The Theory of Evolution

[Anonymouse]

Why did we have to evolve from something? Could we not just have been created? If you are talking about probability and chance then both have equal likelyhood of having occured. But you see the problem with humans is we assume things. When you start to question most 'knowledge' you will see that underneath lies nothing but mental gymnastics, beliefs, ideas, imaginations. Very few things are concrete knowledge on this planet.

I am sure you have heard of Karl Popper. If you delve into his work you will see that he briliantly displaysthe difference between science and pseudoscience. He said that one should not take refuge in the false security that comes from a worldview that explains things too easily. Evolution is a religion, it is a dogma, and to question it, opens you up to criticisms and epitheths and having to be smeared. What sort of science is that if it is not going to hold up to scrutiny and the only way to ensure the survival of the theory is to blacklist and belittle those that criticize it? Coming up with all the answers and never asking any questions is the hallmark of ignorance and arrogance. That is precisely what modern day neo Darwinists are. For these reasons I chose not to study biology because it is tainted. I found out that it doesn't really move by scientific principles but rather by bias and imagination.

[Anonymouse]

As far as evolution, that is merely an assumption. I have yet to see any evidence confirming Darwinism. I have seen some pretty good faked evidence that was passed off as missing links, like gemules, bathybius and eozoon, which turned out to be gigantic embarassments for Darwinism.

To state that we evolved is one thing. To open the theory to testability is another. It is not testable. You cannot empirically verify it. Alot of it also has to do with the misnomer of what we call "evolution". You see it is such a vague term that really anything goes and this is how evolutionists have avoided proving their claims. What does "evolution" mean anyway? If we are talking about evolution as microevolution then yes there is evidence to support it. But when we refer to it as macroevolution what evidence is there to support it? For example, after years of clinging to the gradualism that pervaded academia, the assertion that we gradually and slowly evolved from other simpler life forms to our present state, there had to be intermediate fossils to verify these claims. The fossil record lacked the evidence. For years Darwinists knew their blunder and tried to hide it by saying "the intermediate species were extinct". Finally they couldn't take it anymore and so cooked up another theory that totally contradicted Darwins assertions. They came out with another theory called 'punctuated equilibrium' which states that the jump from species to species wasn't gradual as Darwin had proposed, but rather, it was a sudden leap from species to species, nevermind how this is going to be proven empirically. It's just stated and accepted as fact.

There is more evidence to support that there was a great flood than there is for evolution. There is more evidence to support the existence of UFOs than there is for evolution. Unless there is evidence that empirically shows how evolution should be a valid explanation of our world, then I see no reason to accept it because it sounds 'logically appealing'. You see my physical anthropology teacher and I got into it in front of the whole class because she didn't like the fact that I questioned her assertions. I was only being scientific in my stance and asking a question. Somehow modern science seems to condone asking question as long as it doesn't interfere with evolutionary thought.

[Lilya]

i definitley agree with you with the intermediate fossils because without them, you got nothing. What kind of mutation would allow one species to become another? you're right, that doesnt make sense.. its just a inadequate explanation for something humans cant understand,, hmm sounds a whole lot like religion. But if we were just created, what created us? and whatever created us had to be created by something else... it gets really confusing at some point so i enjoy reading chemistry textbooks instead. and as for your physical anthropology teacher ~ you should've stuck a tampon in her mouth.

[Anonymouse]

Yes I should have gagged her with a tampon and forced her to watch hours of that documentary on the Discovery Channel about Primates and how they mate.

She probably descended from them in her warped little mind anyway.

"My ancestors were monkies".

[TVAdict710]

holy crap. i never seen so many big words since...ever.

[Anonymouse]

Hey maybe your avatar is the missing link between monkies and humans.

[TVAdict710]

dont i look like a monkey?

[Anonymouse]

Yes, and the only way you would look human is if I was on acid.

[TVAdict710]

[dagchild]

Must be a Creationist then...

Opponenets of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguements dont hold up as I will show you...

First things first:Many people view evolution as being a theory which it is, but many people also belive a theory is just a 'guess', however a theory is actually a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypothesis.

Many creationists say that evolution is unscientific , becasue it is not testable or falsifiable. but this blanket of evolution ignores important distinctions that didive the field into at least two braod areas; microevolution & macroevolution. Even these days most creationists aknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory ( as in studies of cells, plants, and fruit flies) and in the field ) as in studies of evolving beak studies within birds). Natural Selection and other mechanisms such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization can all drive profound changes in populations over time.
The only solid way of disproving the theory of evoltuon is if superintellignet aliens or God himself appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth, but No one has yet produced such evidence.

The acceptacne of evolution is a widely accpeted factual occurence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Also a key idea to note is that evolution does not teach that humans decended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The origin of life reamins very much a mysetry, but biochemists have learned about primitive nucleic acids , amino acids, and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for celular biochemistry. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origian of life. Even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin ( for instance, if aliens intorducded the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

many creationists say that evoltuon is all chance and random, but that is not the case. natural Selection, the princicple known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving ' desirble' (adaptaive) features and elimating 'undesirable" (non-adaptive) ones.

I can literally go on for pages, but ll just conclude this ...
The whole idea of 'intellignet desgin' which basicallly is what creaatinists belive that there has to and must of been an intelligence force above us that created life on earth. This offers very few answers...For example, when did a desgigning intelligence interven in lifes history ? By creating the first DNA ? the first cell ? the first human ? Believers and listeners of this idea are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituing their RELIGIOUS beliefs for SCIENTIFIC ideas. Evoltuion is doing the same with the riddle of how locing world took shape. Creationism on the other hand, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

most arguements that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution. Today, the battle of this argumenet has been won everywhere except in the public imagination. What it all comes down to folks is this ...... people who argue agaisnt evolution are very religious and CAn not accept the fact that we simply evolved as primates through antural selection and speciaition. The arguments you propse are flat out derived from ignorance, THERE IS MY FRIEND A REASON WHY evolution is taught in class...

Also....Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. All these ideas an concepts have been scientifically tested where as Your beliefs simply can not even be tested becasue they do not EXIST. So to say that evolution is non-scientific, but the mysterious creation of humans on earth is , is simply ignorant. I accpet the fact of God and a creator, but the facts of evolution cannot be erased. IF it was ever proven that there wasnt a God or higher power, 80% of this world would lose their minds and kill them selves, religion needs to stay in religion and not be confused and mixed up with science.