Evolution

[Perseus]

This a general debate on evolution. I would like to say I dont believe in it because if we evolved from primates(1. why didnt they all disappear and (2. if we did, why did we lose 2 chromsomes? All opinions and theories welcomed. If you can, please explain why you believe what you believe. Sorry if duplicated thread or if this belongs w/ Religion.

[Oblivion]

I believe in evolution, obviously, because I'm atheist.
1) Theoretically we evolved from germs in the ocean, not just primates. If everything disappeared after something better came along, what would the world be like? We would be the only living things here.
2) Sometimes to improve something, you have to take away from it. Those two chromosomes may have made the primates less likely to survive, so as they evolved, the chromosomes went away.

[Perseus]

How could germs evolve into fish is something Ive never understood, it justs doesnt make since to me.

[Oblivion]

Living being have the ability to adapt.
As they adapt, very slowly (billions of years), they grow to better fit their environment.

[Perseus]

I understand adaption, I believe that species would change because of climate or something that affects them its just how can a microscopic thing evolve to a very pimitive fish.

[Oblivion]

Through billions and billions of years and adaptions. A little bit at a time, it slowly grows into a bigger thing. And it doesn't go straight to a fish mind you. From single cell, to multi cell, to minute sea creatures, a little larger, and a little larger.

[Perseus]

Its just... I cant explain my point because I have mixed views on this... I do not see how fish could lose scales and gills and grow legs and other things... I guess Im too stuborn to see obvious answers.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I believe in evolution, well because it makes sense and creationism makes no sense what so ever. Now, there are some cinks in the evolutionary chain, no pun intended. Still it is basically true our DNA mimics that of our decendents and the number of chromosomes and such match that of some certain animals.

[dyslexiaa]

Scientifically, it's pretty much a law.

Religiously, it can still be supported by considering the context of the Bible.

I don't see any terrific argument against it.

[phish]

There is no debate DNA has proved it. Lets take reptiles for example since I am a herpetologist I would know so don't argue with me.

On a male boa there is a small set of claws left behind from lizards. How can you explain this?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

This a general debate on evolution. I would like to say I dont believe in it because if we evolved from primates(1. why didnt they all disappear and (2. if we did, why did we lose 2 chromsomes? All opinions and theories welcomed. If you can, please explain why you believe what you believe. Sorry if duplicated thread or if this belongs w/ Religion.

1. We share a common ancestor with modern primates (i.e. chimpanzee's) so we are just one species of many that branched off of this ancestral one. You don't understand what human evolution even IS if you say "if we came from monkeys, then why are the monkeys still here!". When evolutionary theory doesn't even say that! We share a COMMON ANCESTOR with monkeys and chimpanzees.

2. We HAVE figured out why Humans have 2 fewer chromosomes than chimpanzees. Our chromosome pair #2 has been discovered to actually be the product of 2 older chromosome pairs FUSING together. We can actually SEE where the chromosomes that would go to make chimps for example have fused somewhere around 4 million years ago to branch off into the species known as Humans.

Like I've said COUNTLESS times before, I don't "believe" in evolution in the sense that this question has been asked, as if it were some sort of "faith". I ACCEPT evolution because of the evidence and facts to support it, not to mention the FACT that evolution occurs before our very eyes and has been documented, is able to make accurate hypotheses and predictions etc. There is an EMBARRASSMENT of riches in terms of irrefutable evidence that suggests evolution. I wish this ignorance of biology would be fixed but the religious right are fucking up school systems real good with "intelligent design" and other NON-science bullshit in the class room.

You can't back up "not believing" in evolution just because YOU don't understand it (no offense). That doesn't make evolution look any less real, it just shows that YOU don't KNOW enough about it. If you LEARNED more about it, then you'd realize why we so strongly advocate it as a valuable and essential part of biology.

[Rutherford The Brave]

There is no debate DNA has proved it. Lets take reptiles for example since I am a herpetologist I would know so don't argue with me.

On a male boa there is a small set of claws left behind from lizards. How can you explain this?

No actually if you look at Human chromosomes and Monkey or ape chromsomes you'd see the Humans have 46 and Monkey 48, its a true corilation and we must've dropped the genes like fur rather than hair and the abillitly to stand straight on our feet rather than drag our knuckles on the ground.

[Requin]

Before people form their opinions. I would recommend you read or at least look at the theory of evolution and the explanations for it.
As I am not relgious I believe in the Evolution theory. And if you read it, it's very clever.

It's all to do with natural selection and survival of the fittest. For example, why do giraffe's have long necks???
Because once, there were many types of giraffe, who were small. Some giraffe's had to stretch their necks to reach the food on the trees, so they only got the lower branches. While the ones who didn't do this..died.
So as more and more giraffe's who stretched for food bred, until their necks got longer, and their species got wider.

So eventually, all of the giraffe's with long necks survived and no other type was left.
It makes sense when you look at it in the right way. But I'm not going to try and persuade anyone who's religious, as it's their belief.

Oh and btw...you can be both remember. Believe in evolution and mantain your faith.

[Perseus]

I know some what enough about evolution but I push it away because of certain reasons... I believe there is a difference between evolution and adaption because I dont see many aspects from evolution believable because they seem outrageus to me but what do I do?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I know some what enough about evolution but I push it away because of certain reasons... I believe there is a difference between evolution and adaption because I dont see many aspects from evolution believable because they seem outrageus to me but what do I do?

Learn as much as you can about it; this isn't something simple that can just be explained in 10 minutes, its a very intricate and subtle process that takes effort. Go to youtube and search for documentaries on evolution, people have posted several on there that are really interesting, and not a totaly boring snore-fest! I think that would be a good start for you; you need to start with the BASICS and work your way up to understanding things like natural selection, speciation, and genetics.

[Perseus]

Damn I meant to put what do I know? Also I will be taking biology next year, so I probally will learn new things about evolution.

[Requin]

Evolution is an...oh..a mind boggling idea and theory. And it amazes me at how amazing Mr Darwin was to think of this. As your taking Biology next year...you'll learn about it then.

[phish]

No actually if you look at Human chromosomes and Monkey or ape chromsomes you'd see the Humans have 46 and Monkey 48, its a true corilation and we must've dropped the genes like fur rather than hair and the abillitly to stand straight on our feet rather than drag our knuckles on the ground.




No what I am not talking about humans here. Go to a reptiles expo and hold a male colombian boa there is a small set of four claws on the bottom of the snake.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Damn I meant to put what do I know? Also I will be taking biology next year, so I probally will learn new things about evolution.

Well I see that you're from georgia. Not sure about that state, but I'm worried that in your biology class you'll get a shoddy representation of science, with a nice helping of bullshit (intelligent design) thrown in to keep the fundies happy. The school system you got there doesn't seem to care about teaching kids what the facts really are, because they have to appeal to the huge bible-belt demographic of parents.

[Perseus]

Well you have a point there haha :P Ill be in honors and Ive been told there is a lot of research in honors and actually last year when I had Earth Science, it talked briefly about the theory of evolution, but I didnt pay attention b/c I prefer astrology and some physics.

[Camazotz]

I had always thought evolution was known by everybody to be true. Anyway, I know evolution is real.

[CookieMonster]

I don't believe in evolution. I grew up in an atheist home and was taught all about evolution, but never bought into it. Eh, whatever.
Now I live in Georgia, haha saw a slam on the Georgia school system in this thread. It have to agree to an extent. I wasn't taught anything about creationism or God at the high school I attended, though. Learned all that from my dad.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I don't believe in evolution. I grew up in an atheist home and was taught all about evolution, but never bought into it. Eh, whatever.
Now I live in Georgia, haha saw a slam on the Georgia school system in this thread. It have to agree to an extent. I wasn't taught anything about creationism or God at the high school I attended, though. Learned all that from my dad.

Too bad; creationism is laughable. Especially on its estimate of the age of the earth/universe at 6,000 years! That's wrong by a factor of a MILLION, when you consider the earth's actual age to be 4.54 billion years. That's like saying the distance from New York to Los Angeles is... 7 FEET.

Let me know when you dig up some precambrian fossils next to modern human bones :D

[Antares]

This a general debate on evolution. I would like to say I dont believe in it because if we evolved from primates(1. why didnt they all disappear and (2. if we did, why did we lose 2 chromsomes? All opinions and theories welcomed. If you can, please explain why you believe what you believe. Sorry if duplicated thread or if this belongs w/ Religion.


Hehe! Common misconception! We didn't evolve 'from' primates....
we are just ansestors of them...primarily...and if you look at the history of Homo Sapiens you can go WAYYY back down the Homo genus and kinda see where the origins are from. Why didn't they disappear? Umm...because they were able to survive...natural selection...the other primates were fit to survive. Why did we loose 2 chromosomes? Umm...evolution and other adaptations...


Also, evolution is scientifically supported with evidence. Supported enough that it is considered a 'theory' and if we find more then it will progress but I mean, those scientists no how to cover their asses :P Why not believe something that is proven to be correct?
I am not aware of any scientific evidence that goes for the religion thing (dont kill me religious poeple)

[Perseus]

Well I have another inquiry... Why does the human race have a voice box? I know yall will say because of adaption and so we can communicate... but really how is that possible correct me if Im wrong but arent we the only ones w/ a voice box?

[Antares]

The other species have them too. Ours is just more complex.
Also, we have learned to use our ability to make different sounds to communicate...like super complexly though.

[Perseus]

But why did we evolve to make complex sounds? Why didnt deer? Dont they need to communicate, too?

[phish]

Now I made a good point and everybody is brushing it away I think you need to read it and think about it.


And now I think if there was a god he would be able to create evolution dose he have short term memory loss?

[Perseus]

Now I made a good point and everybody is brushing it away I think you need to read it and think about it.


And now I think if there was a god he would be able to create evolution dose he have short term memory loss?

Why do you say shot term memory loss? And ive never seen a boa up close, I dont want to get strangled anyway(sorry if that's a little ignorant).

[Sage]

It's pointless to say God started evolution. For the record, we don't know what started evolution, it simply is. Replacing an "I don't know" with "God" only switches in one unknown for another, and really does not lead us anywhere.

[AllThatIsLeft]

i believe in evolution, but i honestly don't examine it to the very detail.
we exist and that is enough for me.

[dyslexiaa]

It's pointless to say God started evolution. For the record, we don't know what started evolution, it simply is. Replacing an "I don't know" with "God" only switches in one unknown for another, and really does not lead us anywhere.

While evolution isn't a proof of a God or anything, a common misconception is that people with theistic beliefs don't believe in evolution.

[Silverfist64]

Its just... I cant explain my point because I have mixed views on this... I do not see how fish could lose scales and gills and grow legs and other things... I guess Im too stuborn to see obvious answers.

Fish didnt lose scales and such. Fish slowly grew legs to adapt to certian areas and became similar to amphibians today. There was a type of salamander/fish thing that could go out of the water and onto land for short periods of time. Over millions of years, not instantly, the fish turned into amphibians which turned into reptiles. Mammels are also included into the cycle (but i forget where)

But why did we evolve to make complex sounds? Why didnt deer? Dont they need to communicate, too?

Not quite true. Pretty much EVERYTHING (not quite but mostly) communicates with its own species. Your not going to go outside and have a brown bear asking you were the honey is anytime soon. Their voice boxes and hearing is specified to their species. Bears can understand other bears because they do have a system of communication set up. Thats how wolves and orcas hunt in packs. Because they communicate with each other.

[ThatDude93]

I am not sure if I do or not, and I really don't care. I am Christian, and I believe God created all, but yet I believe it is possible that God could have caused evolution.

[CaptainObvious]

You know what the bottom line of these evolution debates is? People who are open-minded to all of the facts inevitably accept evolution as a valid theory, because the evidence is vast and the scientific consensus regarding evolution as a factual, operative process is sound. I would be pretty surprised to find a person with access to modern evidence and scientific techniques that would ever deny evolution without pre-existing beliefs with which it conflicts.

Unfortunately, people will defend their faith and ideas (no matter how provably false) to their bitter end.

[Cloud]

I believe in evolution and im supposed to be catholic so i hould believe it was all god but i dont because:
1)No mention of dinosaurs in the bible when hte world was created yet there is evidence of them in the world.
2)why do people have unnecesarythings on their bodies if we were created these unnecesaries wouldnt be there because theres no use to them. but there was a use in the things that we evolved from.

[Perseus]

2)why do people have unnecesarythings on their bodies if we were created these unnecesaries wouldnt be there because theres no use to them. but there was a use in the things that we evolved from.

What?

[CaptainObvious]

What?

His point is that many organisms (though humans are among the best examples) have body parts that serve no purpose, and in fact often make an organism worse off by creating more disease opportunities for example. Such organs are called vestigial organs. The vermiform appendix is an excellent example of this.

The point he's making is, if we are to believe that God designed everything, how do you explain those parts? There is no reason for an omnipotent and omniscient designer to include such parts - but there are often very good explanations given when one looks through an evolutionary lens.

[Perseus]

What do humans have no use for?

[INFERNO]

What do humans have no use for?

It is thought that nowadays, at least in Western society, the human appendix has no use in terms of digestion, and has become a vestigial structure.

[Sage]

I'm quite sure the tail bone is vestigial as well.

[Triceratops]

I do not believe in evolution simply because I am Theist.

I've had a Christian upbringing, all throughout my life. I've always had God as some sort of guidance. My families beliefs have never reflected on to my own, I make my own decisions and that's that.
I think each Christian has had their own religious experience into their evidence of God existing. It's hard to explain exactly and it's virtually impossible to get others to understand and believe. I for one have had a religious experience, and a drastic one at that.

So yes, I do believe that God created mankind, not evolution. You can have as many theories as you wish but none will convince me otherwise.

[Perseus]

It is thought that nowadays, at least in Western society, the human appendix has no use in terms of digestion, and has become a vestigial structure.

Ok then, what did other species need it for?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

So yes, I do believe that God created mankind, not evolution. You can have as many theories as you wish but none will convince me otherwise.

That's the problem I have with childhood indoctrination. You are from birth forced to prescribe to beliefs that you don't even understand until you are older (about your age NOW) but by this time it's the ONLY opinion or worldview that you've ever been allowed to be exposed to. The final sentence you made sums it up. Nothing will convince you, because they have a strong enough hold on you to keep you from questioning your beliefs.

Evolution is more than a theory; it is also an observable fact. Denying it is like denying gravity.

Ok then, what did other species need it for?

Sorry for the double post; previous primate or other mammalian species may have needed it for dealing with infections, similar to how our tonsil's get filled with whatever throat virus we have, to make it easier for our immune system to kill it. However, in modern times, for the past tens of thousands of years, humans have had no need for the appendix at all. With the advent of both modern cooking (i.e. with fire) to kill germs, we also have stronger immune systems that don't require an appendix to help deal with infection at all.

It's a purely useless structure for us.

As for the tail bone; some children are STILL being born today with hairless tails just like a monkey! We remove them, of course, but it just goes to show that we are very strongly related to our chimp cousins. The tail bone itself has certainly lost a lot of its function, but we still require it, since many major muscle groups in the vicinity of the tail bone are anchored to it with tendons and ligaments.

Double post merged. -thePianoMan

[Perseus]

As for the tail bone; some children are STILL being born today with hairless tails just like a monkey! We remove them, of course, but it just goes to show that we are very strongly related to our chimp cousins. The tail bone itself has certainly lost a lot of its function, but we still require it, since many major muscle groups in the vicinity of the tail bone are anchored to it with tendons and ligaments.



Are you serious? I saw that on family guy and thought that was a joke.. man that is very weird... But if we did "evolve" from primates, why would we still get a tail if they're obsolute and if we lost them?

[Triceratops]

That's the problem I have with childhood indoctrination. You are from birth forced to prescribe to beliefs that you don't even understand until you are older (about your age NOW) but by this time it's the ONLY opinion or worldview that you've ever been allowed to be exposed to. The final sentence you made sums it up. Nothing will convince you, because they have a strong enough hold on you to keep you from questioning your beliefs.

Like I said, my families beliefs have never influenced my own.
In fact I turned my back on God for about 8 years, I decided for myself that he didn't exist and it was all bullshit. Then I had a "religious experience" whereas the Holy Spirit was very much present. I then considered bringing him back in to my life when I was 14.

Don't get me wrong, not ALL of my family members are Christians. Many of them are Atheists actually. They're the ones who try to force me into their beliefs more than my Christian family members. I'm very independant and make my own choices, I never took anyone's ideas and views into consideration as I felt I could decide them by myself. I'm always exposed to "God's a fucking lie!" and all this crap, barely anyone I know believes that God exists, they think the Big Bang is real instead. I know a lot of Christians will try and shove their beliefs down your throat, and so will many Atheists. They're both in the wrong at that.

Honestly, anyone who knows me well enough will KNOW for a fact that I don't follow anything my family does or says whatsoever.

[Halibut]

obviously or how would the world grow and well ..evolve lol...if that makes sense

[INFERNO]

Ok then, what did other species need it for?

Probably for digestion of other foods we tend to not eat, such as grass, and had some immune function.

Are you serious? I saw that on family guy and thought that was a joke.. man that is very weird... But if we did "evolve" from primates, why would we still get a tail if they're obsolute and if we lost them?

I believe you said before you were or are in biology at some grade level. I'm not sure what level you are in but look up teratology, study of birth defects and malformations. There are countless mutations that happen in humans, ranging from "cyclops" (yes they existed both in humans and mythology), conjointed twins, and some rather unusual ones such as sirenomelia (aka mermaid syndrome). Part of the course for 2nd year university genetics is reading a book, which I suggest you look into, called Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body by Marie Armand Leroi. It's not a textbook but rather a novel regarding the history, pictures, and cellular and genetic mechanisms for certain genetic disorders.

The tails aren't absolutely lost. During embryonic development, a "tail", or simply an extension of the sacral region is present at around 13 weeks but at 15 weeks it begins to go away and 21 weeks is completely gone. So, in essence, normal adults tend to have no tail, however, all humans do develop one and progressively lose it. The explanations could involve the lovely topic of evolution: our ancestors had a tail and we develop it and lose it because it serves no purpose. Here's a nice research article detailing the human embyros I mentioned:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/101525449/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Furthermore, if we examine the coccyx, we find evidence that they were once seperate but now are fused into one. The evidence for this are little lines or ridges that represents the previously individual vertebrae. Here's a very basic, crude summary. The pictures on that website are rather pathetic but they get the job done.
http://www.josephmaroon.com/anatomy.htm

You can also notice on yourself that there are muscles involved with the tailbone, or coccyx area, such as the gluteus maximus, sphincter muscles, etc... . I haven't read all of this article although most of it seems fairly decent. I don't agree with people say the coccyx is the only skeletal part with no function, that's absolute bullshit in my opinion. Anyways, here's the article (taken from a book called "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional by Dr. Jerry Bergman and Dr. George Howe:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html

[CaptainObvious]

The vermiform appendix is thought to be remnants of additional intestine from back in the day when we ate more plants. Plants contain cellulose, which makes them much harder to digest; herbivores have correspondingly longer digestive tracts. As we have evolved our diet has steadily included less plants, and therefore the organ has become vestigial. There are other theories as well, but that is the widely accepted one.

[TigerLily]

I'm not sure about it myself but it sounds plausible - think of all the animal instincts that make up human nature. Idk, I don't think religion and evolution are mutually exclusive either though. I'm not decided. Plus, I'm somewhere between Christian and agnostic atm so the whole religion/God thing is becoming confusing for me.

[Mzor203]

Like I said, my families beliefs have never influenced my own.
In fact I turned my back on God for about 8 years, I decided for myself that he didn't exist and it was all bullshit. Then I had a "religious experience" whereas the Holy Spirit was very much present. I then considered bringing him back in to my life when I was 14.

Don't get me wrong, not ALL of my family members are Christians. Many of them are Atheists actually. They're the ones who try to force me into their beliefs more than my Christian family members. I'm very independant and make my own choices, I never took anyone's ideas and views into consideration as I felt I could decide them by myself. I'm always exposed to "God's a fucking lie!" and all this crap, barely anyone I know believes that God exists, they think the Big Bang is real instead. I know a lot of Christians will try and shove their beliefs down your throat, and so will many Atheists. They're both in the wrong at that.

Honestly, anyone who knows me well enough will KNOW for a fact that I don't follow anything my family does or says whatsoever.


I have one thing to say that is, even though you may have had this experience, how do you know that it's the Christian God which is right? If you were brought up in a Muslim environment, you'd probably turn to the Muslim God when you had this 'religious experience'. It's still bias because you have been surrounded by it and exposed to it for most of your life. Don't get me wrong, I'm not aattacking you, but I think even if you DID have a religious experience, you should be more open minded because, maybe God did allow species to all develop independantly and humans just happened.

Now, for evolution. I am a firm believer in it. Some things can never really be proven for sure, like where exactly humans came from. Scientists make mistakes, shit happens, etc. But I KNOW for a fact that evolution exists. Let's take an example.

We know that genes are passed on from generation to generation. Pretend we have a population of beetles that live in a forest. There are birds that prey on the beetles. Half the beetles are brown, and half of them are bright blue.

Now, the brown beetles blend in nicely with the bark of the trees in the forest. The blue beetles, however, stand out. The birds do their thing, and when mating season comes around, 3/4ths of the beetles are brown, and only 1/4th are blue. Since there are a much larger amount of brown beetle genes in the population, the next generation of beetles is predominantly brown.

Now, the birds keep preying on the beetles. Pretty soon, about 99% of the population are brown beetles. That is natural selection right there. A type of evolution. If you think that doesn't exist and doesn't happen in the world, your logic is a bit flawed. Okay, more than a bit. Anyway, changes like that in a population is what ends upp causing reproductive barriers in species over time and eventually creating new species. While the beetles were getting picked off, there could be many more internal changes taking place that would affect their chance for survival.

That said, evolution is pretty much a fact of life. But, that doesn't mean all our evolutionary questions and problems are solved. Theories can be made, conclusions can be arrived at, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep an open mind and always be ready to formulate your own hypotheses.

Anyway, that's my rant. Evolution is there, it just happens. You can see it in humans, even. The darker color of the skin of people who live in hotter places like Africa are simply an adaption made to have better sun protection. If you can't accept it... well, maybe you need to open your mind a little more.

This is not meant as a jab towards anyone. I'm simply laying out the facts.

[Stevo 69]

An example of evolution:

People are always asking which came first - the chicken or the egg? Well the theorectical answer is the chicken as it is a species of bird and birds evolved from the teredactil (dinasour that could fly).

[Dagenadriel]

An example of evolution:

People are always asking which came first - the chicken or the egg? Well the theorectical answer is the chicken as it is a species of bird and birds evolved from the teredactil (dinasour that could fly).

I'd heard that they evolved from T-rex :what:

[ThatCanadianGuy]

An example of evolution:

People are always asking which came first - the chicken or the egg? Well the theorectical answer is the chicken as it is a species of bird and birds evolved from the teredactil (dinasour that could fly).

That's actually... almost completely wrong.

Birds didn't evolve from pterodactyl's, which aren't even dinosaurs, they are pterosaurs (flying reptiles).

Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which includes big names such as Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor.

The egg came first... fish etc. layed eggs even before the evolution of amphibians or lizards (if you wanna go back that far). But yes, theropod dinosaurs were laying eggs before they evolved into species such as archaeopterix (one of the first true "birds").

[Perseus]

How did birds evolve from dead things? What did theropods evolve before the magical meteor hit the Earth?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

How did birds evolve from dead things? What did theropods evolve before the magical meteor hit the Earth?

Seriously, you need to actually read and UNDERSTAND what evolution is before you make blatantly ignorant statements like that. Certain species of theropod dinosaurs evolved over time into new species such as archaeopterix which would eventually lead to many other species etc. until the birds we see today.

Don't also butcher the whole asteroid-impact hypothesis. If you've actually studied things such as the KT boundary you'd know that we've actually verified beyound doubt that an asteroid impact contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs. We've even found the crater from that impact, which is partly submerged in the atlantic ocean off the coast of the Yucatan peninsula.

Go to wikipedia, look up evolution of birds. Better yet; I'll make it easier for you, here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

[Perseus]

Yes, Im aware were the meteor impact is Im not stupid, I said magical because it killed all the dinasaurs, sorry if it made look like I didn't believe somthing when there is evidence.
And I shall read what is on wiki because Im an open minded Christian.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Im an open minded Christian.

Congratulations on being the first! Sorry for the low blow :D

The more you read and learn about the facts, the easier it is to understand why evolution and many other facets of science are valid and really not open for debate (that's right, there is no "debate" amongst reputable scientists over whether evolution is valid. Its more than a theory, its OCCURRENCE is a visible FACT).

[Perseus]

The thing is, I believe in some parts of evolution i.e. Mammoths migrated to Siberia and over time adapted to this enviroment and grew hair. That makes a lot of since, but I dont see how a reptile could grow feathers like that wiki thing said, or I just didn't pay attention right.

[INFERNO]

An example of evolution:

People are always asking which came first - the chicken or the egg? Well the theorectical answer is the chicken as it is a species of bird and birds evolved from the teredactil (dinasour that could fly).

WRONG.

Birds evolved during the Jurassic Period from theropod dinosaurs (bipedal saurischian dinosaurs), which were from the Order Saurischia. Pterodactyls were from the Order Pterosauria. Two completely different species.

DaTrooper00, if many of the same species has a certain common feature, it's likely that feature does something. It's there for a reason(s). With the feathered dinosaur, the feathers must do some function(s), such as insulation, waterproofing or courtship display, etc... . There are 3 main theories that suggest how feathers and flight on birds came to be: 1) Pouncing Proavis model (1999) , 2) Cursorial model (1879) , 3) Arboreal model (1880).

The Pouncing Proavis model suggests that the feathers and limb modifications in current birds resulted from the reptilian dinosaurs leaping out of trees or off of high areas to pounce on some prey. They had to deal with overcoming drag and getting lift, so the limbs evolved to increase their body control while in the air. Eventually, lift mechanisms were selected for and the birds' limbs modified so they could swoop and fly.

The feathers could have resulted from reptilian scales modifying, although that theory has a great deal of debate, but the other theory is that the cylinder part of the feather (the thicker cylinder part) evolved from a follicle, and the rest of the feather came by the cylinder longitudinally splitting to form a webbing. All together, it's a feather. The colour co-ordinations are most likely due to sexual selection.

The various stuffs was from http://www.wikipedia.org

Birds also have rather unique structures such as crops and gizzards, which you can google as their definitions aren't too hard to understand.

As ThatCanadianGuy said, you need to understand evolution first, and hopefully some basics of anatomy and physiology. We can answer your questions but if you learn the concepts first, it'd be easier to understand and appreciate the beauty of it.

DaTrooper00, this is really where understanding evolution and biology come into play. For starters, think small, think cells, proteins, etc... . Our bones are made from various osseous tissues and various types of cells. To understand how the feathers or scales got there, you have to think where they came from. Cell & microbiology goes into enormous details, and you can figure out how they came about.

A simpler way to think about it, goes back to the model I explained before. Scales are heavy for flying, create more drag, less lift, etc... . Feathers are a way to help solve those problems. It's also possible that a mutation occurred in one indiviudal, which resulted in feathers and was beneficial, so was selected for. Random mutations can cause numerous possible outcomes. Sometimes they're beneficial, many times they're not.

