Is evolution a fact?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sulaw
Until I see a fricken ape walk out of the congo with a cigar in his mouth, talking cantonees or whatever native language is around. I'm going with a big fat, NO it's not fact.


We aren't apes though we are a completely different species with a common ancestor..?




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


I think you are misunderstanding evolution and science with conspiracy. That's what I get from reading your comment. You do accept or believe in evolution but have some doubts. Is that what you meant?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


Of course I accept evolution. I am atheist, so there is no other way to go
+ it has too much scientific data behind.

I just keep an open mind overally. We do not know full details of any science yet.

We can compare my belief with a puzzle. We have managed to put the puzzle together, but the reason why it fits together might differ a bit, for example couple of very similar puzzle pieces might have been misplaced/exchanged between each other.

When we move further on in genetics and particle/quantum physics we will understand it better, but currently I just try to keep an open mind. It does not change any scientific laws. They have proved themselves enough in practice. Although it might make them more accurate and change the current theoretical background a bit. I would not be surprised if something like that happens, also I would not be surprised when it does not
Just keeping an open mind



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
When we move further on in genetics and particle/quantum physics we will understand it better, but currently I just try to keep an open mind.

How would you suggest/expect for us to move further in genetics?



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by borntowatch
 


No, your assumption is flawed.

Believing that evolution says that one animal changes into another is a typical creationist error.

Evolution is about diversification, hence the dog analogy. With time species adapt and diversify, eventually those adaptations become characteristic of a particular species, thus singling them as unique.

The zebra is a good example, clearly a member of the horse family, but why the stripes? Have a think about it.


Evolution states animals evolve (change) into more complex animals. Are you saying it doesnt


If nobody else will say it, I sure as hell will. NO. Evolution does NOT state that one animal turns into another animal. What evolution states is that species adapt to their environments, can and sometimes do change as the conditions around them do. It's more survival of the luckiest than survival of the fittest. ANd while speciation does occur, its not the prime motivator of evolution.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
Inanimate matter cannot 'self-replicate' - copying something requires awareness. Everything ultimately must be described with nothing more than the fundamental forces of physics and these forces simply cannot interact to produce the purpose and awareness that can be witnessed inside the biological cell. The mind / free-will cannot arise from these forces either - no matter how long it takes.

Biological systems are more than just highly ordered structures; they are more than just functioning machines; they are systems capable of reproduction and self-maintenance that continually operate against the universes progress towards thermal equilibrium.

The DNA molecule cannot replicate itself. The requisite chaos of life that leads to endless mutation isn't happening. Nothing builds itself. Evolution and abiogenesis are lies intended to deny you your mystical nature.

The rulers of this world were here before all the more traditional religions, and well before the atheist priesthood of the western universities. Atheists seem to believe that 'everything came from nothing and built itself' is a scientifically legitimate belief - it's not.

Once upon a time we were controlled by religions that closed our minds to the living experience of God by replacing it with symbols and ceremony, now we have had our minds closed even further by smooth-talkers, 'intellectuals' and 'experts' that make huge claims of proof through hidden scientism.

How many have had evolution proven to them? Ask yourself what the potential benefits and detriments of believing in such unproven claims.

Enlightenment will not be dispensed by professor nor priest - it is a personal endeavour.

Fundamental forces, thermo-dynamics, quantum theory, probability, symmetry - play around yourself! Be not subservient to the pseudo-scientists that come with their prepared speeches intending to overwhelm you with terminology your not familiar with. Endless dogma and supposed verisimilitude; curt and derisive responses, will all become transparent.



If replication requires awareness can you please cite that and also explain to me how organisms such as amoeba and paramecium manage to replicate?



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by sulaw
Until I see a fricken ape walk out of the congo with a cigar in his mouth, talking cantonees or whatever native language is around. I'm going with a big fat, NO it's not fact.


We aren't apes though we are a completely different species with a common ancestor..?


Not to poop on your parade, or even throw it as a monkey in a zoo might, but humans ARE apes. Humans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Orangutan are the 5 great There seems to be a common misconception of confusing gorillas and apes as the same thing whereas that isn't quite the case.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
It is not a fact, although it is the most plausible theory we have and it has lots of data behind it. The data might not be true, but there is nothing suggesting otherwise currently.

Just like the big bang theory. It fits the scientifical theory.

We do not know full details about both of these theories although based on the current data we have and the scientifical theories, these are currently the most plausible theories.

The schools teach it as it is what is the most credible theory currently . I do not even remember whether I learned other theories Probably not. We just learned evolution for around a month in biology (8-12 x 45 minutes).


No offense, but it doesn't sound as though you've spent 1 x 45 minutes in a 'scientifical' class.....

Scientific theory



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Yes, evolution is a fact.
Is Religion a business, yes.



I just realized something, if moi had a haircut (or he long curly locks) that British officer and I could be brothers.
edit on 24-5-2013 by Tor4Hershman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


I think most can agree with inheritance, ie we pass our genetics to our offspring and evolution is an extension of that. Over time small genetic mutations or changes accumulate, some may lie dormant, others may cause noticeable differences, in sever cases deformities. Such would not last long and would die off, however in rare cases such mutations may be beneficial. For example in the case of dormant genes, an animal that had dormant genes for baldness, that lived in a cold climate, any offspring with this mutation would die in the cold, however if the climate changed to a hotter one such may have an advantage. Evolution does not work to a plan, it is a brutal process of survival of the fittest, only those that can survive in earth's environment do.

A curiosity look at the fossil record will tell you that, fish came before the more evolved amphibians. They came before reptiles that came before birds and mammals. Such drastic changes are thought to have come about through major climate events, allowing niece life forms to survive. For example the fossil record shows evidence of both reptiles that could fly or had wings, but also feathers and beaks. In other words the ancestor of birds. Even if you look at a fetus, of any animal develop you can see it go through the stages, starting of as two single cells. Even human fetuses have a tail, and gills (that develop in to nose and mouth). Then if you look at DNA you can trace ancestral lineage to a common ancestor, ie we share DNA with not only apes but also things like salmon and bananas. It has been said that there is no such thing as a fish, as genetically some fish have more DNA in common with other animals than with other fish. we also hold a lot of “junk” DNA that does not serve a purpose (well maybe in some unforeseen future circumstance might). You can see evolution every day in hospitals, ie bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the more complex the life form is the the more time its going to take before such changes take effect. But you're looking for the link between living and nonliving matter.

Viruses are not alive, ie have no metabolism, however once inside a host cell incorporate their DNA, and use the host cell to copy itself. Viruses occupy a space between living and nonliving matter. not alive but can reproduce and evolve. When early single cellular life is considered, this and similar methods of DNA transfer may also have played a part in early evolution/ survival of organisms. To go further back before DNA we see single RNA strands in nature, these complex chemical proteins, are not living but are the precursor to DNA ie are chemical capable of retaining and copying information. RNA molecules have been observed in not only samples from earth but also from samples taken from space. This is not to say that this was life's origin, but that the building blocks of life do exist in nature, have been observed and created in a laboratory. I think the important thing to realize that the theory of evolution is not one single fact,but gathered from a body of facts in many different fields, ie geneticists,
DNA research, Biologists etc.

To go even further back I suppose you could say that the atoms that made such complex chemicals “evolved”. The first element was hydrogen, and through the nuclear process, other elements were created which in turn would create more, sometimes simply through decay. even the protons and neutrons came before hydrogen and the electrons and sub atomic particles before them. Before then our universe was much smaller was infinitely small and infinitely dense, in various stages of its history, its nature has changed and evolved, at one point all forces were united as one single force. If “the big crunch” theory is to be believed then such laws will change again. Nothing is static, everything is changing, only on different scales.

So the real argument, I think with this thread, is to deduce everything into there must have been a prime mover to set everything up, the chain of events that would ultimately lead to intelligent people. That all these unique events are statistically imposable on there own let alone the complex chain of events to the beginning of time for life to be eventual possible. What people are mistaken for randomness for an extremely complicated system, ie the initial state of the universe created conditions that could only have one outcome. ie the force of gravity not only that stars would form but also where.

Everything is connected, indeed nature has evolved, to the point it can question its own existence. It would be foolish not to think so, we are a product of nature. You could argue that nature is “god”, many religions do, however to believe that this is an individual, self aware entity, by definition is contradictory if all that is is contained with it. Which makes it even less plausible that such an entity will care what rituals I do, what food I eat on specific days, what is moral or evil. The universe would exist without us. I think its pretty cool that i'm witness to it, but that does not convince me of intelligent design.

Transitional fossil
There is no such thing as a fish
antibiotic resistance
viris is not living
viris origen
RNA found in space
RNA created in a lab
edit on 12-6-2013 by Redarguo because: links
edit on 12-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


This argument again?

Non living matter to living matter IS NOT evolution. I can't believe people still make new posts acting like this is amazing new info and will stump a scientist. Do some research.

Cambrian explosion was a 20 million + year process. I love how people act like 20 million years is sudden when it only took 7 million to go from ancient ape to modern human.

Evolution as a process is a fact. Now the entire theory might not be 100% absolute fact, but the process itself exists, much like gravity.

Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection.

Genetic mutations = Proven to effect all organisms studied when passing down genes. Countless experiments confirm this
Natural selection = Observed and verified.

Speciation = confirmed. Verified in a lab.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means the premise (process of evolution) is undeniable fact. If it was not Evolution would be a hypothesis.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 
Amoebas didn't build themselves any more than you built yourself. And neither you nor they can build replicas of themselves. Life did not arise from purely from interactions of inanimate matter - it simply can't have done. There is something much bigger going on and it is there to be experienced, but you have to think for yourself in order to obtain this level of consciousness. However strong your faith in the words of others, until you actually experience the meaning behind the words for yourself - you should consider that they could all be lies. Being told that everything rose out of nothing and built itself is patently absurd. You can obtain definitive knowledge of this absurdity by understanding the limitations of the science - look at not what it's saying, but what it's not saying.

The invisible world, mysticism, spiritual stuff - call it what you want, but it is real and it is not the result of atoms connecting to each other and forming ever more complex forms. God is a fact - maybe not a fact you'll ever know, but it is a fact. If you close yourself off to the concept of God, then you're rejecting the biggest thing there is and the only thing that made anything possible.

Telling people what to think is fundamental to the control of the people. It's not just bankers, politicians, religious literature and the media you have to be wary of - it's anyone and everything. Evil operates on a perversion through subversion basis and will be playing all sides.

My enemies (maybe your enemies too) have been doing this mass-manipulation thing a long time; since well before the Abrahamic faiths; since well before 'western civilisation' and since well before the atheist priesthood of modern academia.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
Life did not arise from purely from interactions of inanimate matter - it simply can't have done.

Hurricanes no not arise purely from interactions of inanimate matter - they simply can't. Right? Remember back when people at least tried to defend their opinions somehow..



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 
The comparison you have made is ridiculous. Hurricanes show no sign of purpose - the ordering, reproduction and maintenance that defines life does.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by rhinoceros
 
The comparison you have made is ridiculous. Hurricanes show no sign of purpose - the ordering, reproduction and maintenance that defines life does.





no it doesnt, and neither does evolution...it is you with the benefit of hind sight that aportions purpose.


edit on 12-6-2013 by idmonster because: the them that those these



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
All the nourishment I consume is very definitively allocated to different purposes - it's not by chance.

The fundamental forces of physics simply could not create the ordered biological systems that we call 'life' If you think they can, then you've simply failed to understand them.

Everything coming from nothing is not a scientifically viable model of the universe.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 

Bones. I think the fossil record shows that evolution is a fact, even if it might not be the whole story since there are so many variables at work including the possibility of non-local information exchange via the zero point field ie: that the whole process of evolution might not be occurring in isolation but within the framework of an interpenetrating, organic, cosmological unity which might even include the process by which the very earth-moon-sun configuration without which evolution of life on earth would not likely have occurred, was formed ie: in favor of life and the long-term evolution of life.

There's certainly more going on than random mutation within environmental parameters, as if the whole process is driven by an "arrow" and a purpose denoting intentionality with life, including human life, as it's aim.

Creationism OTOH, with everything just popping into existence fully formed about 6000 years ago, is a literalist farce and we all know that.

edit on 12-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


You should read this:


11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Then it goes on to say:


24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.



This should prove that the Bible supports evolution?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Robert Reynolds
 


oh dear...i feel a "second law of thermodynamics" statement looming.....

late here so off to sleep, will check in tomoz.

nite y'all



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
The fundamental forces of physics simply could not create the ordered biological systems that we call 'life' If you think they can, then you've simply failed to understand them.

Everything coming from nothing is not a scientifically viable model of the universe.


Why do you think that natural forces couldn't have created life? What makes you so sure? So far there is no objective evidence of intelligent design. I love when people appeal to things they don't understand and essentially say "Oh, there's no chance of THAT!" Great analysis.

Everything coming from nothing is a CREATIONIST viewpoint, not a scientific one.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join