• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

Did we evolve from Apes?

  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 41 57.7%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    Votes: 10 14.1%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
No, we've never directly observed this.

Nope, not in real time. And we don't need to either, we're a smart species, we've evolved past such silly stuff.


Duke
 
Well, viruses do it all the time (if you count those as species).

What exactly is a "different species" aside from a series of mutations in DNA? If you accept that genes can change over a short period of time as organisms adapt to their environment, then it logically follows that there will be a LOT of changes over a LONG period of time. And that's all speciation really is...a lot of genetic changes from the original until you have something very different.

A different species is often defined as a species that can not produce fertile young with the the descendants of the species from which it descended. Of course, this doesn't quite apply to most bacteria or viruses


Duke
 
I don't really know if viruses qualify as a species. Some argue that because they can't self-replicate, they aren't truly "alive", depending upon one's definiteion of life.

Fair enough. Nevertheless, they are a good example of something we have observed adapting to its environment and becoming radically different from what we started with. There's not really any reason that "living" things wouldn't be able do to the same.
 
A different species is often defined as a species that can not produce fertile young with the the descendants of the species from which it descended. Of course, this doesn't quite apply to most bacteria or viruses

Or bottlenose dolphins and false killer whales which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, although they are different dolphin species. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolphin]Wholphin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The definition of "species" needs some amending.
 
Or bottlenose dolphins and false killer whales which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, although they are different dolphin species. Wholphin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The definition of "species" needs some amending.

A textbook definition will never be able to account for the diversity of life. There are all sorts of gray areas where animals are sort-of the same species and sort-of different species. Our taxonomic classifications are a useful guide, but they were created by humans, not nature. There will always be organisms that don't fit neatly into our preconceived ideas of what a member of a certain group should be...look at the platypus.
 
No, not at all. You're simply ignoring the facts and substituting your own whacked ideas. Science has proven that evolution happens via observation and testing in regards to the genetic code. I say this to you, although I know you will not let this information into your head. You are more comfortable living in your delusion than accepting the truth, and there is very little any of us can do, though we are armed with the facts, to tear down your delusion. I am done trying to prove evolution, a truth of our world to you.



Those who put on #1 can receive their money.

So I ask you, disprove or invalidate evolution.
There is nothing there to disprove.


One does not disprove delusional ideas.
 
Fair enough. Nevertheless, they are a good example of something we have observed adapting to its environment and becoming radically different from what we started with.

It's not really adapting per se.

Mutations in viruses come about because of the way that they are reproduced.

Take retro viruses for example. they actually splice into the host's DNA to replicate. Others will use the hosts RNA.

That's a big part of the reason they have a high rate of mutation. Teh way they replicate actually will change the DNA. This splicing ability is also the reason why viral vectors are being used in genetic engineering.
 
(if you count those as species).

why should I ever?

What exactly is a "different species" aside from a series of mutations in DNA?
a series of mutations in DNA has lead to appearance of you and I … from your definition you and I are different species. I cannot deny that.

If you accept that genes can change over a short period of time as organisms adapt to their environment, then it logically follows that there will be a LOT of changes over a LONG period of time.

I am not arguing your logic, am I?



And that's all speciation really is...a lot of genetic changes from the original until you have something very different.

I am very different from you, am I a different specie?
 
It seems the odds are against me.


Your perception is based on your undeserved attitude towards yourself. You understimate yourself. You exactly know how place the bet. You deserve to be a winner.
 
a series of mutations in DNA has lead to appearance of you and I … from your definition you and I are different species. I cannot deny that.

No, we are the same species. But if you acknowledge that there will be small genetic changes over the generations as animals adapt better to their environment, then it stands to reason that a lot of small changes will add up to some pretty big changes (i.e. new species).

justone said:
I am not arguing your logic, am I?

So you acknowledge then that there will be major changes over long periods of time, compared to the ancestor? I guess I'm confused what problem you have with the theory of evolution then...

justone said:
I am very different from you, am I a different specie?

No, you are not very different from me. Over 99.9% of our genes are exactly the same.
 
No, we are the same species. But if you acknowledge that there will be small genetic changes over the generations as animals adapt better to their environment, then it stands to reason that a lot of small changes will add up to some pretty big changes (i.e. new species).



So you acknowledge then that there will be major changes over long periods of time, compared to the ancestor? I guess I'm confused what problem you have with the theory of evolution then...



No, you are not very different from me. Over 99.9% of our genes are exactly the same.

I have not been arguing against the occurence of genetical changes. The occurence has been observed in experiments, the propositions
( mathematical equations) explaining the changes have been made and confirmed in experiments.

I have not been arguing against your logical conclusions or reasoning leading to the conclusions, all I have ben asking if the conclusions have ever been observed, if propositions have ever been made and confirmed in experiments, - ever, at least justonce.
 
I have not been arguing against the occurence of genetical changes. The occurence has been observed in experiments, the propositions
( mathematical equations) explaining the changes have been made and confirmed in experiments.

I have not been arguing against your logical conclusions or reasoning leading to the conclusions, all I have ben asking if the conclusions have ever been observed, if propositions have ever been made and confirmed in experiments, - ever, at least justonce.

You mean personally observed by scientists? Not that I am aware of. The theory of evolution has only been around for a little over a century. It takes a lot longer than that to see major changes in species (although we have observed lots of minor changes).

