Yes, we evolved from Apes.
No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.
Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
Einie was wrong, and his theory was too complex and too young for him to be making such a comment at that time.
I understood what I was writing, and what it was in response to.
Cool, isn't it?
BTW, he was wrong, as I pointed out. I do have the advantage of ninety years of research, you know.
Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 04-29-09 at 04:03 PM.
See the bolded portion? Einstein clearly added "up to the present" for a reason....up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead...
Also see the underlined portion, The two examples you have given would also fall into the category of "only a few". The quote itself states that such things are not only possible, but that they currently existed at the time that the quote was made.
Clearly, this all proves unequivocally that the following comment:
Is patently false.I understood what I was writing, and what it was in response to.
You clearly could not have understood what you were responding to. Had you actually understood it, there is no conceivable way that you would have responded as you did. In order to respond as you did -by giving a few examples of cases where relativity deduced what pre-relativity physics could not- you must have assumed that the quote meant that there were no cases where something was deduced through relativity that pre-relativity physics could not also lead to.
Obviously, the quote said "only a few" which is, as we all know, more than "none". This means giving a few examples of that which was already acknowledged to exist inside the quote itself does not, could not, and would not, refute that quote.
As I have pointed out, Einstein was not wrong. He was indeed correct. when you look at the entirety of the quote, you have actually pointed out nothing except that which Einstein had already pointed out. That a few things exist that relativity can deduce which pre-relativity physics could not.BTW, he was wrong, as I pointed out. I do have the advantage of ninety years of research, you know.
If you'd like to actually prove Einstein wrong, you would need to show that it is not only a "few" AND that they existed at teh time that he penned the quote in question.
Have fun with that one.
And yet you want to rail against me for pointing out the obvious, that yes indeedy, his theory was too young to be making that comment, and yes, indeedy, justoneman was in error by posting that quote and merely demonstrating his own ignorance thereby.
How much more effort are you going to expend substantiating the point I already made with assured competence, hmmmm?
Wow! What an ENORMOUS amount of factually incorrect nonsense. And every bit of it without citations.
It takes only a second to type a bit of nonsense like "oil pressure is impossible", and it takes patient education to refute something like that.
So let's just return to reality.
The argument isn't really "Creationism" versus "Evolution". Evolution happens - creatures evolve. We evolved from earlier forms. The evidence is there, the mechanisms are well understood. The evolutionary model makes successful predictions all the time. The Theory of Evolution is a solid as atomic theory, tectonic plate theory, and the germ theory of disease.
Many creationists believe in natural evolution - they believe God set off the Big Bang and let it run from there. Others believe the Book of Genesis is 100% factual history and life on Earth started in 4004 BC, in October. So there is no consistent "creationism" viewpoint.
So the argument is really "evolution acceptance" versus "evolution denial", where evolution denial is no different than any other form of reality denial. Evolution denial = Holocaust denial = lunar landing denial = round Earth denial.
The FACT is that life evolves. The THEORY of Evolution is the model that describes how.
Evolution is a solid theory, simple at the core and complex in the details. It employs well-understood mechanisms:
Replication + Variation + Selection = Evolution
It has evidence to support each component, it has mountains of evidence found in the fossil record, in vestigial traits in living creatures, in morphology, in genetics and in molecular biology. The facts of evolution are supported by and mesh with other sciences like geology, paleontology, physics, other aspects of biology, cosmology, etc. And it is supported by thousands of critical scientists trying to prove each other wrong, or trying to add their own insights to the theory. For evolution to NOT be true, many other sciences must have also made major mistakes.
Evolution-deniers claim Evolution is "only a theory" because they say "theory" = "guess" or "hunch". But in science the word "theory" means a complex model to explain many facts. The theory that life evolved from earlier life is as well supported as the "theories" that the continents drift, that germs cause disease and that stuff is made of atoms. You can bet you life on all of those "theories".
Evolution-deniers claim there is no evidence for Evolution. This is a lie. Here are a long list of strong evidence for evolution, and even a list of how you'd disprove evolution, and why the evidence supports evolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Evolution-deniers claim scientists are "abandoning" evolution because some scientists signed a statement saying they are skeptical that Darwinian evolution accounts for all the variation in the species. But (1) this doesn't mean those scientists believe it takes divine or non-natural intervention for evolution to happen, and (2) the list is a fraud:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM"]YouTube - List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?[/ame]
Not only that, but there are nearly 12,000 Christian CLERGY who've signed a statement supporting evolution and rejecting the teaching of creationism as science. Science isn't about voting, but even if it was, evolution still wins.
