What attack? Evolutionists have little understanding of God or the Bible. I agree, man did not come from Neanderthals or monkeys.
Certainly, believers of evolution do not necessarily believe in god, however, that is not a requisite of believing in evolution. Sure it CAN be a key component of atheistic beliefs--but what about those that believe creation and evolution occurred together? How is evolution a religion in that instance? Simply because you cannot prove something does not make it false. Just like how those that cannot prove there is no god, do not falsify the existence.
I'm smacking my forehead. Hard. Evolution cannot be disproved. It's a fact that it happens when you use your antibiotics... Guess what happens when you don't completely flush your system with those antibiotics? Strain of virus 1 has been destroyed, but strain 2 that had a mutation allowing it to be naturally resistant to the antibiotic now takes over. You still have the virus! That sucks. Wouldn't be possible without evolution. Maybe the whole theory of human evolution is not the argument whether we did evolve, its how. Maybe we started as birds or monkeys. We did evolve however. Everything living does evolve. Germs are a 2 month example of evolution. Want to argue about what kind of evolution took place? Fine. Want to argue whether evolution exists? Get out of town.
Maxrule, I would try to speak less for the minds of scientists if I were making these preposterous claims you seem so addicted to. Science, and peer review, exist to prove, disprove and re-prove, or if necessary re-think everything. I'm not trusting one textbook max, I'm trusting the paleontologists, archeologists and biologists, and anthropologists of UC Berkeley. You may have heard of them. They are a widely respected institution on the west coast. No bible college, but still... We're not some bunch of Rush Limbaughs or something. All that telling me what my opinion is, won't work either, I formed my opinions back in the stone age. (1970's)
I agree that simple things like adaptation, which can be proved anecdotally, validates the notion of evolution. But from my experience, most seem to not realize that evolution doesn't necessarily debunk and threaten their respective religion like they think. Now, is this thread more about where humans started and came from? I do not understand what is so offensive about the idea that humans have evolved throughout our course. Evolution in various forms has been observed by humans--so that much isn't really up for debate.
How can anyone ignore the blatantly obvious evolution between just generations of humans? The life expectancy of individuals in a large portion of the world have risen in just decades. That is ridiculous! Just because we are using technology to obtain this longer life doesn't mean this longer life is not an evolutionary advantage. The internet has offered a ridiculously high speed ability to transfer information, almost instantaneously. Imagine in just like 5 years! We already have netbooks and PDAs and cell phones that have internet data service plans. Instant information anywhere! Most likely it will only keep getting smaller, cheaper, and faster. This is a huge advantage in an evolutionary sense. Evolution is clearly happening as we speak. To debate that the simple laws of natural selection would affect life now, and somehow not have affected life in the past is ridiculous.
it seems that some people in this thread lack a fundamental understanding of the core science(s)....namely physics. "dduuurrrr, this is about biology"....says the individual whom does not know how carbon dating works, and certainly has no "big picture" comprehension of cosmology. evolution is SSSOOOOOO much bigger than us. earth is evolving, has always evolved (ice age, anyone?). Mars has evolved....maybe for the worse, but thats opinion (and unfounded ). evolution is real. instead of questioning it, ask why you have a problem understanding it.
If the smartest scientists in this day and age still cannot confirm 100% these questions, what makes you think a handful of stoners will solve it All you are going to do is piss off someone, for explaining their perspective on ONE of MANY theories that we came to be. By all means, talk, but dont get all ansty in the pantsy, its not classy
You can't disprove evolution, because evolution actually exists. However, I find it extremely difficult to believe that we humans somehow got into some radioactive waste and super evolved millions of years ahead of every other living creature. edit: I also fail to see how being hairless gives any advantage to survival, it doesn't, it reduces your chance of survival.
Posted this before, but there are some posts in this discussion that seem to indicate a lack of understanding between what laws and theories actually are. Here it is: "Laws describe. Theories explain. Never in the history of science has a theory become a law." Theories are different than laws and cannot 'graduate' into laws. Being a law or being a theory does not make one more factual than the other. Both are observations that are excepted by the scientific community and are supported by a lot of evidence or studies. There are no 'gaps' in the evolutionary theory. There is no evidence that goes against it and for the time being it explains every observation of the development of life that has been collected or observed. Perhaps you are referring to 'gaps in the fossil evidence'? Again, there are no 'gaps' in the areas of knowledge where the theory of evolution is refuted. Sure, geological conditions have not favored the fossilization of all skeletal bodies that have ever existed on the Earth, so you can say there are 'gaps' as there are organisms that were never fossilized and thus remain unidentified and lost to time; however, evolution still is not refuted. It is supported by all branches of biological/chemical sciences, and further supported by periphery evidence provided by geological and astronomical studies. Here is a further video that accurately describes what scientific laws and scientific theories are: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xhPgDuUlA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory[/ame] And a nice quote from Richard Dawkins (who I am sure you all know about) about Kirk Cameron and his recent tirade in sending out creationist propaganda in universities: "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." To argue against the evolutionary theory is to argue from a position of gross ignorance of scientific discoveries and evidence. I don't even see why this 'debate' is even considered in the general population. There is almost no dissent in the branches of science (there are always those few delusional people on the fringe) because of the vast amount of evidence and logic behind it.
Pictures can be faked. I guess the genetic code for humans and animals was faked too and all of the worlds scientists are just lying through their teeth, and i guess fossils don't exist either. Oh and btw the earth was proved to be round before we took pictures of it from space, through the scientific method and observation. The only reason more people believe the earth is round is because it does not conflict with their faith, if it did there would be a lot more flat earthers.
Yeah basically laws are simple concepts which have to be true and are usually summarised in a short equation, for example gravity. Theories are usually more broad in scope and describe far more complicated processes. Evolution is a fact though, as much as the earth being round or a table being a table.
It's nice how science is able to correct itself through its own scrutiny, isn't it? All those examples point to how science is able to find fraudulent data and expose it. All except the Neanderthal man. I like how the creationists slide that in with the rest for it to gain some sort of acknowledgement. I'll discuss the neanderthal soon though. I've got to head to class in 10 minutes.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA&feature=player_embedded#]YouTube - Creationism with Ricky Gervais[/ame] 'nuff said...
I believe in the theory of evolution, any other theory seems stupid. I'm just playing devils advocate and putting across the other point. I also think that no matter however much you want to say something is fact, you cannot call it fact if it is a theory. Humes fork states that no value can be a fact, and that is true. Opinions can never be fact, and although theories can be proven eventually to be fact, evolution remains a theory. I believe that soon it will become true, but until then we have to argue with creationists.
if people actually understood what the word theory means to a scientist, they wouldn't qualify it with the word "just".
An unbiased record written by something other than another person. Something that can take us back to the basics. DNA? After all, you got yours from somewhere.