Being open-minded will help in learning about evolution, then with more evolution knowledge and biology knowledge, you can answer more questions, ask different questions, answer your own or others questions, etc... . Or, just appreciate the beauty and sheer magnificance of humans and such.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

WRONG.

Birds evolved during the Jurassic Period from theropod dinosaurs (bipedal saurischian dinosaurs), which were from the Order Saurischia. Pterodactyls were from the Order Pterosauria. Two completely different species.

DaTrooper00, if many of the same species has a certain common feature, it's likely that feature does something. It's there for a reason(s). With the feathered dinosaur, the feathers must do some function(s), such as insulation, waterproofing or courtship display, etc... . There are 3 main theories that suggest how feathers and flight on birds came to be: 1) Pouncing Proavis model (1999) , 2) Cursorial model (1879) , 3) Arboreal model (1880).

The Pouncing Proavis model suggests that the feathers and limb modifications in current birds resulted from the reptilian dinosaurs leaping out of trees or off of high areas to pounce on some prey. They had to deal with overcoming drag and getting lift, so the limbs evolved to increase their body control while in the air. Eventually, lift mechanisms were selected for and the birds' limbs modified so they could swoop and fly.

The feathers could have resulted from reptilian scales modifying, although that theory has a great deal of debate, but the other theory is that the cylinder part of the feather (the thicker cylinder part) evolved from a follicle, and the rest of the feather came by the cylinder longitudinally splitting to form a webbing. All together, it's a feather. The colour co-ordinations are most likely due to sexual selection.

The various stuffs was from http://www.wikipedia.org

Birds also have rather unique structures such as crops and gizzards, which you can google as their definitions aren't too hard to understand.

As ThatCanadianGuy said, you need to understand evolution first, and hopefully some basics of anatomy and physiology. We can answer your questions but if you learn the concepts first, it'd be easier to understand and appreciate the beauty of it.

DaTrooper00, this is really where understanding evolution and biology come into play. For starters, think small, think cells, proteins, etc... . Our bones are made from various osseous tissues and various types of cells. To understand how the feathers or scales got there, you have to think where they came from. Cell & microbiology goes into enormous details, and you can figure out how they came about.

A simpler way to think about it, goes back to the model I explained before. Scales are heavy for flying, create more drag, less lift, etc... . Feathers are a way to help solve those problems. It's also possible that a mutation occurred in one indiviudal, which resulted in feathers and was beneficial, so was selected for. Random mutations can cause numerous possible outcomes. Sometimes they're beneficial, many times they're not.

Being open-minded will help in learning about evolution, then with more evolution knowledge and biology knowledge, you can answer more questions, ask different questions, answer your own or others questions, etc... . Or, just appreciate the beauty and sheer magnificance of humans and such.

QFT

Here's the kindergarten version (to help explain the scales thing). Evolving feathers from scales isn't that hard to grasp. Look at them; they are just VERY light and aerodynamic scales. It's clear to see their origins as a heavier form of "skin" or even armour in some cases. Even look at birds feet, they are clearly analogous to theropod dinosaur legs and have SCALES on them!

[Perseus]

Birds have scales on their feet?

[Ninja Noob]

If birds and other animals have evolved, why not humans? Or do you think that some higher being used his little magic wand to make them evolve? I don't believe that. Like anything on this earth, IT EVOLVES, it get's more complex! That's how it is. Now, if you want to believe someone made this happen out of no where and that science is totally false, go ahead. But guess what, religion = faith and belief and science = proven fact and nearly proven theories.

Birds have scales on their feet?
Yes sir, they do.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9669/birdwithscales.jpg

[Stevo 69]

I see that my theory is wrong, sorry but i was told that birds evolved from teredactils by a teacher at school. Dam obviously teachers don't know everything.

Although I still believe in evolution.



If birds and other animals have evolved, why not humans? Or do you think that some higher being used his little magic wand to make them evolve? I don't believe that. Like anything on this earth, IT EVOLVES, it get's more complex!

Well in theory we have, people say we evolved from monkeys - we have certainly evolved as we have tailbones but we have no actual tails.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I see that my theory is wrong, sorry but i was told that birds evolved from teredactils by a teacher at school. Dam obviously teachers don't know everything.

Although I still believe in evolution.





Well in theory we have, people say we evolved from monkeys - we have certainly evolved as we have tailbones but we have no actual tails.

Yep; that's a hard fact we all have to learn; ALL of the grown ups usually don't know anything! Especially the ones trying to take evolution out of schools and replace it with the non-science of intelligent design (which is creationism in a pretend-to-look-smart package).

[Perseus]

The non-science intelligent design?
In my school you're not aloud to mention God becaus they dont want to "offend" anyone, so I highly doubt my school has done that.

[dyslexiaa]

I already stated I'm a believer in evolution, but I'll just throw some questions out there for the e-scientists to figure out.

What required the development of two separate genders?

What required the development of morality and consciousness?

What were the original conditions that caused life to begin?

What would a living organism that can form itself from only non-living conditions be?

What evidence, to an evolutionist, could prove it to be false?

Just throwing some things out there..

On a side note:

I've been noticing a trend of athiests here bashing Christianity. I found the 'childhood indoctrination' comment a hilarious way to point out bias when most athiests here only address the Christian God, not theism in general. Remember kids, knowledge is power!

[Dagenadriel]

"What were the original conditions that caused life to begin?"

I can answer that. There was a small part in "A brief history of time" which I read FOR FUN :eek: , about that.
It is hypothesized to have happened in a small, hot, electrified pool. It would require an atmosphere devoid of oxygen (which be supplied by plants later), to stop oxidization, and to allow UV rays through. This could potentially create a "Macromolecule" which have have the ability to copy themselves, and voila, life.
This could be horribly wrong, It was only 3 paragraphs near the end of the book, I don't remember it very well.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

"What were the original conditions that caused life to begin?"

I can answer that. There was a small part in "A brief history of time" which I read FOR FUN :eek: , about that.
It is hypothesized to have happened in a small, hot, electrified pool. It would require an atmosphere devoid of oxygen (which be supplied by plants later), to stop oxidization, and to allow UV rays through. This could potentially create a "Macromolecule" which have have the ability to copy themselves, and voila, life.
This could be horribly wrong, It was only 3 paragraphs near the end of the book, I don't remember it very well.

That's about right (very simplified of course). We go from these self-replicating molecules to eventually strands of very primitive RNA molecules. By the time we have DNA, its truely time to say, voila: life.

[HeatherBreannaa]

Yes, I do believe in evolution.

There is well founded scientific evidence to back it up.

Plus, it's already the accepted theory in biology.

It makes sense to me. I'm pretty science-minded though...

[Jesse]

I already stated I'm a believer in evolution, but I'll just throw some questions out there for the e-scientists to figure out.

What required the development of two separate genders?
To help keep species more 'uniform'. With asexual reproduction, you just use your own genes to reproduce, never adding your genes to the gene pool. So the species as a whole never really evolves, more just grows distant from each other over time, 'till there's a new species.
If you have two genders, those can reproduce with others of the opposite gender, thus adding their genes to the gene pool, and allowing the species to evolve as a whole, without too much 'empty' space between beings.


What required the development of morality and consciousness?
Helps us hunt. If we're conscious, we can think & plan attacks out. Morality developed to help the species survive, it's only moral to help a hurt person out, so they don't die.


What were the original conditions that caused life to begin?
(Already answered in an above post)


What would a living organism that can form itself from only non-living conditions be?
An extremophile (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile )
Extremophiles are organisms that thrive in otherwise un-hospitable places. Places that we would NEVER expect to find life.


What evidence, to an evolutionist, could prove it to be false?
Exactly, what evidence? We've already observed extremophiles living in magma/lava, and in solid ice. There is no evidence against it, so therefore it can't be false.


(The last two questions I didn't fully 'get', so sorry if I gave the wrong answers. :p )

[dyslexiaa]

Helps us hunt. If we're conscious, we can think & plan attacks out. Morality developed to help the species survive, it's only moral to help a hurt person out, so they don't die.

Reasonable enough, but I feel that it still doesn't fully explain the development of culture, language, and art. Then you have to ask what degree of consciousness we have over other animals and if consciousness is a valuable asset, why not one other species had evolved to this level of consciousness over the billions of years. The morality of humans seems like more of a gimp than an advantage.

Exactly, what evidence? We've already observed extremophiles living in magma/lava, and in solid ice. There is no evidence against it, so therefore it can't be false.

The point I was trying to bring up is that it's extremely hard to test evolution objectively and until it can't be tested objectively, it still is a theory.

Extremophiles are organisms that thrive in otherwise un-hospitable places. Places that we would NEVER expect to find life.

Is there any evidence that extremophiles came directly from a non-living source? I understand that they can survive in un-hospitable places, but how did they come about from rocks, water, and the atmosphere?

To help keep species more 'uniform'. With asexual reproduction, you just use your own genes to reproduce, never adding your genes to the gene pool. So the species as a whole never really evolves, more just grows distant from each other over time, 'till there's a new species.
If you have two genders, those can reproduce with others of the opposite gender, thus adding their genes to the gene pool, and allowing the species to evolve as a whole, without too much 'empty' space between beings.

Isn't that evolution anyways? I'm finding it hard to believe that cells evolved for the sake of evolution and even if they did, what did the first sexual cell have to reproduce with?

[Jesse]

Reasonable enough, but I feel that it still doesn't fully explain the development of culture, language, and art. Then you have to ask what degree of consciousness we have over other animals and if consciousness is a valuable asset, why not one other species had evolved to this level of consciousness over the billions of years. The morality of humans seems like more of a gimp than an advantage.





The point I was trying to bring up is that it's extremely hard to test evolution objectively and until it can't be tested objectively, it still is a theory.
And a damn good theory might I add. Certainly better than the 'It was just placed there' theory



Is there any evidence that extremophiles came directly from a non-living source? I understand that they can survive in un-hospitable places, but how did they come about from rocks, water, and the atmosphere?
Nope. Very hard to (With today's technology) observe atoms randomly crashing into each-other to form molecules, and then those molecules forming randomly into complex chains of amino acids. (Very short chains might I add, only like 2-3 'links' long (Where a link is 3 molecules attached together)) (If you throw out the universe being finite and make it infinite) You can (Plausibly) have an unlimited amount of 'randomness' thrown into the equation. Yes, life was basically a 'accident' caused by 'randomness'. And out of this randomness different forms of life were created.


Isn't that evolution anyways? I'm finding it hard to believe that cells evolved for the sake of evolution and even if they did, what did the first sexual cell have to reproduce with?
Yes and no. Evolution can help create new species, but it can also make a certain species stronger.
The first sex cells weren't sex cells at all. The first forms of life (Similar to bacteria) used asexual re-production. Really no sex cells required.
Evolution is just basically a series of mutations, the best mutation 'wins'. (Or gets passed down to the next generation, where it really isn't a mutation anymore, it's a advantage)


If you need me to type out a 'shortened' version of the theory of evolution & natural selection, then I will.
Maybe seeing the theory as a whole, rather than just getting bits & pieces from the questions you're asking will help you better understand evolution.

[CaptainObvious]

Reasonable enough, but I feel that it still doesn't fully explain the development of culture, language, and art. Then you have to ask what degree of consciousness we have over other animals and if consciousness is a valuable asset, why not one other species had evolved to this level of consciousness over the billions of years. The morality of humans seems like more of a gimp than an advantage.

Morality seems like a disability than an advantage until you look at people with no morality whatsoever. You might think excessive morality is a problem, but have you ever met someone with absolutely no sense of morals whatsoever? If society were composed of amoral people, it would collapse almost immediately. Thus the evolutionary advantage.

The point I was trying to bring up is that it's extremely hard to test evolution objectively and until it can't be tested objectively, it still is a theory.

Wrong on both counts. Evolution can be tested objectively, and its experimental predictions have been verified. However, that doesn't make it any more than a theory, since a scientific theory means an explanation for why an observed phenomenon occurs. We could see dinosaurs evolve into birds in front of our eyes and evolution would still just be a theory. :P

Isn't that evolution anyways? I'm finding it hard to believe that cells evolved for the sake of evolution and even if they did, what did the first sexual cell have to reproduce with?

Yes, asexual reproduction can result in evolution (by random gene mutation and the like). However, evolution tends to be slower (because there is no sexual recombination of genes), which can be disadvantageous in a rapidly - by an evolutionary time scale, which is long - changing environment.

[Triceratops]

Call me stupid or whatever you wish, but I honestly believe that evolution has just been made up in to something that sounds intelligent by a scientist who's convinced in trying to prove some kind of illusion. If I'm wrong, whatever. I won't force my views onto others.

My overall opinion on this is that if we're so willing to find out whether God exists or not, then we should wait until we die. Seriously, I might sound insane but God is testing mankind to live by him. If we suceed in this and allow him into our lives then we shall go to Heaven for eternal peace. If not, we will be sentenced to Hell. So therefore, afterlife is the only proof to most.

I'm constantly hearing "We were not made by God! Evolution is the reason we exist..." and having it rubbed in my face, yet I don't take it into consideration. A lot of Christians don't get offended when people tell them "God doesn't exist." maybe Extremists do (I'm not an Extremist by they way). Whereas when someone states that God DOES exist, many Atheists get extremely pissed off. But honestly barely any of the Christians I know are mental cases who parade the streets screaming "JESUS LOVES YOU" and taking things way too far. As it's been said before, you hear very little of the Christians who keep themselves to themselves, which is the vast majority of them.

P.S. Did you know that the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, reverted back to Christianity just before he died? Well that's what my science teacher told me anyway.

EDIT: I take back some of the stuff I said in here, so they have been removed from this post.

[dyslexiaa]

I addressed a lot of things in a scatterbrained way, so I apologize.

When I mentioned earlier about the Holy Spirit, it tends to be just Christians who experience spiritual "feelings". Muslims, Hindu's, Buddha's etc do not. Well they might claim to, but take it from someone who actually HAS had a spiritual experience like me.

/facedesk

God reveals himself to different people in different ways. To say that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Taoists, Deists, etc. are wrong makes you just as wrong as they are.

The description of Hell as it is today was influenced by a Catholic church filled with bigotry. The Church is still filled with bigots.

Take a look here, it might open your eyes a bit and help you be more open with things: http://www.tcpc.org/about/8points.cfm

If you need me to type out a 'shortened' version of the theory of evolution & natural selection, then I will.
Maybe seeing the theory as a whole, rather than just getting bits & pieces from the questions you're asking will help you better understand evolution.

I'm taking an honors biology course and I'm a supporter of evolution, so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. The questions I'm throwing out there aren't things I don't know, but things I like to see explanations for, you know?

And a damn good theory might I add. Certainly better than the 'It was just placed there' theory

Evolution explains the growth of life, but it hardly explains how life came about through natural processes. Evolution can be seen, but objectively testing it to make it a law is pretty much impossible.

The first sex cells weren't sex cells at all. The first forms of life (Similar to bacteria) used asexual re-production. Really no sex cells required.

But there are sexual cells. If an asexual cell split through mitosis and the offspring cell had a mutation that made it a cell that required sexual reporoduction, what would that sexually reproducing cell have to reproduce with? Are there cells that reproduce asexually and sexually?

Morality seems like a disability than an advantage until you look at people with no morality whatsoever. You might think excessive morality is a problem, but have you ever met someone with absolutely no sense of morals whatsoever? If society were composed of amoral people, it would collapse almost immediately. Thus the evolutionary advantage.

Dinosaurs got by pretty fine, eh?

We don't know that an amoral human society would collapse. I mean, our skewed moral society is at the top of the food chain.

Wrong on both counts. Evolution can be tested objectively, and its experimental predictions have been verified. However, that doesn't make it any more than a theory, since a scientific theory means an explanation for why an observed phenomenon occurs. We could see dinosaurs evolve into birds in front of our eyes and evolution would still just be a theory.

Can you show me a tested, objective experiment of speciation or macroevolution?

P.S. Did you know that the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, reverted back to Christianity just before he died? Well that's what my science teacher told me anyway.

Darwin's family refuted that actually converted. Darwin said he was Agnostic.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

1)Call me stupid or whatever you wish, but I honestly believe that evolution has just been made up in to something that sounds intelligent by a scientist who's convinced in trying to prove some kind of illusion. If I'm wrong, whatever. I won't force my views onto others.

2)many Atheists get extremely pissed off by that and start ranting about scientific bullshit that probably can't be proved at all.


3)P.S. Did you know that the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, reverted back to Christianity just before he died? Well that's what my science teacher told me anyway.

1) That is completely ridiculous. Evolution is the backbone of biology; without it nearly everything we know about life simply wouldn't make sense. For over 150 years evolution has withstood the most rigorous scrutiny... and WON. You seem to be projecting here, when in fact you're describing what religion does (i.e. enforcing an "illusion" upon people) considering the absolute lack of evidence for your position (that evolution is wrong).

2) That just goes to show how much you actually LISTEN to what we have to say. It's extremely ignorant of you to call rational argumentation "scientific bullshit" which HAS BEEN PROVEN time and again yet you refuse to accept it.

3) P.S. did you know that this story is complete bullshit? It was completely fabricated by a woman called "Lady Hope" (must have been a nun or something) who published Darwin's "deathbed conversion" story in a local newspaper. Charles Darwin's DAUGHTER Henrietta was actually THERE when he died. Lady Hope NEVER saw Darwin on his deathbed. He never recanted his scientific discoveries, and never converted to Christianity. Touché.

[CaptainObvious]

Call me stupid or whatever you wish, but I honestly believe that evolution has just been made up in to something that sounds intelligent by a scientist who's convinced in trying to prove some kind of illusion. If I'm wrong, whatever. I won't force my views onto others.

I believe that you're a perverted 50 year old fat bald man. I mean, I know there's no proof of it (and lots of evidence against), but that hasn't seemed to stop you...

I'm constantly hearing "We were not made by God! Evolution is the reason we exist..." and having it rubbed in my face, yet I don't take it into consideration. A lot of Christians don't get offended when people tell them "God doesn't exist." maybe Extremists do (I'm not an Extremist by they way). Whereas when someone states that God DOES exist, many Atheists get extremely pissed off by that and start ranting about scientific bullshit that probably can't be proved at all. But honestly barely any of the Christians I know are mental cases who parade the streets screaming "JESUS LOVES YOU" and taking things way too far. As it's been said before, you hear very little of the Christians who keep themselves to themselves, which is the vast majority of them.

