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 3 of 52 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #21
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    1. Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes and humans share common ancestry.
    2. Are we quite certain the process is evolution and not devolution?

  2. #22
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,891

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    1. Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes and humans share common ancestry.
    2. Are we quite certain the process is evolution and not devolution?
    1. You're right that we didn't evolve "from apes," we are apes (homonids) and so is was our common ancestor; We evolved from another ape.

    2. I don't... that isn't... what?
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  3. #23
    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 Lachean View Post
    A theory is a collection of facts, and it has allowed scientists to verify predictions countless predictions.
    Scientific theory isn't a collection of facts. It's an interpretation of what a series of facts and repeatable observations might mean. Still a guess, but an educated one with merit validated by the facts and observations that seem to point to the theory.

  4. #24
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    What? In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation, but not so in science. Read the above posts. A theory is a collection of facts, and it has allowed scientists to verify countless predictions.

    I don't understand what you mean by "theory and not fact," that is a contradiction.

    I agree with you that we should "question everything," that is the whole point of science. Skepticism is the default scientific position, you don't gain any ground without evidence and/or mathematics to support your position.
    Ah yeah.

    I meant Law, not "fact".
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  5. #25
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    1. Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes and humans share common ancestry.
    2. Are we quite certain the process is evolution and not devolution?

    Oh come on.

    We really don't know **** about our roots. We can only see the shadow that follows us a couple of times a week.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  6. #26
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,891

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Scientific theory isn't a collection of facts. It's an interpretation of what a series of facts and repeatable observations might mean. Still a guess, but an educated one with merit validated by the facts and observations that seem to point to the theory.
    If you want to regard the fact that we orbit the sun an "interpretation" or a "guess" rather than an explanation so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it, that's on you.

    A scientific theory is NOT a mere "guess", the word does not mean the same thing it does in everyday language. Scientific theories do not deal in what the facts "might mean" they are the best explanation for what they DO mean. More than that, you can use these theories to make countless predictions.

    I have no interest in a semantics debate. What I quoted to you was the definition according to the National Academy of Sciences. I'll refer you to their position on this.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 04-19-09 at 04:41 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  7. #27
    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 Lachean View Post
    What I quoted to you was the definition according to the National Academy of Sciences.
    I'd like to see where they define scientific theory simply as "a collection of facts." Facts are facts. Theory deals in interpreting facts and observations to explain the world around you. The interpretation part is what differentiates "theory" - even scientific theory from "fact."


    I have no interest in a semantics debate. A scientific theory is NOT a mere "guess", the word does not mean the same thing it does in everyday language.
    No, it's not a mere guess. It's an interpretation born from facts and observations used to explain something about how the world works. But to say "theory is a collection of facts" is an overstatement of how sound and concrete a theory is.

  8. #28
    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?

    From your sited document:

    Some scientific explanations are so well established that no
    new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes
    a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a
    hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word
    theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important
    feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over
    time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about
    as yet unobserved phenomena.
    This is much closer to what I said, then what you said!

    You said, theory is a collection of facts.

    I said theory is an interpretation of facts and observations to explain something about how the world works. An educated guess.

    Read the above again. If what you said was true they wouldn't use words like likely, or supported by.

    The comprehensive explanation comes from the interpretation of facts and observations. It's taking what you know to be true- fact, and what you have repeatedly observed -observations and using and interpreting that information to go a step further in explaining something. Going further than what you can factual prove in absolute certainty with the known facts and observations used as supportive evidence for your claim.

    You were absolutely wrong when you said "theory is a collection of facts. "

  9. #29
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,891

    Read the article, a theory is not a guess

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    From your sited document:

    This is much closer to what I said, then what you said!

    You said, theory is a collection of facts.

    I said theory is an interpretation of facts and observations to explain something about how the world works. An educated guess.

    Read the above again. If what you said was true they wouldn't use words like likely, or supported by.

    The comprehensive explanation comes from the interpretation of facts and observations. It's taking what you know to be true- fact, and what you have repeatedly observed -observations and using and interpreting that information to go a step further in explaining something. Going further than what you can factual prove in absolute certainty with the known facts and observations used as supportive evidence for your claim.

    You were absolutely wrong when you said "theory is a collection of facts. "
    I said a lot more that just "a collection of facts." Several times I reiterated that its also an explanation of said facts, but you chose not to respond to those definitions. When I said that, I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't defining "theory" in post #20, I was addressing the dichotomy of Arch Enemy's "as theory, not fact."

    When I clearly defined what a theory was to you in posts #17 or #26 was I wrong in any way? Do you have a counter argument to the fact that a theory is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them"?

    In no way is a theory "an educated guess," it is not a guess at all. That is what the word "theory" means in everyday language. Its an explanation, not just an interpretation of the facts.

    In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses.
    Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

    You need to get the notion that theories are guesses or interpretations out of your mind, that and the idea that the NAS's position more closely represents yours than mine. What you did was ignore EVERYTHING I said to you, picked one thing I said to someone else out of context, and claim that I have failed to define "theory" adequately.

    When in fact, you didn't reply to the proper definitions. Do yourself a favor, stop revealing your ignorance about scientific terminology and read the articles; Educate yourself. No one here is making "an overstatement of how sound and concrete a theory is."

    Evolution is as true as gravity.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 04-19-09 at 05:21 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    I have this really strange question.

    If you are familiar with Donkeys, you may have observed that the male donkey is endowed with a remarkably long penis. Remarkably long. Say most of a meter.
    This uber-long-penis enables him to mate with female donkeys despite the awkwardness of their mounting position.

    When donkeys evolved from whatever, how did it just so happen that the male donkey came equipped with the uber-long penis he needed to impregnate the female donkey? Or did donkeys evolve several times, then die out repeated due to lack of an uber-tallywacker until finally one day donkeys appeared with the impressive equipment in question?

    Also, if the first male donkey evolved in Kazakistan and the first female donkey evolved in Ireland, how did they hook up?

    Perhaps they just mated with whatever parent species they evolved from that was close at hand, I suppose, like Donkeys and Horses will. Um, of course the offspring of a Donkey and Horse is called a Mule, and there is a reason that the word "Mule" is also a synonym for sterility.

    BTW, I have this screenplay that was written by a million monkeys banging on a million typwriters, I wonder if you think its any good:

    qjha tghn; hjfrgiadfnaonfgklrfqierigdefngdekfgioenrgefgkapdfm bdsnbmnafgnwfwruqeutojioj[4580458358979t3490gjfgdaf;klkdfhdepfhgptghpy5jt,jm hetguwjehbfyuwgbyifwberjogmneiegioehgioengkengwion gfwionrwowiretirre9589784353r4gjrfkgndsfknbdfhgtre itgertgiejhgipjre5igpe59t935gnripewgn
    The monkeys claim its a Broadway adaptation of a Shakespeare play, but I have my doubts.

    My point in all this silliness is: while I don't claim to have a full understanding of all the details of how life came to be in its present form, I do believe that without the guiding hand of an omnisapient Creator, advanced life forms are improbable.

    Some scientist seem to agree:

    Barrow and Tipler [30] review the consensus among such biologists that the evolutionary path from primitive Cambrian chordates, e.g. Pikaia, to Homo sapiens was a highly improbable event. For example, the large brains of humans have marked adaptive disadvantages, requiring as they do an expensive metabolism, a long gestation period, and a childhood lasting more than 25% of the average total life span. Other improbable features of humans include:

    Being the only extant bipedal land (non-avian) vertebrate. Combined with an unusual eye-hand coordination, this permits dextrous manipulations of the physical environment with the hands;
    A vocal apparatus far more expressive than that of any other mammal, enabling speech. Speech makes it possible for humans to interact cooperatively, to share knowledge, and to acquire a culture;
    The capability of formulating abstractions to a degree permitting the invention of mathematics, and the discovery of science and technology. Keep in mind how recently humans acquired anything like their current scientific and technological sophistication.
    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

Page 3 of 52 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •