rate than what was previously expected.

Some see these anomalies as 'proof' that evolution is a farce, but I think it does quite the opposite.

Actually not a single case of "evolution" has been observed or recorded since humans first started documenting the existance of species, the tigers running around thosands of years ago in Asia or the sharks for millions of years ago are still the same ones today. So if evolution were a progressive process we should have seen it at least in one specie over the time we have been recording, either biological or genetic, we have not. This leaves only the sudden change hypothesis for evolution, which has not been observed, but has not been disproven.

 

[bshoc]

Bshoc doesn't get science. He thinks because theories have been proven to be wrong in the past that science is discredited... well no, that actually makes it alot better. He thinks that the cambrian explosion disproves evolution... we can see evolution now (see dog breeders) and have examples of it from the past, yes the cambrian explosion does pose the question of 'how did all that evolution happen so fast?' but it does not in any way disprove the ToE.

Actually you're conflating breeding with evolution, ofcourse if you mix two different species of dog you'll get a compromise between the two, we're talking about actual genetic change within ONE specie, and this as has never been recorded, hard news to get over in a forum I know.

Also I'm not at all discrediting science, biology and genetics are by and far some of the most important sciences we have, in a sense they're being constrained to a single theory and chocked out, whilst the three major events that fly into the face of evolution seem to be ignored, why bet on a loser?

 

[bshoc]

So what, do we have some alternative to evolutionary theory? This is kind of why I oh-so-cleverly touched on I.D; there has yet to be a theory to match evolution in terms of believability. Show me some other explanation that can match it and maybe what you're saying might carry some weight.

y'see, this is how science works in the tiniest of nutshells - we formulate theory based on data gathered from experimentation. The only viable 'alternative' to evolution is ID - with no testable hypothesis (and thus is not a true scientific theory from step one), so you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little partial to evolutionary theory. I mean, if that’s the best alternative explanation, you would have to be wilfully retarded to just ‘not believe’ in evolution.

The hypothesis is easily tested and proven, which is the appearance of genetically unique species over time with no precursors ie. cambrain explosion, chinese fossil bed. Whether you think that an intelligent being is behind this is another matter altogether, thats certainly territory I'm not going to wade into, since its an impossible debate to prove or disprove. I've met theists who believed in evolution and atheists who did not. To me its the blind, unquestioning obedience to a flawed theory that is disturbing, how do you move forward when you're held up by a disproven stagnant theory? Electricity advanced from coal, to oil, to gas, then finally solar and nuclear, biological sciences moved from eugenics to genetics, and yet there has been no progress on this front, when scientists refuse to question or innovate, its a dead science.

 

[Aznpsycho]

Fuck logic. This universe does not and can not have any foundations on the scientific method - everything happens due to some solipistic causality that changes depending on my mood swings. I do not need you and your 'definitions' and 'experimental method', I will instead mix and match any arguments placed against me, thereby ignoring anything that contradicts my cunningly populist slogans.

Actually not a single case of "evolution" has been observed or recorded since humans first started documenting the existance of species, the tigers running around thosands of years ago in Asia or the sharks for millions of years ago are still the same ones today. So if evolution were a progressive process we should have seen it at least in one specie over the time we have been recording, either biological or genetic, we have not. This leaves only the sudden change hypothesis for evolution, which has not been observed, but has not been disproven.

I'm definitely with you on this one, man! If I leave a room containing a billion dollar cheque with a single exit, and see a man enter and leave the room, and then go inside, and the cheque is not there anymore, obviously an event of divine intervention occured, relieving this sinful fleshy cage of a billion dollars!

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Actually not a single case of "evolution" has been observed or recorded since humans first started documenting the existance of species, the tigers running around thosands of years ago in Asia or the sharks for millions of years ago are still the same ones today. So if evolution were a progressive process we should have seen it at least in one specie over the time we have been recording, either biological or genetic, we have not. This leaves only the sudden change hypothesis for evolution, which has not been observed, but has not been disproven.

When did we start documenting species, exactly? When is the earliest record of it? Because if it's less than say, 20,000 years, then not enough time has passed for noticable change. And because evolution is a gradual process, is not our gradual increase in average height a possible sign of evolution? I'm not saying it is, but if in 100,000 years humans are still around only the average height is 6'5...then to the scientists of the era...they would have evolved from us...their short ancestors...

I'd have to go read about it to check that I am not getting evolution and the simple consequences of better nutrition mixed up but I'm a bit busy right at this moment! lol. Good luck HSC2006 with english today!

 

[gerhard]

if you think theres a possible reason that short people will have less offspring then tall people as a result of their height then yes, that is evolution.

id very suprised if that was to occur

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Actually you're conflating breeding with evolution, ofcourse if you mix two different species of dog you'll get a compromise between the two, we're talking about actual genetic change within ONE specie, and this as has never been recorded, hard news to get over in a forum I know.

Breeding=Microevolution.

As for never being recorded... how's bout fossils? Or are they not good enough for you?

whilst the three major events that fly into the face of evolution seem to be ignored, why bet on a loser?

- There are explanations for the cambrian explosion.
- It does not matter, even if evolution does not explain that one segment of history it works for the rest.

The hypothesis is easily tested and proven, which is the appearance of genetically unique species over time with no precursors ie. cambrain explosion, chinese fossil bed.

- There are other explanations for those than 'God did it'.
- Even if those explanations weren't there, 'God did it' is still not an explanation in its-self.

To me its the blind, unquestioning obedience to a flawed theory that is disturbing, how do you move forward when you're held up by a disproven stagnant theory?

It isn't disproven, you've just taken the catch-cry examples of flaws with the theory of evolution and not read into what the other side has to say on the matter.

Electricity advanced from coal, to oil, to gas, then finally solar and nuclear, biological sciences moved from eugenics to genetics, and yet there has been no progress on this front, when scientists refuse to question or innovate, its a dead science.

Err... moved from eugenics to genetics? wtf?