You are so unqualified in so many ways to judge whether or not these scientific theories are probable, since you seem to have little to no idea what they entail.

When I mentioned earlier about the Holy Spirit, it tends to be just Christians who experience spiritual "feelings". Muslims, Hindu's, Buddha's etc do not. Well they might claim to, but take it from someone who actually HAS had a spiritual experience like me.

P.S. Did you know that the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, reverted back to Christianity just before he died? Well that's what my science teacher told me anyway.

While I was really, really tempted to insult you, I was going to refrain until I got to this part. Are you joking?

First, you have no idea if you have ever had a true spiritual experience. For all you know, someone slipped some cool drugs in your tea.

Second, since you're not a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist you know jack shit about what they feel or don't feel. I'm actually still taken aback you'd even post something like that, since it's such a fucking joke. Do you not understand that the dismissal you heap upon those of other religions can be redirected with exactly as much efficacy towards yours? You claim to not be an extremist, and yet...

As for your science teacher and Darwin, it is not true that Darwin had a deathbed conversion. I know you're probably pretty willing to take things told to you by authority figures at face value (being Christian and all), but don't you think it would've behooved you to at least look it up before repeating it here?

[Franz Duck]

Haha, I knew I'd find something like this on this forum. I don't believe in evolution, I accept it.

[Perseus]

Isn't believing accepting it?
So you dont believe in it, but you accept it?
OK you confused me.

[Franz Duck]

Isn't believing accepting it?
So you dont believe in it, but you accept it?
OK you confused me.

The difference is if you believe something, the technical term is "to accept something without complete evidence." To accept something would because of complete evidence.

[INFERNO]

The difference is if you believe something, the technical term is "to accept something without complete evidence." To accept something would because of complete evidence.

So when someone says they accept god exists, in addition to believing, they have "complete evidence"? Also, what do you mean by "complete evidence"? That a theory is 100% proven or disproven? I'm not fully getting your terminology.

[theOperaGhost]

So when someone says they accept god exists, in addition to believing, they have "complete evidence"? Also, what do you mean by "complete evidence"? That a theory is 100% proven or disproven? I'm not fully getting your terminology.

No theory can be 100% proven (it can be 100% disproven, because a counter-example would automatically disprove something). It is literally impossible to prove a theory 100%. It would take an infinite amount of experimentation to prove something with 100% certainty.

What he is saying is when people accept things like evolution, they have a great amount of evidence, which has been scrutinized.

Believing in God is a belief because there isn't any empirical evidence to support His existence. Does this mean He doesn't exist? No. Nobody can say He doesn't exist; however, it can be said that they don't believe in his existence. A lot of people cannot believe something without empirical evidence. I guess if empirical evidence existed, it would no longer be a belief though, would it?

[INFERNO]

I'm aware a theory cant be 100% proven/disproven, nor was I asking about that. When he said "complete evidence", that is what I was asking about. Ah, so great amount of scrutinized evidence, that makes more sense now. I was assuming that "complete" in terms of this context meant something is there's 100% of it, etc..., which made no sense to me.

I could still be a belief if many people were swayed one way by the empirical evidence, and the belief would be a general acceptance of god's existance. According to dictionary.com:
"1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses."

As the part in bold shows, if there was evidence, there would be some issues of whether it is absolute certainty. So, it still could be a belief as it's not with absolute certainty.

[MykeSoBe]

[Removed by original creator because of low support and falling reputation. Why do I even bother with these debates?]

[Perseus]

OK, Im Christian and I will blow youre beliefs out the window.. sorry..
OK, first of all there is evidence of giant bones that belonged to reptiles for ever ago..
and going to astronomy(my favorite subject)
When a star blows up(supernova), like the previous star before us did(I think), it creates new matter and this giant cloud with rocks and gas in it to form new planets and comets and meteors.
How planets form is something I do not really know, except for the fact that rocks will come together and form a newer substance because they are colliding with each other.
Now, when Earth was premature, there was volcanoes everwhere, just exploding and meteors were coming into Earth like madmen, and I just forgot how water happened.. damn..

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I said that dinosaurs never have existed; I believe they're just a bunch of optical illusions made by Lucifer (the Devil, Satan, whatever you wanna call him), as are many other things. I do believe some parts of science, but definitely not evolution.

Well, I'll leave the debate up to you guys. And no matter how much evidence will go against good old religion, I will never believe science. Science is nothing but the art of going against religious values, at least in my eyes, and will always be.

Merged with "Evolution." -thePianoMan

You are so horribly ignorant, I have no idea what to say. If you are really serious about this, you are quite frankly delusional.

Science is nothing but "the art of going against religious values"?!?!?!

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. If you reject science so much, you might as well destroy your computer, since its an evil creation of science. In fact, leave your house and go live naked in the woods, since EVERYTHING you take for granted wouldn't be here if it wasn't for science or HUMAN ingenuity.

[Sage]

"How would this Earth've been able to have been made? Rocks that big just can't glue themselves together. Even if friction would've helped, it would not have really. What air would there've been for any sparks to melt the rocks, and for oxygen to fuel even a bit?"[/COLOR]

Molten rock, dust, and gravity. Even though the formation of the planet has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

[MykeSoBe]

Molten rock, dust, and gravity. Even though the formation of the planet has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Yes, I know, I was just trying to prove my point that not much evolved specifically from science, at least in my belief. Also, speaking of it, I find it hard to believe that the earliest life forms could've came from oxygen, hydrogen, and all the other stuff they talked about. If that's so then we would still be seeing all sorts of things just falling from the sky and/or coming up outta the ocean. I will not go to Hell just because I refused to believe that God made our world.

I am not saying that you shouldn't believe it. You are an atheist, as it says on your signature (I am NOT trying to be offensive). Go on, go ahead, but I will not lose my faith. I do not know why it was necessary that you took away from my rep power. Just for stating what a person believes, you punish them for it too? Gosh.

You are so horribly ignorant, I have no idea what to say. If you are really serious about this, you are quite frankly delusional.

Science is nothing but "the art of going against religious values"?!?!?!

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. If you reject science so much, you might as well destroy your computer, since its an evil creation of science. In fact, leave your house and go live naked in the woods, since EVERYTHING you take for granted wouldn't be here if it wasn't for science or HUMAN ingenuity.

Did I say I reject all science? No. If you would've read it all, you would see that. I might as well not get myself involved in these debates. Who will support me, relatively no-one. I guess that's the way it has went for most everyone today. I just said it was the art of going against religious values, did I say all values? This is only in certain ways, like in evolution and the making of the world, and of which animals truly have existed. Plus, calm yourself down, please. You could've been a bit nicer towards me. I mean, it's like I don't even say anything specifically towards someone and they attack me like a grizzly bear.

[Camazotz]

Yes, I know, I was just trying to prove my point that not much was made from science, at least in my belief. Also, speaking of it, I find it hard to believe that the earliest life forms could've came from oxygen, hydrogen, and all the other stuff they talked about. If that's so then we would still be seeing all sorts of things just falling from the sky and/or coming up outta the ocean. I will not go to Hell just because I refused to believe that God made our world.

I am not saying that you shouldn't believe it. You are an atheist, as it says on your signature (I am NOT trying to be offensive). Go on, go ahead, but I will not lose my faith. I do not know why it was necessary that you took away from my rep power. Just for stating what a person believes, you punish them for it too?

While I admire your courage to stand up against science, your lack of knowledge is disappointing. Before refusing to accept science, you should learn your facts. To only believe what you want to without looking at the evidence is ignorant.

[MykeSoBe]

OK, Im Christian and I will blow youre beliefs out the window.. sorry..
OK, first of all there is evidence of giant bones that belonged to reptiles for ever ago..
and going to astronomy(my favorite subject)
When a star blows up(supernova), like the previous star before us did(I think), it creates new matter and this giant cloud with rocks and gas in it to form new planets and comets and meteors.
How planets form is something I do not really know, except for the fact that rocks will come together and form a newer substance because they are colliding with each other.
Now, when Earth was premature, there was volcanoes everwhere, just exploding and meteors were coming into Earth like madmen, and I just forgot how water happened.. damn..

Well, I believe astronomy is a good thing pretty much and doesn't interfere much with religious affairs, as religion can be applied to it too. I respect it very much though that you replied to my answer in a very civilized manner, unlike some people on here. Thanks for your kindness.

While I admire your courage to stand up against science, your lack of knowledge is disappointing. Before refusing to accept science, you should learn your facts. To only believe what you want to without looking at the evidence is ignorant.

Well then I guess I'll look more into it. Besides, I've been clinging on to religion for such a long time, I think it's time I listen to what the majority says. It seems like no-one will support me anyways. I admit it, I guess I'm a bit foolish with what I say, saying things randomly like a dumbass. Though I have to note that it is not that I absolutely don't want to believe in evolution and all the other scientific subjects, I'm really afraid as to what God would think of it. :(

Again, I appreciate it that you didn't come at me like a dragon. I surrender on this debate. I will post no more, unless of course someone else remarks against my comment. If you can just delete it. It's pointless and will never make my reputation better on here.

[lamboman43]

Just remember that religion is the art of going against evolutionary values.

