• 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
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.
Funny thing about gravitation...

Everyone can see what it does and what it's done, but no one can prove what causes it.

Sounds a lot like Creationism/ID.

But, no one doubts gravity.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing about gravitation...

Everyone can see what it does and what it's done, but no one can prove what causes it.

Sounds a lot like Creationism/ID.

But, no one doudts gravity.

That's because theories on gravity don't call up deities as causes in the end. No one doubts gravity because it's easily measurable (in the phenomenological sense, I have no interest in getting involved in the semantics debate going on currently) and affects us each and every day. We know it exists. We don't understand the dynamics behind it at all. Why it's so much weaker than the rest of the forces, what mediates the force, why isn't there "negative mass", etc. Lots of unknowns left with gravity, it can't be quantized yet either. But as for "belief", unlike gods gravity acts every day on every one in a relatively understood manner. We're pulled down to the Earth and are thankful for it. But even in the wildest fantasies of theories on actual dynamics of gravity, nothing ever suggests the necessity for deity. In that manner, Creationism/ID and gravity are very remarkably different things. One is saying, we're gonna come up with things and test for them to figure out if they're right; the other is magic.
 
That's because theories on gravity don't call up deities as causes in the end.
So... if the argument were 'gravity were caused by God', you'd doubt it?
 
Funny thing about gravitation...

Everyone can see what it does and what it's done, but no one can prove what causes it.

Sounds a lot like Creationism/ID.

But, no one doudts gravity.

I'd say that using ID or creationism to explain the causation of evolution is akin to saying gravitation is caused by God willing objects to gravitate towards each other.

While it may indeed be correct to a degree (depending upon perspective) but it has no scientific merit.

Personally, I don't thing ID is legitimate science simply because it answers the "why" question. Science is not interested in Why things happen, it is interested in How they happen. Even if God designed species, he would have used mechanisms to do so, as is shown by how he uses mechanisms for basically everything else in the universe.

The problem with the concepts of Intelligent Design and creationism is not that it involves a deity, it's that it seeks to deny scientific inquiries into the deity's methods by leaving it as the final explanation.

One can easily believe in a deity and evolution at the same time. Evidence of convergent evolution indicates that principles of evolution follow set patterns regardless of how they come about. Sonar capabilities in animals that travel in media (bats, some birds, cetaceans, and some rodents), saber teeth, etc are all examples of the likelihood that evolution follows certain "rules". They may or may not be attributable to a "creator".

Science doesn't concern itself with why the rules exist, they only seek to discover how they exist.

That's why faith and science are not contradictory. Commonly, people on both sides of the divide make the mistake of thinking that the two are mutually exclusive, but they aren't. They are separate and distinct from each other, and they may be complimentary to each other.

I don't deny ID/creationism per se, I simply deny it's scientific relevance.
 
So... if the argument were 'gravity were caused by God', you'd doubt it?

If the sole reasoning behind the dynamics is magic, I'd probably look for an alternative explanation. If that's the explanation you want, by all means take it. But I wouldn't argue for it to be taught in a science class.
 
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.

Gravitation is a universal property represented by the gravitational constant. That constant, G, is not a force, but is used to determine the force, or gravity, between two objects with mass. That force is sometimes referred to as the 'gravitational force'. But that is not synonymous with 'gravitation.'

p161.gif


To repeat the distinction:

"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.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity"]Gravity[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Gravitation is a universal property represented by the gravitational constant. That constant, G, is not a force, but is used to determine the force, or gravity, between two objects with mass. That force is sometimes referred to as the 'gravitational force'. But that is not synonymous with 'gravitation.'

p161.gif


To repeat the distinction:

Gravity

As you pointed out, G is the gravitational constant. It is a measure of the gravitational attraction between two bodies of mass.

That gravitational attraction is THEORIZED to be caused by the force of gravity.

It may indeed have another cause than what has currently been theorized.

I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist, I'm saying it may not exist. The same cannot be said regarding gravitation. It most definitely, 100%, without a doubt, exists.
 
If the sole reasoning behind the dynamics is magic, I'd probably look for an alternative explanation.
Why would you doubt it?
 
Personally, I don't thing ID is legitimate science simply because it answers the "why" question.

No, it doesn't answer the "why" question at all.

Why does the vagus nerve swoop and droop as it does? The intelligent design would be to route the thing on the most direct route, not send it looping down into the chest from the brain to come back up to the throat.

Evolution answers the "why" of that easily enough. The vagus nerve loops down and about because that's what it does in fish, and our remote vertebrate ancestors were fish, and that's a holdover from that time.

Now, no intelligent designer is going to build all the workarounds we see in animals and ourselves, but blind evolution, working solely with what's available at the present moment, is going to wind up doing just that.
 
Why would you doubt it?

Ok, here's the thing. It's not that I would doubt or accept it. Well personally, I'm atheist so I wouldn't accept answers which rely on gods. Regardless of that, it's not about doubt or acceptance. It's about how you're forming a scientific theory and trying to figure out and explain the dynamics of how something came to be as we observe it. "God did it" may be fine to many, but in the scientific sense when you're talking of theories and proof, it has nothing. Not only does it rely on an immeasurable (gods), but it's fundamentally untestable. To prove god did it, you must prove god. And even it all that's true. God exists and he made everything. Stating that god did it, doesn't give any insight into the actual dynamics involved. Science searches for an understanding, how things work fundamentally. Science doesn't use "god did it" as answer because even if it were true it doesn't ultimately help anything. I would personally reject the explanation based on magic because I would ultimately find the explanation useless. On the whole is it really doubt/acceptance or is it a satisfactory answer sort of thing? I could maybe got the satisfactory answer path. You can accept maybe ID, but maybe still not like it as an answer as it does nothing to answer it.

I don't know, I don't think I'm doing a good job clarifying my position. ID/Creationism is definitely rejected out of the science classroom, as well it should be as they are not scientific theories. Anything which relies on gods as ultimate solution is not a theory of science; it's a theory of theology. Why is ID doubted and gravity accepted? I think it's because it's a lot harder to doubt gravity as it's a measurable affect in our daily lives; gods are not. Even without knowing the full dynamics of gravity, people know gravity exists because even without knowing force transmitters, and negative mass and things of that nature; people experience gravity in a very real and measurable sense everyday and is confirmed by more than just our personal experiences but even in our technology like satellites and such. Well measured vs. immeasurable, it's a lot easier for people to accept the measured values before the immeasurable ones.
 
Doesn't have to do so until they bother to make Creationism/ID a properly formatted scientific theory. Right now it's just bunk, and religious bunk, at that.

The posting I responsed to was:

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.

And so I asked:
How has science disproven creation/ID?
 
And so I asked:
How has science disproven creation/ID?

Science can not and will not prove/disprove Creation/ID. Science can not and will not prove/disprove gods. If you can't or refuse to do that step, you can not disprove or prove anything which relies on gods as part of the answer.
 
The posting I responsed to was:



And so I asked:
How has science disproven creation/ID?

And I said that science isn't required to disprove the ignorant ramblings of unscientific religious groups. If they ever get their religious dogma into the form of a proper theory, then scientists might be required to disprove them, which as has been shown won't be difficult, and then what will the cults do? They'll go back to their ignorant ramblings.

Then I pointed out that the "design" of your basic human animal leaves a lot to be desired before anyone can call the designer "intelligent". Creationism, of course, is arrant nonsense.
 
Science can not and will not prove/disprove Creation/ID. Science can not and will not prove/disprove gods. If you can't or refuse to do that step, you can not disprove or prove anything which relies on gods as part of the answer.

Nah, science disproves creationism/ID all the time. The C/ID's don't want to change their belief system to include reflections of reality, though.
 
And I said that science isn't required to disprove the ignorant ramblings of unscientific religious groups.
If that's the case, then you did not address the issue I raised.
 
I think specifically young earth creationism has been debunked.
You mean the 'the earth is 9000 years old' version of Creationism?
 
6,000 wasn't it? And yeah that one. It can't disprove creationism in general because there can be no measurement of god and so who's to say if things weren't guided or planned in some way. But young earth stuff, they have explanations around the scientific measurements, but it's pretty wild stuff and way out there.
 
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.

Thanks, if a erson gives it a little thought it actually is just as equal of a possibilty as complete creationism or complete evolutionism.

Nobody can logically deny the likelyhood of the universe being full of life.

Nobody can logically deny the big evidence gaps of evolution from apes to humans.

Nobody can logically deny that we now can genetically alter genes of any species to produce a better, bigger, stronger etc. form of that species.

Just put these posibilities together and it becomes a quite rational possibilty.

The person who claimed this to be an irrational theory needs to broaden their perception a little. Because I am a considerate person who doesn't want to offend anyone I won't mention any names obvious Child;)
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn't answer the "why" question at all.

Why does the vagus nerve swoop and droop as it does? The intelligent design would be to route the thing on the most direct route, not send it looping down into the chest from the brain to come back up to the throat.

Evolution answers the "why" of that easily enough. The vagus nerve loops down and about because that's what it does in fish, and our remote vertebrate ancestors were fish, and that's a holdover from that time.

Now, no intelligent designer is going to build all the workarounds we see in animals and ourselves, but blind evolution, working solely with what's available at the present moment, is going to wind up doing just that.

I don't think you comprehended the full meaning of my post. The intelligent designer would use mechanisms (evolutionary mechanisms) as I've said. This may include not changing things that don't require changing from species to species along the evolutionary pathway.

What you fail to realize is that you haven't answered why the nerve swoops down. You've only shown HOW it exists in all species of animals from fish to humans.

The only thing you've shown is that the shape of this nerve has not hindered reproductive success over the course of evolution. Why has this nerve not changed?

The simple answer: It had no bearing on reproductive success, therefore there was no reason for it to change. That doesn't answer why it exists in said form. To learn that, we must go back to the first ever species that this trait appears in and explain how it was reproductively beneficial for this swoop to be present.

Of course, since it did not change, it is in fact the OPPOSITE of evolution. It is the STAGNATION of a trait.

But let's say you actually explained the reason that the shape exists. All you would be doing is describing HOW that trait came into existence. There is no way you can explain WHY the first creature that had this trait came to exist, only HOW it came to exist.

Evolution can only explain how a species came into existence. It cannot divine a purpose to that existence. ID tries to give a purpose to existence: God's will.

There may, in the end, not be a purpose. The answer to "why" may indeed be "No reason. It simply is what it is."

Evolution explains how speciation occurs, but it can never explain why it occurs. Individual traits are irrelevant to the discussion of these generalities.


Pure hypothetical reasoning ahead: Let's pretend that all of evolution exists solely to create an apex creature that is called "human". Perhaps the complexity of this apex creature required many steps along the path to not only create this creature, but also to give it a world where it can exist with a plethora of other creatures.

God may have "designed" evolution itself to reach this apex at some point along the line. It may have required many many steps along the way, which included the creation of the first creature to have the trait of a swooping vagus nerve. The existence of this trait was of absolute necessity for the first creature to have it, but became a vestigial trait for many creatures that evolved from it, including said apex creature.

But because the trait does nothing to hinder reproductive success of all the various species to have said trait, from the first to the apex species. Thus, there is no reason to "redesign" it in order to appease that apex creatures sensibilities regarding the designer. In essence, redesigning the trait takes unnecessary effort for the designer because said trait is of no hindrance whatsoever to the creation and sustenance of said apex species or any of the species that were the stepping stones to that apex species. If it was, then the trait would have changed. But since it wasn't, it remained the same. And in actuality, since the first creature with said trait absolutely needed it to survive, it was the correct design for the species that came afterward because they could not exist without the first species.

So the development of that shape was of absolute necessity to achieve the final, apex species design, even if it serves no directly observable purpose in that apex species because without the development of that trait in the original species that is a direct line to the apex species, said apex species would never have come into existence.

So, although you have said that your belief is that the intelligent design would have been straight, that is false. The intelligent design was that which made it possible for the final species to come into existence. And that design is currently seen in all species of animals from fish to humans. Without that design, humans would not exist. The fact that it doesn't currently benefit humans is of no consequence because it had the ultimate benefit: It made it possible for them to come to be.

Anyone who believes in evolution can see that what I say above regarding the necessity of this trait existence in order for humans to exist must be true. Without the first species to evolve this trait, which is a direct ancestor to humans, we could not exist in our current form (with this trait ourselves).

What is highly debatable is whether we are the apex species or that evolution exists solely so that we could come into existence. And these things must necessarily be true for Intelligent Design to be true. There must indeed be a purpose to evolution in order for design to be necessary.

That is what I meant when I said "why". The purpose of existence. Science is not interested in purpose, only mechanisms. Religion seeks to discover purpose.

Personally, as an atheist, I don't feel that a purpose exists. I allow for the hypothetical possibility that it could potentially exist, but I don't believe that there is a purpose. Nor do I believe in intelligent design.

But I can easily see how if there is a purpose (or an answer to the "why" question if you will), evolution would be compatible with that purpose and not contradictory to it.

In the end, the why of existence can only be guessed at. It is my guess that there is no "why". For other people the guess is that there is a why.



Disclaimer: This isn't an argument in favor of intelligent design, I don't believe in ID. It is simply an illustration of how if it were to exist, it need not be considered incompatible with evolution.
 
Please specify one instance of science disproving creationism.

Creationism: Man was created out of dust or dirt or clay or something the giraffes dropped from on high or whatever it is the Bible says by this god guy that blew the Holy-tosis of life into him.

Scientific Reality: Man is an animal evolved from other animals following the same processes of evolution by natural selection that all life forms on this planet have followed.

There.
 
Back
Top Bottom