Evolution is (essentially) fact - so get over it already

[Anonymouse]

wrong - can't either of you read or understand what you read.

dumb & dumber....

And you are dumberer.

[winoman]

And you are dumberer.

dumberer -

Function - noun

pronunciation - dum aur or

1 : an individual who exposes idiots and charlatans masquarading as educated - such as on popular web forums

2 : someone who correctly attributes the status or condition of being dumb or dumber to those deserving of such

3 : a person with exceptional ability to sniff out bullxxxx and garbage posts and identify those posters attempting to pass off such trash as scholarship and insight

4 : a person who pities those who just don't get it

[Anonymouse]

I take it you've never seen the movie.

[Sip]

it is a theory.same with creationism. not enough proof is there to prove either one. i know theres millions of people that belive in both and i know im going to be yelled at for not calling them facts. personly i dont really belive either one, and i dont have any idea in how we got here. frankly i couldnt care less. we are here, thats i care to know.

I understand how evolution may be considered theory ... but he the f does "creationism" get classified as theory? ... unless you want to classify the easter bunny, santa clause, and elvis being alive as theory as well.

[winoman]

I understand how evolution may be considered theory ... but he the f does "creationism" get classified as theory? ... unless you want to classify the easter bunny, santa clause, and elvis being alive as theory as well.

Well Sip according to some (like this excitable French Canadian/Armenian person we both know) - any statment concerning the belief or lack thereof of the easter bunny, santa clause, and elvis etc - could be construed as having a particualr religion. Yes - I know it sounds (and is) silly - but its amazing what some people try to claim sometime - like Evolution being a belief requirring faith...well only in the same way that I have "faith" that our scientists more or less have the distances of the planets and stars down pretty accuratly and that ny pharmiscist is mixing up my perscription correctly...I mean who am I to go and measure these things myself? (hint - I rely on the checks and balances that is peer review etc to do such for me...) - otherwise I trust in science to discover and explain things that are within the realm of science...that sort of thing....yeah fools

[Anonymouse]

Only human arrogance, and arrogant people claim to know all the answers to everything. This usually springs from an insecure attitude of not knowing the whole truth which threatens their grip on reality. Thus by creating dogmas it forms a prism that allows them to breath safely within those confines. Thus by affirming evolution is fact, they are in effect saying evolution is dogma that cannot be questioned. This line of reasoning means they and they alone are possessors of truth while everyone else toils in the fields of misanthropy because they deny the *ding ding ding you guessed it* "fact" of evolution.

In their haze of dogma, they forget that science is about what is observable and testable within the bounds of nature, our physical world. Evolution goes a step beyond and postulates a claim that we descended from simple organisms into complex ones. While this may be a nice and comforting explanation, it nonetheless is not observed. It can only be taken by a touch of faith - a belief in the assertion that we did evolve - not that this has been proven, observed or tested.

[winoman]

wrong - again - I can only surmise that you cannot read or understand what you read and that you in fact have no appreciation of what constitutes science and scientific beliefs. As I have posted sufficiently to make my point - such as this several times already on this thread:

“Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend—although not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationists incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just ‘know’ that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a precisely opposite situation prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.”

— Stephen J Gould: "The Paradox of the Visibly Irrelevant," Natural History 106 (December 2000)


As well as links to other statements from scientists (and the National Acadamy of Science - reposted below) - all affirming why Evolution Science is good Science - well I can only surmise that you are the one who is basing your belief on unsupportable dogma and not I.

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

specifically the following should be read -

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html)

[winoman]

More Stephen Jay Gould - that in fact shows that believing in the principles of Evolution is in fact not arrogantly believing one knows all things - but it is accepting that we are forever learning and discovering. It is those (like you)who reject this (scientific discovery) and cling to totally unproven (and without any scientific basis) dogma concerning the origins of life who are the arrogant ones with a prior conviction...

“Sigmund Freud often remarked that great revolutions in the history of science have but one common, and ironic, feature: they knock human arrogance off one pedestal after another of our previous conviction about our own self-importance. In Freud's three examples, Copernicus moved our home from center to periphery, Darwin then relegated us to ‘descent from an animal world’; and, finally (in one of the least modest statements of intellectual history), Freud himself discovered the unconscious and exploded the myth of a fully rational mind. In this wise and crucial sense, the Darwinian revolution remains woefully incomplete because, even though thinking humanity accepts the fact of evolution, most of us are still unwilling to abandon the comforting view that evolution means (or at least embodies a central principle of) progress defined to render the appearance of something like human consciousness either virtually inevitable or at least predictable. The pedestal is not smashed until we abandon progress or complexification as a central principle and come to entertain the strong possibility that H. sapiens is but a tiny, late-arising twig on life's enormously arborescent bush—a small bud that would almost surely not appear a second time if we could replant the bush from seed and let it grow again.”

— "The Evolution of Life On Earth," Scientific American 271 (October 1994): 91.

[winoman]

And concernign this claim of failing to believe we evolved from simple organisms...well the fossil record is clear - those at the lower layers represent simpler/earlier lifeforms...those above - in more recent geological stratifications - demonstrate higher - more evolved organisms. Additionally - there are a great many "missing links" that show clear evolution from one speciies type to another - that clearly show the phases of adaptation/evolution. So there

[winoman]

And again - more Gould:



“The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory—for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.”

— "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," Dinosaur in a Haystack, New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1997, pp. 360-361.