[Perseus]

Just remember that religion is the art of going against evolutionary values.

Actually, thats not true because Im religous and I believe some parts of evolution.

[MykeSoBe]

Just remember that religion is the art of going against evolutionary values.

Well that must've been recently because religion existed first then the theory of evolution came along. Of course scientists may say that of course. The theory of evolution is a fairly recent thing and Charles Darwin was hated very much by the Anglican Church because he defied their beliefs. No offense intended.

[Sage]

religion existed first then the theory of evolution came along.

That has nothing to do with anything. If anything, it's an argument against yourself. The problem with religion is that it is static- It claims to has all the answers and never changes in the face of new evidence. Science, however, is willing to adapt, change, and refine its theories.

[Oblivion]

religion existed first then the theory of evolution came along

There wasn't the need for the theory of evolution until religion came along.
People weren't consumed with knowing how everything came to be, so neither was needed until thought process became more complex and people needed answers.
After that, people in general chose the easy way out and started to believe a man like creature created the earth.
Then over a thousand years later [supposedly] humans began to think in even more complex ways, and began to wonder if religion was real, so they set off to find what many accept to be the truth [the theory of evolution].

[Prince_of_Peace]

The problem with the atheist is he dislikes religion because of his disbelief in God. They may agree with the theory of evolution but will not believe in God.

An atheist can not PROVE the God does not exist.

To the Atheist, EVERYTHING is created by NOTHING which is insane.

[INFERNO]

The problem with the atheist is he dislikes religion because of his disbelief in God. They may agree with the theory of evolution but will not believe in God.

An atheist can not PROVE the God does not exist.

To the Atheist, EVERYTHING is created by NOTHING which is insane.

And a christian cannot PROVE the God does exist.

To the Atheist, EVERYTHING is created by some invisible man up in the sky who wrote a book full of contradictions that most of his believers tend to ignore, which is insane.

The atheist has a variety of reasons. Seeing as how you are not an atheist, either you've talked to many, which I doubt, or you're generalizing random nonsense.

And a Christian will not accept evolution yet believe in God.

It's just flipping a coin; you call 1 side, I call the other.

[Prince_of_Peace]

I am a Christian and I believe that evolution.

I would hope so that you can provide some facts that God does not exist.

I will then prove to you that EVERYTHING is created by GOD...and that evolution is not created our of NOTHING. (Deschain, INFERNON does not need your help on this)

[INFERNO]

I am a Christian and I believe that evolution.

I would hope so that you can provide some facts that God does not exist.

I will then prove to you that EVERYTHING is created by GOD...and that evolution is not created our of NOTHING. (Deschain, INFERNON does not need your help on this)

You believe that evolution...? Lost your train of thought there?

I would hope so that you can provide some facts that God does exist.

You can do that, however, before you start, you will fail. We do not know everything there is to know, therefore, your "proof" will automatically fail because without knowing everything, perhaps there is a proof that god does not exist. Also, because we don't know everything, you will have to prove certain things that we do not yet know of yet god created.

And spell my username properly. It's in capital letters, so it shouldn't be that hard to spell properly.

[Prince_of_Peace]

MY PROOF THAT GOD EXIST: Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Rich Deem
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I REST MY CASE - Thank you all.

[INFERNO]

You've posted this exact same stuff in another thread. This doesn't prove that god exists. It proves that some of the scientists were using what was the social domination at the time, religion, or that they too believed. I fail to see how this is proof that god exists. It shows that random scientists happened to believe, and they amazingly, never proved god exists. They may have been religious but that's where it ends. Get some half-decent proof that actually attempts to go with your proof that god exists.

If anything, these scientists show the advances of science. Is that how you mean to prove god? If so, it doesn't because never once was it addressed by these scientists to prove god exists as that was never their end result.

[Prince_of_Peace]

Early in his life Einstein came to refer to God as "cosmic intelligence" which he did not think of in a personal but in a "super-personal" way, for, as he learned from Spinoza, the term "personal" when applied to human beings cannot as such be applied to God. Nevertheless he resorted to the Jewish-Christian way of speaking of God who reveals himself in an ineffable way as truth which is its own certainty. Spinoza held that "truth is its own standard". "Truth is the criterion of itself and of the false, as light reveals itself and darkness," so that "he who has a true idea, simultaneously knows that he has a true idea, and cannot doubt concerning the truth of the thing perceived." Hence once a thing is understood it goes on manifesting itself in the power of its own truth without having to provide for further proof. Thus when God reveals himself to our minds, our understanding of him is carried forward by the intrinsic force of his truth as it continually impinges on our minds and presses for fuller realization within them.

In this way Einstein thought of God as revealing himself in the wonderful harmony and rational beauty of the universe, which calls for a mode of non-conceptual intuitive response in humility, wonder and awe which he associated with science and art. It was particularly in relation to science itself, however, that Einstein felt and cultivated that sense of wonder and awe. Once when Ernest Gordon, Dean of Princeton University Chapel, was asked by a fellow Scot, the photographer Alan Richards, how he could explain Einstein's combination of great intellect with apparent simplicity, he said, "I think it was his sense of reverence." That was very true: Einstein's religious and scientific instinct were one and the same, for behind both it was his reverent intuition for God, his unabated awe at the thoughts of "the Old One", that was predominent.

Although Einstein was not himself a committed Jewish believer he would certainly have agreed with the call of Rabbi Shmuel Boteach today to restore God himself, rather than halacha, as the epicentre of Judaism.

Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
That statement comes from his 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary, but far from being unique, it is reflected in statement after statement he made about science, religion, and God.
Count Kessler once said to him, "Professor! I hear that you are deeply religious." Calmly and with great dignity, Einstein replied, "Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious."

Einstein was certainly no positivist. Here are some other statements Einstein made about this.

By way of the understanding he [the scientist] achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind towards the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God

HOW ON EARTH A SMART GUY LIKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?

[INFERNO]

I honestly see no point in this babble you're posting. This information about Einstein doesn't prove your point one bit. It gives a nice little biography of Einstein, who never proved that God does or does not exist. So I fail to see what any of this has to do with your point.

How can I not believe? Because I find religion, more specifically, christianity to be nonsense. The bible is full of contradictions on just about every single claim that is made in it. I also disagree with the philosophy of going on my knees to beg to some invisible bearded man in the sky who made a random list of bad things, to grant me what I want. Further, I don't like the idea of you confessing and your "sins" are forgiven.

I resort to science, which although it cannot yet answer many questions, it's much better than saying "god did it!".

How can a smart guy like you believe in god?

[alsoknownas]

55% of our DNA comes from Bannannas.

Anything's possible:lol:

[Perseus]

Pricne Joel, please stop doing copypasta.. and site your wiki thing for crying out loud!
And, I, myself am now slight believer in evolution to the point of natural selection and adpation, I do not believe in microevolution.

[Sage]

Pricne Joel, please stop doing copypasta.. and site your wiki thing for crying out loud!
And, I, myself am now slight believer in evolution to the point of natural selection and adpation, I do not believe in microevolution.

Micro/macro evolution are the same thing, you cannot just believe in one or the other. Macro evolution is micro evolution of a substantially greater time period.

Saying you only believe in one is like saying "I believe it's possible to walk ten feet, but impossible to walk ten miles."

[INFERNO]

And, I, myself am now slight believer in evolution to the point of natural selection and adpation, I do not believe in microevolution.

This makes no sense.

[Perseus]

I do not believe that a microscopic organism could over a long time period could gradually get bigger and until it is no logner microcopic and the way I worded is kind of confusing, sorry.

[Oblivion]

Prince Joel, as the common metaphor goes, if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?

Just because intelligent people have been religious, it doesn't mean that it's right, by any means. You have yet to give any proof actually.

[INFERNO]

I do not believe that a microscopic organism could over a long time period could gradually get bigger and until it is no logner microcopic and the way I worded is kind of confusing, sorry.

Why do you believe this? From what I recall, you are a christian yet also are rather interested in evolution and science, so is this your christian beliefs spilling out or do you have a scientific reason for not believing this?

[Perseus]

Both.
I am educated on both topics.
Well, not exactly on evolution.
Okay, here are my reasonings.
Well, as most of us know(actually, that is an understatement), the universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago. Well, the Big Bang cant just happen from nothing and that is where I mainly believe in God becasue it can't jsut happen unless it is a reacurring cycl.
And another reason is like I said, I do not see how a microscopic organism could become larger and larger til it is not microscopic.

[INFERNO]

Both.
I am educated on both topics.
Well, not exactly on evolution.
Okay, here are my reasonings.
Well, as most of us know(actually, that is an understatement), the universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago. Well, the Big Bang cant just happen from nothing and that is where I mainly believe in God becasue it can't jsut happen unless it is a reacurring cycl.
And another reason is like I said, I do not see how a microscopic organism could become larger and larger til it is not microscopic.

What if I were to say the Big Bangs can be in a re-occurring cycle? I also don't see what this has to do with the answer.

You don't get 1 cell to become a human. You get a hell of a lot of cells to go together that replicate themselves and very slowly they act as a unit, slowly building larger and larger organisms. Why do you find that not believable?

[Perseus]

I know, there is a theory and I made a thread about it but onto the topic of this thread...
It seems very illogical to me, I mean(I will probally just repeat myself) it does not seem logical for a microscopic organism to gradualy become bigger because a single celled organism becoming multi-celled, I sorta understand that, but going from microscopic to scales, skin, internal organs, etc does not sound right to me.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I know, there is a theory and I made a thread about it but onto the topic of this thread...
It seems very illogical to me, I mean(I will probally just repeat myself) it does not seem logical for a microscopic organism to gradualy become bigger because a single celled organism becoming multi-celled, I sorta understand that, but going from microscopic to scales, skin, internal organs, etc does not sound right to me.

Well, unfortunately all that this means is that you don't understand why this is NOT "illogical". It's still an argument from ignorance of the facts, and with a greater knowledge of the specifics of the topic (i.e. how single-celled organisms eventually lead to primitive multi-cellular organisms) you'll find it as easy to accept as the rest of us.

As for Joel, there isn't much I can say here. You've proven nothing, besides affirming the fact that most scientists that lived several HUNDRED YEARS AGO were Christian, since at that time it could literally mean your LIFE if you were not a Christian.

Take a look at the figures now; how many devoutly religious scientists have you ever heard of in THIS century. The only one I can name is Ken Miller, who SUPPORTS evolution and debunks intelligent design because it isn't science. He seems to just be a very wishy-washy catholic to me, and I don't know of any other well-known scientists that are Christian TODAY.

[roof]

This a general debate on evolution. I would like to say I dont believe in it because if we evolved from primates(1. why didnt they all disappear and (2. if we did, why did we lose 2 chromsomes? All opinions and theories welcomed. If you can, please explain why you believe what you believe. Sorry if duplicated thread or if this belongs w/ Religion.

I have a feeling that you should investigate evolution more from a scientific standpoint because it seems that you don't know enough about both sides of the argument to make a rational decision.

[Perseus]

Mr Roof, if you have seen my latest posts, you would have seen that I believe more than I did a month ago.

[INFERNO]

I know, there is a theory and I made a thread about it but onto the topic of this thread...
It seems very illogical to me, I mean(I will probally just repeat myself) it does not seem logical for a microscopic organism to gradualy become bigger because a single celled organism becoming multi-celled, I sorta understand that, but going from microscopic to scales, skin, internal organs, etc does not sound right to me.

OK, you're getting part of it right. I know you do believe in evolution more but with more education in it, it will make more sense. Anyways, the part you got right is that it's a gradual change. But, it doesn't go simply from microscopic to scales, etc... . You've jumped many stages. It slowly begins acting like a unit and that unit can adapt or evolve.

As for an organism becoming multicelled, here's an extremely general and easy way of looking at it. You have Cell A and Cell B. Both have plasma membranes. These membranes are riddled with proteins, carbohydrates, etc... . When these 2 cells "bind", the various proteins and other molecules fit into the grooves of each other. Now, due to how close together these 2 cells are, if we affect Cell A, that can affect Cell B. How? Well, one way is if Cell A is doing some internal process then it can release various molecules, such as ions. These ions go out of the protein channels in the membrane. As you will learn if you continue with biology, specifically microbiology, if the channel opens, it changes shape. This seems very intuitive. If it changes shape, something binds to it. That something can cause another near-by protein that is bonded to one of Cell B's membrane proteins to change. Maybe it performs an activity, maybe it releases a chemical onto that protein. Cell B's membrane channel can open and the molecules from Cell A may enter.

This very simple concept is a rather crude form of a multicellular organism. It also shows, the cells can act as a unit. To show how it can act as a unit, comsider nerve cells in the heart.

These cells are bonded very very close, so, as said above, a change in 1 can change another. What happens here is the membrane potential can depolarize (become more positive). Because of how close these cells are, if Cell A depolarizes, those molecules leave Cell A and go to Cell B, which depolarizes and so forth. In this sense, they act as a unit, similar to how a multicellular organism may.

It's a bit hard to explain this via text, so hopefully I made it clear without getting into too much details.

[roof]

MY PROOF THAT GOD EXIST: Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Rich Deem
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I REST MY CASE - Thank you all.

A ton of these people were theists not christians or monotheists meaning that they believed there was a creator but cannot interfere with the current state of the universe. The "god" they believed in is much different than the monotheistic "personal" god that listens to prayers etc. What's more, many of the scientists didn't care about "god" because it made no difference to worship a god that can't help you.

[Random_oso06]

I know, there is a theory and I made a thread about it but onto the topic of this thread...
It seems very illogical to me, I mean(I will probally just repeat myself) it does not seem logical for a microscopic organism to gradualy become bigger because a single celled organism becoming multi-celled, I sorta understand that, but going from microscopic to scales, skin, internal organs, etc does not sound right to me.

didn't they clone an animal from a cell the got from the original animal

[ThatCanadianGuy]

didn't they clone an animal from a cell the got from the original animal

Basically they cloned the first sheep by taking an unfertilized egg and "artificially fertilized" it with the remaining chromosomes that it needed to start dividing and growing into a NEW baby sheep that had the exact same genetic makeup.

[Perseus]

OK, you're getting part of it right. I know you do believe in evolution more but with more education in it, it will make more sense. Anyways, the part you got right is that it's a gradual change. But, it doesn't go simply from microscopic to scales, etc... . You've jumped many stages. It slowly begins acting like a unit and that unit can adapt or evolve.

As for an organism becoming multicelled, here's an extremely general and easy way of looking at it. You have Cell A and Cell B. Both have plasma membranes. These membranes are riddled with proteins, carbohydrates, etc... . When these 2 cells "bind", the various proteins and other molecules fit into the grooves of each other. Now, due to how close together these 2 cells are, if we affect Cell A, that can affect Cell B. How? Well, one way is if Cell A is doing some internal process then it can release various molecules, such as ions. These ions go out of the protein channels in the membrane. As you will learn if you continue with biology, specifically microbiology, if the channel opens, it changes shape. This seems very intuitive. If it changes shape, something binds to it. That something can cause another near-by protein that is bonded to one of Cell B's membrane proteins to change. Maybe it performs an activity, maybe it releases a chemical onto that protein. Cell B's membrane channel can open and the molecules from Cell A may enter.

This very simple concept is a rather crude form of a multicellular organism. It also shows, the cells can act as a unit. To show how it can act as a unit, comsider nerve cells in the heart.

These cells are bonded very very close, so, as said above, a change in 1 can change another. What happens here is the membrane potential can depolarize (become more positive). Because of how close these cells are, if Cell A depolarizes, those molecules leave Cell A and go to Cell B, which depolarizes and so forth. In this sense, they act as a unit, similar to how a multicellular organism may.

It's a bit hard to explain this via text, so hopefully I made it clear without getting into too much details.

See, I understand that and it makes sense to me, but micoscopic organisms getting non-microscopic does not make sense to me.

[INFERNO]

See, I understand that and it makes sense to me, but micoscopic organisms getting non-microscopic does not make sense to me.

Well, if you understand that then it's basically more and more and more cells working together (in unison) and eventually the organism of non-microscopic. I don't get why or how you understand the stuff I said before yet this issue makes no sense to you because it's what I typed before just involving more cells.

[Perseus]

So, you re saying htat cells morph together to make bigger cells, that eventually over say a billion years, the multi-celled organism take the form of a prehistoric jellyfish?
See, that is wehre it doesn't make sense. A cell gradually getting bigger and then all the cells combined make up a specific part, like our bodies. Oh my God.. I think I just confused myself even more.. yay for me..

[ThatCanadianGuy]

So, you re saying htat cells morph together to make bigger cells, that eventually over say a billion years, the multi-celled organism take the form of a prehistoric jellyfish?
See, that is wehre it doesn't make sense. A cell gradually getting bigger and then all the cells combined make up a specific part, like our bodies. Oh my God.. I think I just confused myself even more.. yay for me..

This may help you:

v6Rlu9rWTwI

[INFERNO]

So, you re saying htat cells morph together to make bigger cells, that eventually over say a billion years, the multi-celled organism take the form of a prehistoric jellyfish?
See, that is wehre it doesn't make sense. A cell gradually getting bigger and then all the cells combined make up a specific part, like our bodies. Oh my God.. I think I just confused myself even more.. yay for me..

Well, it's not simply cells joining together. As shown from ThatCanadianGuy's video, mutations can occur or cells can possess certain molecules. The cells don't always get bigger and bigger. They join together or interact together in some way, and as more and more come, they can act as one large unit with multiple functions. Certain mutations occur and evolution can allow the cells to undergo different processes.

Think about tissues in humans. Those are simply numerous cells that work together to produce certain functions by acting as a unit. They may undergo mutations, they may undergo evolution and change shape.

As the video showed, cells replicate but the process of cytokinesis (dividing of cytoplasm) is halted. The cells replicate and they stay together to form a multicellular organism. That is what I'm trying to explain: there's no need for the cells to grow bigger then join, they can possess certain molecules that can enable them to join together. I tried to take an approach from a more microbiological view, which, if you don't know too much microbiology, it may have confused you.

Depending on the environment or certain cellular processes or mutations, yes, the cells could have produced a multicellular organism of a pre-historic jellyfish or in humans, they can be specialized to make certain tissues.

[Perseus]

Yeah,that makes plenty of sense now.
I just confused myself when I said we are made up of cells(which we are, I know that, Im not stupid)