Question for Evolutionists - your view on....

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: VVV88
There are members here that are way over my head on this topic, but if I understand what I've read correctly. Humans did not evolve from apes. We have a common ancestor with apes.

Close.

We are apes. Some reading for you.

You are correct that modern apes share a common ancestor.

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: VVV88
I view people who question evolution in the same way I view people who question a non-flat earth: ignorant at best, backwards and delusional at worst. That's not to say that every detail is completely understood but the broad strokes are undeniable.

Whether you like it or not, the question of whether it not life evolved is long settled. By this point to deny it is not skepticism but denialism.

That's funny, cause I view anyone who claims that the modern paradigms are undeniable as ignorant spoon fed fools...lol

Jaden

You can claim that all you want but until you present evidence backing your claim, it's just foolish bloviation.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: VVV88
There are members here that are way over my head on this topic, but if I understand what I've read correctly. Humans did not evolve from apes. We have a common ancestor with apes.

Close.

We are apes. Some reading for you.

You are correct that modern apes share a common ancestor.

That was interesting. Thanks.

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: VVV88
I view people who question evolution in the same way I view people who question a non-flat earth: ignorant at best, backwards and delusional at worst. That's not to say that every detail is completely understood but the broad strokes are undeniable.

Whether you like it or not, the question of whether it not life evolved is long settled. By this point to deny it is not skepticism but denialism.

That's funny, cause I view anyone who claims that the modern paradigms are undeniable as ignorant spoon fed fools...lol

Jaden

Yeah, this isn't a reason to disbelieve evolution either. Rarely is it the case that an advancement in philosophy leads down a path that winds up being scrapped altogether. Alchemy, for example, is no longer a valid way of looking at the world of physics and chemistry, but at the time it was the best we had, and many of the tenets and properties discovered by alchemists are either still true, or led us further down the correct path. Evolutionary science as it exists now may not be the whole picture, but in 500 years time, it will still be a part of what science knows about the history of life on earth.

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Evolution doesn't provide an answer for origin. A governing universal force that could be a catalyst for the existence of life is not mutually exclusive to evolution. No one knows the answer to how it all started. Agnosticism is the only defensible position; being that you don't have to defend it, IMO. And I'm not agnostic. So I don't go pushing my beliefs on others or think less of them because don't agree with me. I think it's extremely nassarcistic to do so.

It's not supposed to provide an answer for origin. Evolution only chronicles the change of life over time, not how it got there in the first place.

This is what I was talking about in my first post. Someone comes in, spews an irrelevant opinion about evolution like it is a valid detractor and it just takes away from any real arguments because now we have to take time to correct this inaccuracy. It's a waste of time for everyone involved and could easily have been rectified if the person saying the accuracy had bothered to do his homework before posting.

a reply to: Prezbo369

That's exactly what I'm saying. And additionally, it (evolution) is not mutually exclusive to a driving force (god) being responsible for the origins of life.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Evolution doesn't provide an answer for origin. A governing universal force that could be a catalyst for the existence of life is not mutually exclusive to evolution. No one knows the answer to how it all started. Agnosticism is the only defensible position; being that you don't have to defend it, IMO. And I'm not agnostic. So I don't go pushing my beliefs on others or think less of them because don't agree with me. I think it's extremely nassarcistic to do so.

It's not supposed to provide an answer for origin. Evolution only chronicles the change of life over time, not how it got there in the first place.

This is what I was talking about in my first post. Someone comes in, spews an irrelevant opinion about evolution like it is a valid detractor and it just takes away from any real arguments because now we have to take time to correct this inaccuracy. It's a waste of time for everyone involved and could easily have been rectified if the person saying the accuracy had bothered to do his homework before posting.

I'm in total agreement. Maybe I didn't my point across. I was responding to a lot posts here that confuse the two.

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

Oh gotcha. Well no offense meant or anything. The second paragraph was more of my general ranting about this behavior anyways.

*giggles*

Wit runs rampant in ATS I see.

If there is evolving, there certainly is devolving. There is always an opposite to anything, in a duel universe.

The body ADAPTS over time, genetically to its external environment. Saying evolve is saying spontaneous upgrades. Nothing is spontaneous.

Adaptation is the genes, relating and changing to survive the external environment. There is a difference, even if your pretending there is not. One is genes at work, the other is magic spontaneous.