Butler University - Error Page
Evolution-deniers claim the fossil record does not support evolution, and that there are no intermediate species or transitional fossils. This is an outright lie.
Professional evolution-deniers like Kent Hovind or Harun Yahya claim that a "transitional fossil" is some unworkable mutant like half-crocodile/half-duck or half-starfish/half-flounder. They paint these ridiculous pictures of absurd creatures, then say "see! Evolution is false because these don't exist!".
Of course they're just being dishonest because evolution doesn't work that way (and they know it!). Evolution works by tiny changes in populations over a LONG time, so that species slowly morph into different forms. When you grow from an infant to an adult, your left leg doesn't grow to full size first, then your right arm, then your head. Similary, evolution doesn't put a crocodile's head on a duck's body.
Here is a devout Christian explaining about all sorts of intermediate species and how the fossil record absolutely supports evolution: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY"]YouTube - Ken Miller on Whale Evolution and Intelligent Design[/ame]
Here is an example of how scientists used evolutionary theory to predict a particular undiscovered species should exist, when it should have existed, and where to dig NOW to find a fossil of it. They went to that spot and found five examples. What successful predictions has creationism ever made?
Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik
Here is a fantastic video explaining many many transitional species:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU...A95&index=8"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]
Evolution-deniers, unable to refute the actual theory of evolution, then say "evolution doesn't explain the creation of the first life or the creation of the universe." That is also dishonest, because the theory of evolution doesn't ATTEMPT to explain those. Evolution has nothing to do with those. It's like saying chemistry is all false because it doesn't explain where the elements came from.
The birth of the universe is cosmology, not evolution. And non-life to life is abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is about how different species formed.
Evolution-deniers claim we've never SEEN evolution - that's a lie, because we have:
Scientists watch Darwin?s finches evolve - LiveScience- msnbc.com
This example even ADDED information (through gene duplication), something many evolution-deniers say is impossible:
Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment -- Brown et al. 15 (8): 931 -- Molecular Biology and Evolution
Finally, bad scientific theories get killed by the scientific process: The Four Humours, Polywater, M-rays, cold fusion, etc. Evolution has only become stronger and better understood over the past 150 years. Again, you can bet your life on it.
Natural events have natural causes. For thousands of years, people have used god(s) to explain what they didn't yet have natural explanations for:
The Sun - was a God, now explained by science
The Moon - was a God, now understood by science
The stars - were God, now science
The tides - were attributed to God, now science
The seasons - attributed to God, now science
Earthquakes - were God, now science
Lightning - was God, now science
Rain & drought - was God, now science
Health & disease - was God, now science
Schizophrenia - was demonic possession, now science
Origin of species - was God, now science (evolution)
Identity & personality - was the soul, now neurscience
And as natural explanations and science progress, there are always people uncomfortable with the implications to their religious beliefs at the time. There are STILL people who believe in a flat Earth, or believe the Sun orbits the Earth.
So only by rejecting knowledge and denying reality (or by lying) can you deny that life evolved and continues to evolve.
Now, if you want to argue for creation, just tell us how it works. I've offered the Theory of Evolution that has an understandable mechanism, is falsifiable, that fits the facts of 150 years of hard science, is observable, that makes reliable predictions, and that smart people could win Nobel Prizes for disproving (but haven't, because it's true).
So what's the "theory of creation"? How did it happen? Did all the current species pop into existence all at once? Where did the mass come from? Why are so many of them gone? Why are there no trilobites alive now? Why are there flightless birds living on tiny islands? And finally and most important, if there is NOT a natural explanation for the diversity of life, if some divine creator poofed it all into being, WHY WHY WHY did he/she/it go to such great lengths to make all this evidence proving life evolved naturally? Was it just some big cosmic joke?
Hey, to the 29% of the people who voted on this poll and chose the third option, if you think we evolved, but not from apes, what do you think we evolved from?
The big majority of Americans, who are comparatively well off, have developed an ability to have enclaves of people living in the greatest misery without almost noticing them.
-- Gunnar Myrdal
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
-- Henry Kissinger
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams