View Poll Results: Did we evolve from Apes?

Voters
133. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    71 53.38%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    26 19.55%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    36 27.07%
Page 10 of 52 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    I don't think there are any scientists who dispute micro evolution.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The key word is “believe”. So those who have different beliefs must be tards? So Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley is a tard?


    Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy had this to say: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."
    “The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. ‘’



    Richard Smalley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner in physics who would say something like : After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution have occurred."


    Dr. Robert Gange is a research scientist (cryophisics), engineer, and adjunct professor the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton. He just so happened to write a pro-creation book entitled, "Origins and Destiny". Aside from the book itself, the back cover has this interesting endorsement from the late mathematician, physicist, and Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics):

    "I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange's refusal of the idea of materialism, and the convincing arguments supporting that refusal. In fact, the book will be a welcome response to materialism. Good luck, for a good book!"

    (Origins and Destiny - A Scientist Examines God's Handiwork - by Dr. Robert Gange)

    Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner in physics who has endorsed one justone pro-evolution book.


    Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following interesting argument:

    "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real.”

    Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

    Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner who finds evolution real from a scientific point of view?


    In a short search I have found the 3 who has expressed their personal beliefs and the base of their beliefs publicly.

    How many Nobel Prize winners have expressed their personal beliefs in the same way as the 3 physicists above?

    How many Nobel Prize winners in Physics have made a pro-evolution statement? How many Nobel Prize winners have made a pro-evolution statement? How many Nobel Prize winners in Physics have made a pro-evolution statement?




    Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner, Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics are tards in your view?

    How anybody in the right mind can argue to an evolutionist after that? Sure they are tards and I am a tard, I wonder what do you base your personal belief on, we do on our background in chemistry and physics, - what is your base? Explain to me where do your beliefs stem from? Step by step – what have made a fanatic of evolution?


    Theory of evolution does not exist. These are theories:


    Amazon.com: Theory of Machines and Mechanisms: John J. Uicker, Gordon R. Pennock, the late Joseph E. Shigley: Books

    Presents the basic mathematical theory of machines.
    "The theory of machines and mechanisms is an applied science that is used to understand the relationships between the geometry and motions of the parts..."

    Basic Electric Circuit Theory

    Amazon.com: Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data (Dover Books on Physics): Ira H. Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff: Books
    Amazon.com: Theoretical Hydrodynamics: L. M. Milne-Thomson: Books



    Schaums Outline of Theory and Problems of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics specs
    SpringerLink - Journal Article

    Amazon.com: Statistical Thermodynamics: Erwin Schrodinger: Books

    Theory is an apparatus of a certain part of science, where all physical laws and results of experiments related to a certain group of observed phenomena are generalized and unified AND SIMPLYFIED by means of mathematics and geometry.

    When Evolution completely lacks mathematics, when evolutionists do not even understand the simplest question related to mathematics, when Evolution was founded by an individual who couldn’t pass an entrance exam to a basic mathematics class, - evolutionists still dare to call millions of pages of total delirium a theory ????? - evolution should be banned in schools for degrading science and ruining lives.

    The key word is always, - do you believe, BELIVE. Evolution, like intelligent design are systems of personal beliefs based on empirical evidence and logic, they have nothing to do to science. Science is an empirical experimental activity. The key word of science is experiment. Not evidence, but experiment.






    Observed Instances of Speciation
    by Joseph Boxhorn
    Copyright © 1993-2004
    [Last Update: September 1, 1995]



    Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.[1]


    Can you link me to one justone peer reviewed publication which demonstrates one justone observable factual occurrence of a NEW biological species arisal? One justone reference in the whole history of thousands experiments and observations? Not 2 not 3 not many, but one justone? One justone Observed example of speciation of whatever kind?
    Seriously I don't think even 1 of those people you mentioned would seriously argue that wolves, coyotes, & domesticated dogs don't all share a common ancestor. In other words they most likely all believe in some forms of evolution.

    Disputing the primordial soup theory or the notion that ALL Species share a single common ancestor is a whole other story.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Here I looked up the first person you mentioned and here's what I found:

    I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
    Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

    Now on the one hand he is saying he believes in intelligent design HOWEVER - and this is important- he is also saying it's a mistake to think this means there is no evolution.

    He's a perfect example of someone like me. He knows evolution happens though he rejects the explanation that we all come from one single solitary source or soup.

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    Don't discount yourself now...Even a ridiculously small improvement is an improvement. .
    Now it is a ridiculously small improvement. I accept you concession.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    Silly boy, no one is taking you serious because you still haven't figure out how science works.
    Lightdemon, - two...

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Here I looked up the first person you mentioned and here's what I found:


    Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

    Now on the one hand he is saying he believes in intelligent design HOWEVER - and this is important- he is also saying it's a mistake to think this means there is no evolution.

    He's a perfect example of someone like me. He knows evolution happens though he rejects the explanation that we all come from one single solitary source or soup.
    I guess that you are saying that you believe in "intelligent design"???OK. Or it is not OK??? It is a variant of a personal beleif.

    What is about the rest of the Nobel prize winners - are they tards? and the rest of the questions to your beLiefs. For instance I can expalin step by step why I used to have the same beliefs as you and Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes ( provided that you believe in ID). Since you believe in ID like Charles Townes "He's a perfect example of someone like me" - then should they teach ID like evolution in schools? .

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Seriously I don't think even 1 of those people you mentioned would seriously argue that wolves, coyotes, & domesticated dogs don't all share a common ancestor. In other words they most likely all believe in some forms of evolution.

    .
    .................................Try again,
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy had this to say: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."“The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. ‘’ .

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    I don't think there are any scientists who dispute micro evolution.

    Do you think or do you believe? Where it comes from. Scientists do science, they don't dispute evolution, micro or macro, mini or bikini. Can you link me to one justone peer reviewed article which....micro evolution.... please read my questions... my posts ... my links...

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I guess that you are saying that you believe in "intelligent design"???OK. Or it is not OK??? It is a variant of a personal beleif.

    What is about the rest of the Nobel prize winners - are they tards? and the rest of the questions to your beLiefs. For instance I can expalin step by step why I used to have the same beliefs as you and Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes ( provided that you believe in ID). Since you believe in ID like Charles Townes "He's a perfect example of someone like me" - then should they teach ID like evolution in schools? .
    I don't believe intelligent design is off the table.

    I'm absolutely certain none of the folks you mention believe there is NO evolution. That would be tardy. Again, one of the folks you mentioned basically makes the same tard accusation.

    It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.

    People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one
    Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

    Townes is saying evolution and intelligent design are NOT mutually exclusive. It is stupid to say "evolution" does not exist. It does. We know it does. You really have to put on blinders to say it negate it entirely on every single level.

    I didn't look up your other folks but I'd bet money they say similar things. There really aren't any legitimate scientists disputing that evolution happens.
    However that said you can believe in evolution without believing the theory of evolution which states we all share a single common source. That all living organisms ultimately all trace back to one single first organism. Questioning that claim, being skeptical of that assertion, etc is not stupid. Saying there is NO evolution is entirely stupid.

    See the difference?
    Last edited by talloulou; 04-20-09 at 01:15 AM.

  9. #99
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Now even someone who accepts that evolution occurs may not accept that they share a common ancestor with their dog. That would be believing in evolution but not buying the theory of evolution in its entirety.
    I think you're confusing terms and concepts here. First, there's not a 'theory of evolution'. There's a theory of natural selection which explains the observed phenomenon of evolution.

    Second, whether or not we can identify the common ancestors along the various branches of evolution does not alter the theory of natural selection. It only means that the historical record of evolution is not yet fully complete. In much the same way that the fact that there are gaps in your family genealogy has no bearing whatsoever on the 'theory' of sexual reproduction. You may never be able to identify who your great-great-great-great-grandmother was, or where she lived. There may be no record of her existence left. But you know for certainty that she existed.

    ..

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Um no. Evolution is an observable fact. The premise that all species originate from a single ancestor - the theory of evolution is theory. I don't "cling" to any ideas; including the theory of evolution. Observing evolution, finding evidence to support the observations in genetics and fossils still leaves you many miles short of proving all living organisms stem from a single original organism.
    Ummm...evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION is observed fact. Also observed is the fossil record. For example, look up the story of tiktaalik there. It was found because at a certain point in the fossil record there were fish and no other vertebrates. Then forty million years later, there were land verterbrates also. The theory of evolution, which relies on "intermediate forms" to progress, said that logically somewhere in the that forty million year gap there's a very fish like air-breathing animal that spent some time on land, and not only that, it's bones are going to be found near an ancient beach. With a little map hunting and a little luck, a researcher's team went to an island and found that fossil. (Read [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240199868&sr=1-1]"Your Inner Fish"[/ame])

    The important thing about this fossil, and others, is that it points to a continuous line of evolution from the simplest live forms to today's monstrously complicated biosphere. ALL tetrapods, for example, have the same limb construction, that of a single upper bone, two lower bones, a bunch of wrist/ankle bones and digits. We ALL evolved from the same parent animal way back in time. That's an observed fact.

    Also, DNA studies show that the rate of change of DNA is a fairly constant process, and they can date the divergence of species by looking at the genome markers.

    Someone wants to claim that "fine, it works for vertebrates, but we don't have fossils from enough soft-bodied animals to make those claims", okay.

    Explain the value of the logic in that? Sexual reproduction is so bizarre it probably didn't evolve more than once. The difference between eukaryotic life and prokaryotic life didn't happen more than once. Is a nuclear wall going to evolve simultaneously among different species of bacteria? That statement would have to be justified with some evidence.

    And what are the chances of the basic form of a bacterium going to evolve more than once?

    There comes a point when it's far far simpler to accept the obvious, that of a single life-bush and wait for falsifying evidence to be uncovered than it is to postulate the convergence of competing incompatible life structures into the unified whole observed today.

    All life uses DNA.
    All life uses RNA.
    All life uses an outer cell membrane.
    All multicellular life is eukaryotic.
    All life can be shown to evolve from simpler common ancestors, and where possible, those ancestors can also be shown to evolve from even earlier common parent species.

Page 10 of 52 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •