• 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
Harshaw said:
"Undeniable" is in fact too strong of a word in this regard.

I find it convincing. But that doesn't mean there's no possibility of finding out something else which contradicts it.
Click to expand...

The problem with undeniable is that it is subjective. Creationists deny evolution yet use the commercial, tangible products that are derived from it. To rational people, evolution and its evidence is undeniable as manifest in things we use every day. But they still deny it.
 
obvious Child said:
The problem with undeniable is that it is subjective. Creationists deny evolution yet use the commercial, tangible products that are derived from it. To rational people, evolution and its evidence is undeniable as manifest in things we use every day. But they still deny it.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it makes no sense.
 
Lachean said:
Fine, how about "overwhelming evidence" with more and more pouring in EVERY day and NOTHING contradicting it.
Click to expand...

Well, no; there ARE inconsistencies found; for example, some scientists will say that are some big changes that happened over a much, much quicker period of time than the standard model could account for.

Like I said, I find it convincing, but that doesn't mean it's undeniable.


I am not saying there is no possibility that evidence will come in that contradicts it, I'm saying its as unlikely as finding out that we don't actually orbit the sun. Hows that?
Click to expand...

I dunno; cosmologists discover things all the time which fundamentally alter our understanding of the universe. It's certainly not beyond question that something may come along and do so for current understandings of evolution, too.
 
obvious Child said:
The problem with undeniable is that it is subjective. Creationists deny evolution yet use the commercial, tangible products that are derived from it. To rational people, evolution and its evidence is undeniable as manifest in things we use every day. But they still deny it.
Click to expand...

I believe that both creationists and evolutionists are to some extent correct...

Humans definately have connections to apes but there are too big of evolution gaps to be filled.

Possibly the way humans jumped from apes is from visitors long ago who altered the genes of apes and created Adam and Eve. Hence both creationists and evolutionists are correct.There is a lot of evidence from the past that points to the likelyhood of visitors in signs all over the globe.

That being said I still cannot rule out the possibility of there being a true God in some form because even though it is quite likely the universe is full of life it still had to start somewhere.
 
obvious Child said:
The problem with undeniable is that it is subjective. Creationists deny evolution yet use the commercial, tangible products that are derived from it. To rational people, evolution and its evidence is undeniable as manifest in things we use every day. But they still deny it.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone rational denies that evolution occurs and has occurred since the beginning of life on earth. I think the devil is in the details. Putting the puzzle together, looking for origins, common ancestry, is it gradual constant and ongoing or occurring in bursts with periods of stability, is evolution progressive in nature or chaotic, should it be looked at as a tree of life as Darwin presented or has that notion adequately been debunked enough to toss it out all together....

The idea that evolution has occurred is undeniable. However much of what gets thrown about as theory of evolution and assertions stemming from it are completely worthy of criticism.
 
celticlord said:
The problem with this is that it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Well, YECs aren't rational in their origin beliefs. I know a guy who whole hardly rejects evolution including radiometric dating tools to verify ages. Yet he calls for nuclear power despite not understanding the same principles behind nuclear power and radiometric dating. Say what? Exactly. And he uses oil despite big fossil firms utilizing evolutionary history to search for oil deposits. It's rather amusing to watch someone deny evolution and then go use its products.
 
creativedreams said:
I believe that both creationists and evolutionists are to some extent correct
Click to expand...

Evolution is flawed no question. Mankind has not produced a single scientific theory or law that is absolute. Evolution will likely evolve over time to incorporate new findings and become a different theory in the future.

As for creationist, depends what kind. YECs are fracking nuts.

Humans definately have connections to apes but there are too big of evolution gaps to be filled.
Click to expand...

At the current moment yes.

There is a lot of evidence from the past that points to the likelyhood of visitors in signs all over the globe.
Click to expand...

okay.....

That being said I still cannot rule out the possibility of there being a true God in some form because even though it is quite likely the universe is full of life it still had to start somewhere.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis. But just because we don't know (abiogenesis itself is shaky) does not mean we credit a God. Essentially what you just did was God of the Gaps. A more rational approach is "I don't know."
 
obvious Child said:
Well, YECs aren't rational in their origin beliefs. I know a guy who whole hardly rejects evolution including radiometric dating tools to verify ages. Yet he calls for nuclear power despite not understanding the same principles behind nuclear power and radiometric dating. Say what? Exactly. And he uses oil despite big fossil firms utilizing evolutionary history to search for oil deposits. It's rather amusing to watch someone deny evolution and then go use its products.
Click to expand...

I think you have folks who discuss evolution and the theory of evolution interchangeably so often not everyone is on the same page. There's a big difference between acknowledging evolution has occurred and becoming a full fledged Darwinist. You can accept evolution while being quite critical of the explanations for it, assertions about why, how, and when, and arguments over whether it's purposeful or chaotic, etc. It's one thing to look at something and see: this is what happened. It's a whole other discussion to start explaining what that evidence/fact/observation means in the larger picture.
 
obvious Child said:
Evolution is flawed no question. Mankind has not produced a single scientific theory or law that is absolute. Evolution will likely evolve over time to incorporate new findings and become a different theory in the future.

As for creationist, depends what kind. YECs are fracking nuts.

At the current moment yes.

okay.....

Abiogenesis. But just because we don't know (abiogenesis itself is shaky) does not mean we credit a God. Essentially what you just did was God of the Gaps. A more rational approach is "I don't know."
Click to expand...

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.

The explanation is sound, and its predictive ability (finding Tiktalik for example) is top notch. What do you mean that no laws are absolute, the laws of physics certainly are.

There are many absolutes and axioms in science and logic.

"Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute." - Ayn Rand
 
Last edited:
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.

The explanation is sound, and its predictive ability (finding Tiktalik for example) is top notch. What do you mean that no laws are absolute, the laws of physics certainly are.

There are many absolutes and axioms in science and logic.

"Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute." - Ayn Rand
Click to expand...

They've already pretty much tossed Darwin's simple Tree of Life. I'm sure there's tons more ways in which the theory of evolution will be tweaked before all is said and done.

Again the problem is discussing evolution and the theory of evolution as the same thing.
 
creativedreams said:
It is my personal theory that Earth had visitors long ago who genetically altered the apes to create humans.
Click to expand...

Seems a little far fetched at first, but i do believe there is extraterrestrial life out there and i do believe there have been instances where they have visited this planet and are intruiged by our life forms and planet. Its not impossible, i suppose.
 
talloulou said:
They've already pretty much tossed Darwin's simple Tree of Life. I'm sure there's tons more ways in which the theory of evolution will be tweaked before all is said and done.

Again the problem is discussing evolution and the theory of evolution as the same thing.
Click to expand...

They've also tossed out the epicycles used by Copernicus in favor of Kepler's elliptical orbits. That doesn't devalue nor negate the basic principles of heliocentric theory.
 
Tucker Case said:
They've also tossed out the epicycles used by Copernicus in favor of Kepler's elliptical orbits. That doesn't devalue nor negate the basic principles of heliocentric theory.
Click to expand...


Yeah, accept for the sun not being the center of the universe heliocentric theory is dandy.:shock:
 
talloulou said:
They've already pretty much tossed Darwin's simple Tree of Life. I'm sure there's tons more ways in which the theory of evolution will be tweaked before all is said and done.

Again the problem is discussing evolution and the theory of evolution as the same thing.
Click to expand...

You're confusing Darwin's theory of natural selection w/ evolution, his tree was simple; the one predicted by the theory of evolution was specific and accurate.

Yes, more evidence will come in to refine the theory, that is a testament to the power of science. Scientists are both skeptical and open-minded, they are rational which means willing to change their theories or even abandon them when faced with new evidence.

You can be skeptical about the specific explanations about our particular species, but when faced with the genetic evidence for common descent with modern apes what say you? The fact is we share a common ancestor with all forms of life on this planet.

"When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?”
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
Yeah, accept for the sun not being the center of the universe heliocentric theory is dandy.:shock:
Click to expand...

The theory of the Universe has changed dramatically since the days of Copernicus, but that has had no effect whatsoever on the basic principles of the theory of heliocentricity. What was referred to as the Universe back then is now fully understood to just be the Solar system.
 
Lachean said:
You're confusing Darwin's theory of natural selection w/ evolution, his tree was simple; the one predicted by the theory of evolution was specific and accurate.

Yes, more evidence will come in to refine the theory, that is a testament to the power of science. Scientists are both skeptical and open-minded, they are rational which means willing to change their theories or even abandon them when faced with new evidence.

You can be skeptical about the specific explanations about our particular species, but when faced with the genetic evidence for common descent with modern apes what say you? The fact is we share a common ancestor with all forms of life on this planet.

"When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?”
Click to expand...

What are you talking about with the bolded above? Where can I go to see the specific and accurate tree drawing? :rofl The dang thing has been redrawn every which till Sunday and I imagine will change so many more times that they ought to not keep putting crude images of any sort of tree of life in textbooks.

I believe that evolution occurs. I'm not sure I believe all life on this planet stems from a single common ancestor. That sounds like rot, the evidence for it is most certainly not undeniable, and I'd be as apt at this point to believe in Adam and Eve as believing ALL LIFE on Earth stemmed from a single ancestor.

As far as I'm concerned if someone denies evolution they're a tard. If someone denies this notion that all life stems from a single source - that's not so tardy.
 
No we didn't evolve from apes.... They where just the base that aliens used to fuse DNA into... DUH!! Eeeerbody know dat. Gawd damnnn boy. At least that's what mah grandma told meh.

We need to make genetically altered monkies with a faster life cycle and put them through different upbringings to see evolution. Feed them cooked food only and see if their physiology changes.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
What are you talking about with the bolded above? Where can I go to see the specific and accurate tree drawing? :rofl The dang thing has been redrawn every which till Sunday and I imagine will change so many more times that they ought to not keep putting crude images of any sort of tree of life in textbooks.

I believe that evolution occurs. I'm not sure I believe all life on this planet stems from a single common ancestor. That sounds like rot, the evidence for it is most certainly not undeniable, and I'd be as apt at this point to believe in Adam and Eve as believing ALL LIFE on Earth stemmed from a single ancestor.

As far as I'm concerned if someone denies evolution they're a tard. If someone denies this notion that all life stems from a single source - that's not so tardy.
Click to expand...

All life on earth shares a large percentage of it's DNA with every other lifeform on earth. For example, 50% of your DNA is the same as the DNA in bananas, and you share 93% of your DNA with fruit flies. The fact that everything shares so much common DNA would seem to indicate that all forms of life(that we have discovered) seem to have evolved from a single common source.

This theory like any other is subject to further evidence, if it turns out that life did not originate here and panspermia is true for example, the precursors to DNA based organisms that seeded this planet could have come from different places and @ different times (on different comets for example.)

The genetic evidence suggest one evolutionary tree, but there could have been others. Life could have started once before and was utterly wiped out only to start again during those early hellish years of our planet.

However, when you compare every living being to another, the evidence is "overwhelming."

Look outside, see a squirrel, at some point in both of your ancestry's, your share a common ancestral species. We're all related to an extent...
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Its also a "theory" that we revolve around the sun, theory doesn't mean guess in science.
Click to expand...

I understand you and I are on the same page here, but I wanted to clarify this bit from a much earlier post.

It's not a "theory" that we revolve around the sun. It's an "observed phenomenon" that the earth orbits the sun. The phenomenon is so well-documented and understood that it is, for all intents and purposes, a "fact." The theory of gravity in conjunction with other theories, such as the relativity, are useful in understanding why the earth orbits the sun in the way it does.

Similarly, we have more than sufficient evidence in the fossil record as well as the biological sciences to say that evolution is an "observed phenomenon"... that is, a "fact." The theory of natural selection, along with other theories, simply help us understand how it happens.

Evolution is a "fact."

Even Intelligent Design proponents accept that evolution is a "fact." That's the big leap they made from creationism. But many creationists who now back ID don't seem to grasp that important difference.

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
So you're saying I have to believe in an unknown common ancestor between chimps and humans or throw every ounce of evolution theory out the window.

Somehow I doubt that.
Click to expand...

You have every freedom to be as wrong as you like. If you want to understand the theory of evolution, you have to accept that the fact of a common ancestor is ineluctable.

Further back in time, we share ancestry with tiktaalik rosea.


 
talloulou said:
Look I just get annoyed when scientific theory is peddled as fact. To say, "it's passed all the tests..." is just so dang ignorant. It hasn't "passed all the tests." We don't even know what the common ancestor was. We just found out in the past few years that whatever the hell it was it probably lived on the ground and not in the dang trees. Evolution in no way speaks to origin. The fossil record is incomplete,etc. It's passed all the tests, gimme a break.

It's sound. It's more sound and scientific than creationists or my alien theories. However it is not fact. It has yet to be disproven and we'd all do well to take that FWIW. But it is by no means the end all be all of biology and it most certainly is not above criticism.
Click to expand...

The "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" is the theory that explains the observed fact that natural selection coupled with the inherent variance present in all species produces new species and it also explains the observed facts in the fossil record.

That's just the way it is.

It's call a fact because it's a fact. I know it upsets the little apple carts of many who want to cling to some other idea, but it's still a fact, and those other ideas are still wrong.

If it wasn't an observed process, I might hesitate to call it a fact. But it's observed, and it's a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom