Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

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. ‘’ .

Click to expand...

This quote is probably taken out of context. There isn't much on this guy to google for a better reference than what you've posted. But still he's explicitly talking in terms of evolution vs. genesis. He clearly does not believe that evolution is the explanation for our origins or that all organisms stem from a single organism at some point in history. However that's not the same as saying there has never been any evolution of any species at any time ever.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

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.

Click to expand...

I somewhat agree but when doing so you still need to understand there was a puzzle to which we filled in some missing blanks and though we're probably right we could still be wrong and thus the theory shouldn't be tossed about as fact while blasting folks for not buying it whole hog. It's the best explanation out there currently and that is worth something. However there's room for intelligent criticism and skepticism still.

talloulou said:

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.

Click to expand...

[quote =Originally Posted by justone ]
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. ‘’ . [/quote]
:

talloulou said:

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.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by justone said:

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? .

Click to expand...

talloulou said:

See the difference?

Click to expand...

Sure I do I used to have the same belief as Charles Townes, before I tried to read “Origins” ‘’After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."“- Smalley’ After reading Origins of Life and talking to evolutionists I came to a different conviction than Smalley’ and Charles Townes .

talloulou said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no evolution, none, zero, zilch, no micro, no macro, no mini, no bikini, unless you explain to me the difference between mentality of an imbecile looking at phones which do exist and Darwin looking at fossils which do not exist, and answer the rest of the questions, instead of concentrating on a personal belief of Charles Townes… or Smalley


good night... may be for a few nights...

Click to expand...

talloulou said:

I don't believe intelligent design is off the table.

Click to expand...

If the design is so intelligent, how do you explain politicians?

justone said:

[quote =Originally Posted by justone ]
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. ‘’ .

Click to expand...

:

talloulou said:

Sure I do I used to have the same belief as Charles Townes, before I tried to read “Origins” ‘’After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."“- Smalley’ After reading Origins of Life and talking to evolutionists I came to a different conviction than Smalley’ and Charles Townes .




There is no evolution, none, zero, zilch, no micro, no macro, no mini, no bikini, unless you explain to me the difference between mentality of an imbecile looking at phones which do exist and Darwin looking at fossils which do not exist, and answer the rest of the questions, instead of concentrating on a personal belief of Charles Townes… or Smalley


good night... may be for a few nights...

Click to expand...

I think we're beyond being able to understand one another. I haven't decided if it's on principal or a language thing. Probably a combination. :shock: Anywayz good night. :2wave:

talloulou said:

This quote is probably taken out of context. There isn't much on this guy to google for a better reference than what you've posted. But still he's explicitly talking in terms of evolution vs. genesis. He clearly does not believe that evolution is the explanation for our origins or that all organisms stem from a single organism at some point in history. However that's not the same as saying there has never been any evolution of any species at any time ever.

Click to expand...

: "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. ‘’

How much more clear can it be said,... when googling you cannot find anything that confirms your belief, hope in probability

I understand you cannot answer my other questions which have no dependancy on this or that guy.

celticlord said:

If the design is so intelligent, how do you explain politicians?

Click to expand...

The only type of intelligent design I would ever be able to seriously consider is that we were genetically modified and manipulated. In which case it most certainly isn't a divine design. More like sloppy science and lab hijinks. There would be no overly high expectations in such a case. :mrgreen:

justone said:

: "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. ‘’

How much more clear can it be said,... when googling you cannot find anything that confirms your belief, hope in probability

I understand you cannot answer my other questions which have no dependancy on this or that guy.

Click to expand...

He's saying evolution as an answer to our origins is -in his mind- debunked. He is saying in the answer to how we came about it is clear to him that evolution did not occur.

This is not the same as negating all evolution. Do you understand that? As to your other questions truthfully I'm not sure I always understand what you're saying/asking.

talloulou said:

I don't believe intelligent design is off the table.

Click to expand...

It's never really been on the table. Intelligent design was a term invented by creationists after the Supreme Court ruling Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, which barred the teaching of creationism in the public schools.

While you can certainly list a small number of creditable scientists who claim to support ID, that does not mean it is now or ever has been 'on the table.'

Grateful Heart said:

It's never really been on the table. Intelligent design was a term invented by creationists after the Supreme Court ruling Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, which barred the teaching of creationism in the public schools.

While you can certainly list a small number of creditable scientists who claim to support ID, that does not mean it is now or ever has been 'on the table.'

Click to expand...

I accept that. I was speaking as in "my table." I personally have not closed the book on intelligent design. And while many creationists have adopted the general idea nerds have long played with it affectionately while sitting around drunk discussing the possibility of ancient astronauts creating humans as slaves! :mrgreen:

Lachean said:

I wouldn't call it flawed at all. They don't have a fossil for every species that ever existed, but I would regard that as an irrational expectation.

Click to expand...

Can we explain everything right now? Can we justify and prove evolution without a bit of speculation?

No. Therefore it is flawed.

What do you mean that no laws are absolute, the laws of physics certainly are.

Click to expand...

I suggest you check the status of that in the context of a black hole. Singularities render such normally absolute laws no longer absolute.

There are many absolutes and axioms in science and logic.

Click to expand...

See above.

talloulou said:

Looks very scientific. :roll: Personally I think they should give up the whole tree of life nonsense, which many have, and just quit trying for juvenile images to explain a complex and multifaceted process.

Click to expand...

Most images we use to explain the universe are juvenile and fail to accurately portray reality. I can think of any number of examples...



or this....



or this....



Reducing such complex realities to fairly simplistic images is almost a requirement for human understanding.

:2wave:

Not only did we evolve from apes...we currently are apes .. and our children will be apes... as will their children. Denial of this simple fact is nothing more than a superiority complex.

obvious Child said:

Can we explain everything right now? Can we justify and prove evolution without a bit of speculation?

No. Therefore it is flawed.



I suggest you check the status of that in the context of a black hole. Singularities render such normally absolute laws no longer absolute.



See above.

Click to expand...

Wherever science disproves the myths of religion there will be speculation. It is the only reason evolution is cast in doubt and only in the eyes of the faithful.

I could literally present material supporting evolution non stop for a year without repeats. All this evidence would support evolution and you could not bring forth an evidence to the contrary. (YES I SAID THAT DEFINITIVELY )

But we all know this debate has nothing to do with science. It's a bold face lie that we are expected to swallow out of courtesy to different ideas. However, I'm starting to see an unexpected reaping of reward for this sham. Where there is a group of people still wavering on the "you can not disprove it" tactic of theists, they are beginning to see the underhanded methods used to promote creationism and they are equating the two. Where you can hide a deity in the gaps of human knowledge , you can't hide mysticism and "we can't ever really know" over human evolution. Too much has been gathered for anyone to doubt evolution if you explore the tip of the iceberg .

At the risk of being labeled an ad hominem conclusion, it is apparent that anti-evolution arguments are presented by people who are either stupid, ignorant, deliberately misleading , or religiously motivated. Most probably a combination of any on the list. Think about it, for a sec. Just on this forum alone. Are there any who argue against evolution and also see uncertainty in religion? Are there any anti-evolutionists who don't turn to religion to base their debates?

I could literally present material supporting evolution non stop for a year without repeats. All this evidence would support evolution and you could not bring forth an evidence to the contrary. (YES I SAID THAT DEFINITIVELY )

Click to expand...

Scientific theories are not verifiable; they are only falsifiable. More evidence we have about our theories being "correct" does not verify them to be true. Newton's iron laws, for example, were "verified" for hundreds of years until Einstein came along and singlehandedly demolished them with Relativity.

However, I'm not siding with the creationists. I just think it's incredibly egotistical and dangerous to assume that what we know is actually truth. All we know are our best explanations of how things are, and we must accept the fact that due to the limited nature of our knowledge, chances are that our explanations are ultimately wrong and will in the future be falsified and revised in light of new evidence. It is absolutely necessary to accept this to move forward in our understanding of the universe.

Khayembii Communique said:

Scientific theories are not verifiable; they are only falsifiable. More evidence we have about our theories being "correct" does not verify them to be true. Newton's iron laws, for example, were "verified" for hundreds of years until Einstein came along and singlehandedly demolished them with Relativity.

However, I'm not siding with the creationists. I just think it's incredibly egotistical and dangerous to assume that what we know is actually truth. All we know are our best explanations of how things are, and we must accept the fact that due to the limited nature of our knowledge, chances are that our explanations are ultimately wrong and will in the future be falsified and revised in light of new evidence. It is absolutely necessary to accept this to move forward in our understanding of the universe.

Click to expand...

Well said. All scientific thought should be approached with the presumption that it is potentially falsifiable or else growth will not be achieved.

Things evolved, we know it. Evolution takes place, and we know it does. Things are not static, and we know this as well. There's lots of data showing that things have evolved. Man most likely shares an ancestor with apes, it seems rather logical and in the end Man does sometimes act very primate like.

Khayembii Communique said:

Scientific theories are not verifiable; they are only falsifiable. More evidence we have about our theories being "correct" does not verify them to be true. Newton's iron laws, for example, were "verified" for hundreds of years until Einstein came along and singlehandedly demolished them with Relativity.

However, I'm not siding with the creationists. I just think it's incredibly egotistical and dangerous to assume that what we know is actually truth. All we know are our best explanations of how things are, and we must accept the fact that due to the limited nature of our knowledge, chances are that our explanations are ultimately wrong and will in the future be falsified and revised in light of new evidence. It is absolutely necessary to accept this to move forward in our understanding of the universe.

Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with your post here... I'm a little confused by the context in which is was posted... that being an argument that evolution is basically a fact.

You aren't suggesting that evolution is a theory, are you?

Natural selection is a theory. Relativity is a theory.

Gravity is not a theory. It's an observed phenomenon. We have various theories which attempt to explain the fact that gravity is observed in the universe. Similarly, we have various theories to explain the fact that evolution is observed on earth.

..

Grateful Heart said:

While I don't disagree with your post here... I'm a little confused by the context in which is was posted... that being an argument that evolution is basically a fact.

You aren't suggesting that evolution is a theory, are you?

Natural selection is a theory. Relativity is a theory.

Gravity is not a theory. It's an observed phenomenon. We have various theories which attempt to explain the fact that gravity is observed in the universe. Similarly, we have various theories to explain the fact that evolution is observed on earth.

..

Click to expand...

Evolution is a factual well observed, well documented phenomenon.

The theory of evolution which explains that not only does evolution occur but that all life forms, every organism, all stem from a single common ancestor - a single starting point if you will is where you get more into debatable speculation. Yes, from what we know we think that is the best explanation however at this time it is not an explanation that is above criticism, revision, and there is far more work to be done before it becomes non-debatable.

While I don't disagree with your post here... I'm a little confused by the context in which is was posted... that being an argument that evolution is basically a fact.

You aren't suggesting that evolution is a theory, are you?

Click to expand...

The act of evolution is not a theory. The scientific theory of evolution is. The difference is that evolution is an observable phenomenon, whereas the scientific theory of evolution is the conclusion based on scientific observation and is supported empirically. Evolution is the act, whereas the scientific theory of evolution is the attempt at explaining, why, how and when the act occurs.

Gravity is not a theory. It's an observed phenomenon.

Click to expand...

Yes but Newton's Laws of Motion are not.

Basically, Grateful, I agree with you. My post had more to do with people's conceptions of scientific theory than it did evolution.

Grateful Heart said:

Gravity is not a theory. It's an observed phenomenon. We have various theories which attempt to explain the fact that gravity is observed in the universe. Similarly, we have various theories to explain the fact that evolution is observed on earth...

Click to expand...

Actually, gravity is a theory, gravitation is not. Gravity is the theorized mechanism that is believed to be the causal factor behind gravitation.

It may not be "Gravity" though that causes gravitation.

Tucker Case said:

Actually, gravity is a theory, gravitation is not. Gravity is the theorized mechanism that is believed to be the causal factor behind gravitation.

It may not be "Gravity" though that causes gravitation.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out the distinction, because there is one. But I don't believe your explanation is correct. Gravity is not a theory, it's a force. A force that can be measured in the laboratory. Gravitation is the observed phenomenon, and gravity is the measure we use for that phenomenon. We have theories to explain the phenomenon of gravitation:

The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but a distinction may be made in scientific usage. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the phenomenon by which bodies with mass are attracted to one another, while "gravity" refers specifically to the net force exerted by the Earth on objects in its vicinity as well as by other factors, such as the Earth's rotation.

Click to expand...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity"]Gravity[/ame]

grav·i·ty (grv-t)
n.
1. Physics
a. The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
b. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Grateful Heart said:

Thanks for pointing out the distinction, because there is one. But I don't believe your explanation is correct. Gravity is not a theory, it's a force. A force that can be measured in the laboratory. Gravitation is the observed phenomenon, and gravity is the measure we use for that phenomenon. We have theories to explain the phenomenon of gravitation:

Gravity

grav·i·ty (grv-t)
n.
1. Physics
a. The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
b. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Click to expand...

It's a theoretical force. Unlike the other forces of nature, there is no known cause of "gravity". In the end, it may be discovered that gravity is a by-product of the other three forces (strong and weak nuclear and electro-magnetic).

The phenomenon of gravitation is a Law. It exist, can be measured and is well-known and pretty much unfalsifiable.

Until such a point that the Graviton is discovered, thus rendering the theory of gravity unfalsifiable, Gravity will remain a theory. It may or may not be real.

Gravitation on the other hand is 100% certain.

Dogger807 said:

Wherever science disproves the myths of religion there will be speculation. It is the only reason evolution is cast in doubt and only in the eyes of the faithful.

Click to expand...

How has science disproven creation/ID?

Grateful Heart, your error is that you are transposing gravity and gravitation. Gravitation can be measured, gravity cannot. Flip around the terms "gravity" and gravitation in your last post and it'll be correct.