DE evolving is going backwards in physical form, downgrading. .. this is poor diet, lack of muscle use, breath work etc. The things that feed and power genes.
Over time the body being fueled by garbage artifical foods, acids for fluid, and this relates to lesser human bodies.
(Weakness, laziness, lack of energy, lack of mental processing Etc)

Evolution is and always will be a theory. Adaptation is what happens when genes change for the entire body to thrive, in an external environment.

Check out Bruce Lipton works. He is a genealogist, biologist, where Darwin was using theories and was nothing special..

The body wants growth, it must adapt to changes within it's external environment to do so,. Some how genes really arrange themselves to make this so, and such, the body change.

To his own...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: VVV88


Now you CAN be a Creationist and actually put forth a compelling argument about evolution, so what I said above doesn't mean they don't exist. Though comparing evolution to creation is a failed argument anyways since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life or the universe.

My faith tells me there is a God but logic/science can not "prove" it. I do not deny evolution but I do not not accept as "fact" that modern man and apes share a common ancestor. And, finally, I do NOT believe the universe/earth was created in 6 days and that the earth is 6000 years old, etc.

Having said that, this is the type of response I was looking for; that evolution does not explain the origin of life. And that evolution does not invalidate intelligent design theories. But, it seems that many that are anti-Creationists use evolution as an explanation for denying the existence of a God.

originally posted by: Elementalist
*giggles*

Wit runs rampant in ATS I see.

If there is evolving, there certainly is devolving. There is always an opposite to anything, in a duel universe.

But we don't live in a dual universe. Dualism is too simplistic a way to describe our universe. Rarely anything can be described using a word or its opposite. There is no such thing as devolution. It just isn't part of the theory.

The body ADAPTS over time, genetically to its external environment. Saying evolve is saying spontaneous upgrades. Nothing is spontaneous.

No, saying evolve is saying that it changes over time. That is what evolve means. Spontaneousness isn't a requirement for something to evolve.

Adaptation is the genes, relating and changing to survive the external environment. There is a difference, even if your pretending there is not. One is genes at work, the other is magic spontaneous.

DE evolving is going backwards in physical form, downgrading. .. this is poor diet, lack of muscle use, breath work etc. The things that feed and power genes.
Over time the body being fueled by garbage artifical foods, acids for fluid, and this relates to lesser human bodies.
(Weakness, laziness, lack of energy, lack of mental processing Etc)

For one, your body changing through your diet isn't evolution either. That is just you getting older and reacting to your environment. Subsequent generations of humans adapting to poor food diets isn't devolution either. It is just evolution in a different direction. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says that all evolutionary chains have to be beneficial.

Evolution is and always will be a theory. Adaptation is what happens when genes change for the entire body to thrive, in an external environment.

Ugh... The "just a theory" argument... What is a Scientific Theory? Educate yourself dude...

Check out Bruce Lipton works. He is a genealogist, biologist, where Darwin was using theories and was nothing special..

All scientists use theories... In any case, Darwin's opinion on evolution is irrelevant these days. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species". Bruce Lipton is a charlatan who doesn't use science.

The body wants growth, it must adapt to changes within it's external environment to do so,. Some how genes really arrange themselves to make this so, and such, the body change.

To his own...

You have no idea what you are talking about and prove my point from this previous post. You should go restudy evolutionary theory before you say any more inaccuracies.

This whole issue is settled. You should just troll back to your cave.


a reply to: VVV88

a reply to: VVV88

Nobody can disprove God.

Just as nobody can disprove that I frequently talk with a sentient banana slug named "Theodore" that only I can see.

To try to disprove something that cannot be proven in the first place is why I take issue with militant atheists.

originally posted by: olbe66
This whole issue is settled. You should just troll back to your cave.


a reply to: VVV88

come again?

a reply to: VVV88

God and evolution can co-exist. Technically it is the God of the Gaps argument, but I can't disprove that argument either. But then again, I'm agnostic so I keep myself open to all possibilities.

Man definitely descended from the great apes though. That has been pretty much definitively proven. If you disbelieve that, then you are just outright denying mountains of solid evidence from the fossil record and genetics that says this is the case.

originally posted by: VVV88

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: VVV88


Now you CAN be a Creationist and actually put forth a compelling argument about evolution, so what I said above doesn't mean they don't exist. Though comparing evolution to creation is a failed argument anyways since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life or the universe.

My faith tells me there is a God but logic/science can not "prove" it. I do not deny evolution but I do not not accept as "fact" that modern man and apes share a common ancestor. And, finally, I do NOT believe the earth is 6000 years old, etc.

Then you either haven't done your homework or are denying reality for ideological reasons.

Having said that, this is the type of response I was looking for; that evolution does not explain the origin of life.

It explains biodiversity, not life's origins.

And that evolution does not invalidate intelligent design theories.

WHat "theories"? They're not even testable, let alone well-substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. ANd the ones that try and explain biodiversity ("god did it!") are flat out refuted by the scientific evidence.

But, it seems that many that are anti-Creationists use evolution as an explanation for denying the existence of a God.

What does the existence of god have to do with evolution? Again, you're trying to make this an ideological issue. I'm sorry, but it's not. There are more than enough Christians who have no problem reconciling their faith with the facts of evolution (the entire catholic church being one of them).

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Just as nobody can disprove that I frequently talk with a sentient banana slug named "Theodore" that only I can see.

How do you know of His Holiness??

originally posted by: Elementalist
*giggles*

Wit runs rampant in ATS I see.

If there is evolving, there certainly is devolving. There is always an opposite to anything, in a duel universe.

Nonsense. "There is always an opposite to anything" means nothing.

The body ADAPTS over time, genetically to its external environment. Saying evolve is saying spontaneous upgrades. Nothing is spontaneous.

Adaptation is the genes, relating and changing to survive the external environment. There is a difference, even if your pretending there is not. One is genes at work, the other is magic spontaneous.

This is exactly the opposite of how natural selection works. Environment doesn't force change to occur. Minor changes (mutations) occur at random, and if one is beneficial, that genetic line stays alive.

DE evolving is going backwards in physical form, downgrading. .. this is poor diet, lack of muscle use, breath work etc. The things that feed and power genes.
Over time the body being fueled by garbage artifical foods, acids for fluid, and this relates to lesser human bodies.
(Weakness, laziness, lack of energy, lack of mental processing Etc)

So you're equating poor choices amongst self-aware human beings to the power of genetics? This is a misunderstanding of genetics on the most fundamental of levels. I don't even really know where to start...

Evolution is and always will be a theory. Adaptation is what happens when genes change for the entire body to thrive, in an external environment.

You're confusing "resourcefulness" for "adaptation", and conflating the clever ways intelligent or semi-intelligent creatures change their behavior to survive with changes that occur within the chemistry of the body. An adaptation of behavior cannot be passed on genetically.

Check out Bruce Lipton works. He is a genealogist, biologist, where Darwin was using theories and was nothing special..

The body wants growth, it must adapt to changes within it's external environment to do so,. Some how genes really arrange themselves to make this so, and such, the body change.

To his own...

Another fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, that goes along with the concept of "devolving": evolution does not lead to a "better" life form. We are exactly as evolved as every form of life that has ever existed. We are exactly as advanced, biologically, as every being that has ever walked, crawled, swam, or sprouted from the earth.

originally posted by: GetHyped:

VVV88-> "But, it seems that many that are anti-Creationists use evolution as an explanation for denying the existence of a God. "

GetHyped--> "What does the existence of god have to do with evolution? Again, you're trying to make this an ideological issue. I'm sorry, but it's not. There are more than enough Christians who have no problem reconciling their faith with the facts of evolution (the entire catholic church being one of them)."

VVV88-> That's what I was trying to clarify but wanted to hear from the evolutionary side whether the two were mutually exclusive. As well as evolution encompassing shared ape-man biological origins. If that's ideological, ok.

originally posted by: VVV88
Or do you also include those advocating a broader intelligent design argument where evolution/adaptation occurs but that it was “guided” when it comes to the “evolution” of modern man?
Again, the question is not related to an argument of evolution vs. intelligent design but how you evolutionists view those that “question” ape-to-man biological evolution.

I believe there is plenty of room for the view that evolution is part of God's plan. I don't see any reason someone would belittle another for that line of belief. I don't know if it's "guided" in any way, but I can certainly follow along with the thought that evolution is part of what God created.

However, this is coming from one who has no problem in the belief that there is a God of some sort out there, but not specifically the Christian biblical God, necessarily.