However, the fossil record provides plenty of observable evidence of major changes.
 
Now, it still remains a philosophy that I believe warrants consideration,
I have not been having objections, as you can see
but I can now see why you have a strong aversion towards it's designation as a science with far more clarity than I could before. Thank you for that.

I believe you are the 1st one who has understood the simple things I have been proving during the last year and a half. I am standing speechless.

Perhaps all evolutionists were not created equal?

Your treatment of yourself is absolutely undeserved
 
I do not have a religion, but I am definitely not an Atheist.

I was brought up a Catholic (baptized and the like), then attended a Born-Again Christian school and church for four years before coming to public school. I lost my religion in sometime middle school I suppose. Anyway, I used to regard myself as to being Agnostic. Since recanting that label I haven't "found" a religion per se. Though I may be unaffiliated with a religion, I am still very spiritual. I believe in karma and the idea of reincarnation. I am interested in all religions and want to study them in college (namely Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Taoism).

I firmly believe in the idea of evolution.
 
You mean personally observed by scientists? Not that I am aware of. The theory of evolution has only been around for a little over a century. It takes a lot longer than that to see major changes in species (although we have observed lots of minor changes).
I guess I lost all my bets.


So, you want me to believe that occurrences nobody has ever been witness of and nobody has made a record of are happening and you want me to to believe just to your promise that in some time ( I will get back to TIME - I should go) we will see them; but you wouldn't believe in resurrection of Christ witnessed and recorded, and you wouldn’t believe the promise of him coming back in some time? And then you go around and insult my beliefs and want to force me and my children to believe in yours as the only right ones?

How about some minimal fairness?
 
So, you want me to believe that occurrences nobody has ever been witness of and nobody has made a record of are happening and you want me to to believe just to your promise that in some time ( I will get back to TIME - I should go) we will see them;

Like I said, there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. That evidence is no less observable than reproducing the experiment in a laboratory.

justone said:
but you wouldn't believe in resurrection of Christ witnessed and recorded, and you wouldn’t believe the promise of him coming back in some time?

Umm...what?

justone said:
And then you go around and insult my beliefs and want to force me and my children to believe in yours as the only right ones?

Umm...what?
 
Or bottlenose dolphins and false killer whales which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, although they are different dolphin species. Wholphin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The definition of "species" needs some amending.

I agree. I was just throwing out a common definition.


Those who put on #1 can receive their money.


There is nothing there to disprove.


One does not disprove delusional ideas.

You have totally lost touch with anything that might be referred, even in a sideways way, to "reality". You have yet to launch an even remotely compelling argument against evolution, nor support a counter-idea. But regardless, my curiousity is piqued; if you do not believe in evolution, how do you think everything that is got to be the way it is? I gotta hear this.


Duke
 
I do not have a religion, but I am definitely not an Atheist.

Its called being Agnostic. You associate to no religion but believe in a God, or something along those regions, a different type of higher being pulling the "strings".
 
What's your problem with apes? I would be proud to be descended from a gorilla or orangutan
 
What's your problem with apes? I would be proud to be descended from a gorilla or orangutan

Sorry, that you have nothing to be proud of. It is clear that evolution went on a side track in your case. I see most people keep this fact in mind talking to you. Do you, at least eat bananas?
 
I agree. I was just throwing out a common definition.




You have totally lost touch with anything that might be referred, even in a sideways way, to "reality". You have yet to launch an even remotely compelling argument against evolution, nor support a counter-idea. But regardless, my curiousity is piqued; if you do not believe in evolution, how do you think everything that is got to be the way it is? I gotta hear this.


Duke

Anybody who bet on #5. got it all. I know Tucker did.

I have been making my considerations from the POV of science. From the scientific point of view you ask me to step away from the firm path of science into the swamp of hypotheses aka speculations aka guesses. No. I am not ‘’the overwhelming majority of scientists’’ a.k.a. charlatans, I follow rules of science. Following the rules I feign no hypotheses, for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.


Until I observe occurrences which make/made ''that to be the way it is,'' I have nothing to make propositions (mathematical/logical equations) about, I have nothing to talk about. I cannot talk about events which have never been observed within the frame of a scientific consideration. If you wish to step away from science, and exercise just logic, let me know and demonstrate that you’re capable of making a statement not loaded with logical fallacies.

So far you have only been proving here that you cannot understand a simple question, cannot answer a simple question and, at least but the last, due this fact cannot make a sentence void of logical fallacies.
 
Like I said, there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. That evidence is no less observable than reproducing the experiment in a laboratory.



Umm...what?



Umm...what?

One more time. I am trying to make it very simple for scientists. I don’t know how to make it more simple.

You look at empirical evidence. You say that the empirical evidence makes you to conclude logically that evolution occurred, occurs and will occur. Fine. I ask, - do you have one justone record of the occurrence of evolution? You say, - no.
I look at empirical evidence. The empirical evidence makes me logically conclude that G-d exist, etc. I have records of his coming and resurrection.

How can your conclusions possibly be more true than mine?
 
Sorry, that you have nothing to be proud of. It is clear that evolution went on a side track in your case. I see most people keep this fact in mind talking to you. Do you, at least eat bananas?

It has been a hallmark of the ignorant for over 100 years to denigrate the concept of natural selecition by making fun of primates. I see some things never change.
 
Back
Top Bottom