Created by gwho
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Do You Believe in Evolution?
543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / LA
Offline
Posted 6/6/08
There is a discussion thread on the general section, but i thought i'd create a poll to get a good feel for numbers =)
2680 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / Ivalice
Offline
Posted 6/6/08
Sometimes yes... sometimes no
2132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 6/6/08
Well, I don't know about believing when Frontier Science Feb 2008 Edition just dismiss the theory as merely a illusionary myth because it has only a "1 over 1 raised to the 88" chnace of happening which exceed the number of atoms in the universe!! Although they don't banish the possibilities of some species mutating in recent times over again, they did dismiss the story of how the universe began with a bowl of organic soup... so that makes a no for my answer. Big Bang is even more believable than this!!
21455 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Los Noches =]
Offline
Posted 6/6/08
Partly
14158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Coney Island Disc...
Offline
Posted 6/6/08
Yes.
1583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Anywhere but here.
Offline
Posted 6/6/08 , edited 6/6/08
Does anyone have any _scientifically sound_ alternate theories?

Quoted from Wikipedia:

1. In biology the word evolution describes the changes in gene frequencies that occur in populations of living organisms over time. Describing these changes does not address the origin of life: for that, see abiogenesis. The two are commonly and mistakenly conflated. Biological evolution likewise says nothing about cosmology, the Big Bang, or where the universe, galaxy, solar system, or Earth came from.

2. The word "theory" in "the theory of evolution" does not imply doubt in mainstream science about the validity of this theory; the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not the same in a scientific context (see Evolution as theory and fact). A scientific theory is a set of principles which, via logical deduction, explains the observations in nature. The same logical deductions can be made to predict observations before they are made. The theory describing how evolution occurs is a "theory" in the same sense as the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity.

3. Evolution by natural selection is not an entirely random process; the random results of mutation are filtered by the non-random process of natural selection and other non-random mechanisms. On the other hand, some evolutionary changes result from genetic drift, and are entirely random.

4. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, chimpanzees, or any other modern ape (except that humans themselves are considered apes in biology, so technically, this should read: modern apes other than modern humans); instead they share a common ancestor (possibly Sahelanthropus tchadensis) that existed around 7 million years ago in the late Miocene epoch. However, the genera Ardipithecus and Orrorin are alternative candidates for this common ancestor.

5. The process of evolution is not necessarily slow. Millions of years are not required to see evolution, or even to see speciation in action. Indeed, it has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.

6. Evolution does not happen within a single organism: a chimpanzee cannot be born a chimpanzee and turn into a different species within its lifetime. Evolution deals with changes to the gene pool of a population, which accumulate only over generations. Similarly, organisms cannot pass on acquired traits to their offspring; a bodybuilder's children are not born with bigger muscles (but see epigenetics).

7. Evolution is not a progression from "lower" to "higher", and evolution does not require an increase in complexity (see Evolution of complexity). A population can evolve to become simpler, and have a smaller genome — often called "devolution", but that is a misnomer.

8. The theory of evolution does posit "transitional forms"... but not "endpoint forms". That is, every animal, plant, fossil that exists, is an example of a transitional form. Evolution is an eternal and continuous process. (See also List of transitional fossils.)

9. The claim that "almost all mutations are harmful" is false. In fact, most mutations have no noticeable effect. One study gives the average number of mutations that arise in a human conception to be around 128, with an average number of harmful mutations per conception of 1.3.

10. The claim that evolution is not scientific since it cannot be experimentally refuted is invalid. Any number of discoveries could potentially refute the theory of evolution - for example the discovery of a contemporary mammal fossil in ancient rock strata.

11. The claim that evolution makes no meaningful predictions is not true - for example the discovery of the relationship between chromosome 2 and chimpanzee chromosomes at the end of the completion of the human and chimp genome projects was predicted, and makes meaningful sense as evidence of a common ancestor.

12. The characterization of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" (in the sense of "only the fittest organisms will prevail", a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself before dying is considered "fit". If the organism is able to do so on an ongoing basis, it will survive as a species. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".
8056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / iN thE pLacE wHE...
Offline
Posted 6/6/08
partly..^^
2372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / The warmiest loca...
Offline
Posted 6/7/08
Yes.
3612 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
p
Offline
Posted 6/7/08
partly....
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 6/13/08
Yes. There is a lot of evidence.
Posted 6/13/08
Yes, but, quick question, can I still believe in my amazing imaginary sphagetti monster friend if I accept the theory?
1098 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / California
Offline
Posted 6/13/08
Partly
25644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/13/08 , edited 6/13/08

nccssmm wrote:

Well, I don't know about believing when Frontier Science Feb 2008 Edition just dismiss the theory as merely a illusionary myth because it has only a "1 over 1 raised to the 88" chnace of happening which exceed the number of atoms in the universe!! Although they don't banish the possibilities of some species mutating in recent times over again, they did dismiss the story of how the universe began with a bowl of organic soup... so that makes a no for my answer. Big Bang is even more believable than this!!


You do realize that atoms themselves are nearly infinite thus the possiblities are emanciated as such.The theory of evolution was created from the big bang <_<. Photonic energy which then stabilized in gravitational spaced positions.Photonic energy then cools the surface of the planet in this subjected area allowing for an atmosphere to be born.Atmosphere itself is a creation of magentic particles or incase skepticism between Photonic energies or two forces , and as we know it scientifically the Atmosphere is the perennial basis for evolution or life itself.Mainly the theory of life itself is from distortion which in relative cognition .that creation is rather vague, since infinity is prevalent, in so is the potenance of knowing before activism.

Read some Stephen Hawkins books alot better then your Science Frontier Edition crap.
2132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 6/13/08

Bleachloverf wrote:


nccssmm wrote:

Well, I don't know about believing when Frontier Science Feb 2008 Edition just dismiss the theory as merely a illusionary myth because it has only a "1 over 1 raised to the 88" chnace of happening which exceed the number of atoms in the universe!! Although they don't banish the possibilities of some species mutating in recent times over again, they did dismiss the story of how the universe began with a bowl of organic soup... so that makes a no for my answer. Big Bang is even more believable than this!!


You do realize that atoms themselves are nearly infinite thus the possiblities are emanciated as such.The theory of evolution was created from the big bang <_<. Photonic energy which then stabilized in gravitational spaced positions.Photonic energy then cools the surface of the planet in this subjected area allowing for an atmosphere to be born.Atmosphere itself is a creation of magentic particles or incase skepticism between Photonic energies or two forces , and as we know it scientifically the Atmosphere is the perennial basis for evolution or life itself. Mainly the theory of life itself is from distortion which in relative cognition .that creation is rather vague, since infinity is prevalent, in so is the potenance of knowing before activism.


I do realize that one. But It's just so immature to believe(with that probability of happening) that we are what we are now. I mean, thus all of those things happened just by coincidence? If so, there are over 1,000,000,000 events and each have a different probabilities of happening but it happened anyway - if evolution where to be proven, you couldn't just say that this all follow a coincidencial rule.

For example, the human eye with it's complexity and completeness. The way your body is arranged, where your head and brain is and where your heart is and how your entire body is interconnected together, do you just believe that it all develop because of a certain coincidence? Well, pardon me but I do not. The feathers of birds - If evolution really exists, why do feathers never evolve?

By the way, the Atmosphere itself when left alone cannot create life - that's a standard you have to know. Life come from somewhere. For years, scientists tried to create life out of an artificial atmosphere but failed. Still, many of those evolutionists (as they call themselves) implied that it's possible.

And the designs of how atoms follow a cirular path, as well as all the cosmo bodies in the universe, how can there be so much balance when things just appeared by coincidence? There should be some outside forces superior to the universe itself to do that!
25644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/13/08 , edited 6/13/08

nccssmm wrote:


Bleachloverf wrote:


nccssmm wrote:

Well, I don't know about believing when Frontier Science Feb 2008 Edition just dismiss the theory as merely a illusionary myth because it has only a "1 over 1 raised to the 88" chnace of happening which exceed the number of atoms in the universe!! Although they don't banish the possibilities of some species mutating in recent times over again, they did dismiss the story of how the universe began with a bowl of organic soup... so that makes a no for my answer. Big Bang is even more believable than this!!


You do realize that atoms themselves are nearly infinite thus the possiblities are emanciated as such.The theory of evolution was created from the big bang <_<. Photonic energy which then stabilized in gravitational spaced positions.Photonic energy then cools the surface of the planet in this subjected area allowing for an atmosphere to be born.Atmosphere itself is a creation of magentic particles or incase skepticism between Photonic energies or two forces , and as we know it scientifically the Atmosphere is the perennial basis for evolution or life itself. Mainly the theory of life itself is from distortion which in relative cognition .that creation is rather vague, since infinity is prevalent, in so is the potenance of knowing before activism.


I do realize that one. But It's just so immature to believe(with that probability of happening) that we are what we are now. I mean, thus all of those things happened just by coincidence? If so, there are over 1,000,000,000 events and each have a different probabilities of happening but it happened anyway - if evolution where to be proven, you couldn't just say that this all follow a coincidencial rule.

For example, the human eye with it's complexity and completeness. The way your body is arranged, where your head and brain is and where your heart is and how your entire body is interconnected together, do you just believe that it all develop because of a certain coincidence? Well, pardon me but I do not. The feathers of birds - If evolution really exists, why do feathers never evolve?

By the way, the Atmosphere itself when left alone cannot create life - that's a standard you have to know. Life come from somewhere. For years, scientists tried to create life out of an artificial atmosphere but failed. Still, many of those evolutionists (as they call themselves) implied that it's possible.
Did i ever exemplify that i just merely said that atmosphere is the basis read my post more clearly.Exactly but events are caused by a further form of knowance which is why infinity is applicable.Never said it was coincidental either its a basism of fluctuations between knowance and fortitude thats what the universe is.This is why attraction exists for it has knowance and fortitude through that knowance.Everything has an attractional point of view which is caused then by repulsion to balance the indiscresions of the universe.Balance is implied because force is necessary in order for particles to be prolong and excessive.Which is why attractional vantage points and repulsion ones as well both with the light and environmental perception have a take on existentialism.
hat![/quote XD Atoms don't necessarlity follow a circular pattern atoms are in full convulsion.If you use the proper formula of linear automation then Atoms become lineated.Atoms are strictly build upon energy and matter itself thus if matter can attract matter then it can also be manuevered with the reflective properties.Revolutions are the key instinctive to Atoms with repellants and agitants coming from different formations and residual effect from other types of atoms.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.