• 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
Regardless of God's perfection, the general teaching in most religions about god is that he is omnipotent, and can do as he damn well pleases, and so he could easily have designed life on earth with all the "imperfections" you cite.
One of the cool things about being powerful enough to do anything is the power to defy logic.
:mrgreen:
 
One of the cool things about being powerful enough to do anything is the power to defy logic.
:mrgreen:

You don't "defy" logic. One's reasoning may be illogical, but, as logic is a quality of reason only, there is nothing against to be defiant.

Also, given that humans themselves are rarely logical, it's rather presumptuous to demand the same of an all-powerful God.
 
You don't "defy" logic. One's reasoning may be illogical, but, as logic is a quality of reason only, there is nothing against to be defiant.
No... I meant in terms of one of the usual logical traps regarding God:
If God is all powerful, can he make a rock too large for Him to lift?
 
Of course we didn't evolve from apes, man and apes evolved from a separate common ancestor.

I can't believe I have to even post this.
 
No... I meant in terms of one of the usual logical traps regarding God:
If God is all powerful, can he make a rock too large for Him to lift?

I think God could life 2 rocks too large! With mind powers....
 
Oh, sure we can. Only a retarded Creatrix would put the vagus nerve in humans where it is. That's just one example from one animal. There are countless species, and not one single one of them is "perfectly" adapted to it's environment, it's merely adapted well enough to survive.

Nah, Creationism was disproved long ago, even before it was ruled as nothing but a lame attempt to introduce religion into public classrooms.

The evidence for human evolution from common ancestors with today's bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orantutangs, and going further back, cats, dogs, and fish, is irrefutable. Since that evidence is conclusive in support of the fact of evolution by natural selection, the oddball weirdo religious dogmas to the contrary are disproven.

How about if those people disprove the established facts of evolution before they try to concoct another off the wall fantasy to replace it?

Really. Science disproved creationism long long ago. Easy enough to do. The Christians claim their god is a perfect god. Creationism is a Christian construct. The facts of life on planet earth are that living animals are hodgepodges of morphologies originally intended for one purpose being adapted to another over time. Any "designer" that produced "designs" like that is clearly imperfect, blind, and ignorant. Ergo, by the definitions the Christians have of their god, He could not have designed life on earth. Thus, Creationism is false.

Yeah, then they turn around and argue that they're not talking about a "christian" god.

Yeah, right. There's no evidence supporting their claim, there's the facts of evolution denying it, they're all disproven.

I'm not sure what debating rather or not Creationism is a scientific theory would accomplish, since there is no result for either of us regardless of who won that debate, so I'll respectfully bow out of that branch of the discussion.
 
As a scientific theory, no YEC, cannot be claimed to be disproved. But as general idea not to mention specific arguments Creationism makes, it can be argued with utmost certainty that creationism has been disproved.

Well, not to support Creationism in the science class room here (which I strictly oppose, for the record), but I could take your logic to a point in history and say categorically that the theory of the incandescint bulb is conclusively disproven, in toto.

So far Creationism hasn't failed; it has simply found 2,000 ways not to succeed as a valid scientific theory.

Today, Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore it does not belong in the science classroom. At best it might serve as a an example of what science is not and how to spot pseudoscience, but even then I would advise avoiding the entire topic in the face of it's political volatility. Let's teach our children to read and let the parent's decide rather to set the Bible or Reason in front of them at breakfast, please.
 
As a scientific theory, no YEC, cannot be claimed to be disproved. But as general idea not to mention specific arguments Creationism makes, it can be argued with utmost certainty that creationism has been disproved.

I think Young Earth Creationism specifically has been well disproved. There is a claim of 6,000 years and it's been measured accurately and it's much older. In general, creationism cannot be disproved though.
 
Well, not to support Creationism in the science class room here (which I strictly oppose, for the record), but I could take your logic to a point in history and say categorically that the theory of the incandescint bulb is conclusively disproven, in toto.

There is no theory of incandescent bulbs. Your analogy doesn't make sense. Furthermore, we both agree that Creationism is not a scientific theory. A theory is made up of facts, testable evidence and tested hypothesizes all concluding in the theory's premise. Creationism does not have facts, does not have testable evidence and does not have tested hypothesizes. Neither does the incandescent bulb.

So far Creationism hasn't failed; it has simply found 2,000 ways not to succeed as a valid scientific theory.

Indeed. But what Creationism has failed to do, for the most part, is change what it says.

Today, Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore it does not belong in the science classroom.

I wouldn't mind a science class discussing Creationism as why it's not science and how what it says fails the most basic of the scientific laws.

Let's teach our children to read and let the parent's decide rather to set the Bible or Reason in front of them at breakfast, please.

The Bible is not inherently exclusive of reason.
 
I know I didn't come from apes, but I'm convinced that liberals did.
 
If your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever, i want to hear your opinions on Evolution. Did it occur? If so, are we the biologically enhanced version of Apes, changed over thousands of years of evolution? Or did it not happen at all. Does it have any scientific basis? Or did a being from a greater source place us here?

Whats your opinions?

If man evolved from apes, then why are still apes?
 
If man evolved from apes, then why are still apes?

Questions such as these are demonstrative of a basic misunderstanding of the science and processes of evolution. Generally, a species does not evolve all together, in the same way, like one big happy family. A fortuitous mutation occurs, giving one organism an advantage over the rest, allowing this organism to reproduce more than others. If this happens enough times, the new strain will not be able to reproduce with the old (non-mutated) strain, and it will be considered a new species. When a new ecological niche opens, where resources are available, a species (or multiple species) often evolves to fill this niche (as an organism that is able to take advantage of these resources will be able to reproduce more, et cetera). There is still an ecological niche for apes where they exist, resources from which they can live and reproduce, therefore, there are still apes. Humans are a branch of the Greater Apes; there are other branches.


Duke
 
Questions such as these are demonstrative of a basic misunderstanding of the science and processes of evolution. Generally, a species does not evolve all together, in the same way, like one big happy family. A fortuitous mutation occurs, giving one organism an advantage over the rest, allowing this organism to reproduce more than others. If this happens enough times, the new strain will not be able to reproduce with the old (non-mutated) strain, and it will be considered a new species. When a new ecological niche opens, where resources are available, a species (or multiple species) often evolves to fill this niche (as an organism that is able to take advantage of these resources will be able to reproduce more, et cetera). There is still an ecological niche for apes where they exist, resources from which they can live and reproduce, therefore, there are still apes. Humans are a branch of the Greater Apes; there are other branches.


Duke

Nice talking, but if that is true (We had'nt all evolved together) that mean that we are Attesting an evolution in Apes species to a primitive man right now, which is not happening .
 
Nice talking, but if that is true (We had'nt all evolved together) that mean that we are Attesting an evolution in Apes species to a primitive man right now, which is not happening .

I'm really not sure what you mean here. The current apes are not facing the same resource-related issues that our ancestors faced; they have more or less what they need. There is no pressure on their populations that would make them evolve into a higher-thinking creature, the way there was for ours. Or, the mutation that might give some of the apes an advantage has not occurred.

I'm not sure if that's what you are asking, it would be helpful if you could clarify it for me.


Duke
 
I'm really not sure what you mean here. The current apes are not facing the same resource-related issues that our ancestors faced; they have more or less what they need. There is no pressure on their populations that would make them evolve into a higher-thinking creature, the way there was for ours. Or, the mutation that might give some of the apes an advantage has not occurred.

I'm not sure if that's what you are asking, it would be helpful if you could clarify it for me.


Duke

That was exactly what I was asking about ..
But am really wondering why had evolution stop not in Apes only, in other creatures, its like going down the stairs after going up, evolution then extinction ..
 
That was exactly what I was asking about ..
But am really wondering why had evolution stop not in Apes only, in other creatures, its like going down the stairs after going up, evolution then extinction ..

Evolution is a complex process that never exactly stops. A species may not appear to be evolving at one point; in fact, the genetic makeup of some species has not changed significantly for many thousands of years. Very simplistic organisms have lived in the same ecosystems, the same way, using the same resources and being preyed upon similarly for long periods of time also. If this situation is stable, and certain genetic makeups are not being favored by natural selection in this species, evolution will not take place.

We cannot see the exact evolutionary pressures that were put on our early ancestors. However, by looking at our own attributes that stem from our genes and our evolution, we can make good guesses as to why we evolved to where we are now. For example, apes that mutated to have developed hands and convenient opposable thumbs may have had a leg up on the other apes. An ape with a mutation that increased the brainpower of an ape, allowing it the cognitive processes to use its hands to use tools would also have an advantage over its fellow apes, and it would reproduce more, spreading this mutation. As arms became more important, apes that could walk on two legs were favored. The myriad of influences and interactions that lead to a species' development over millions of years is never simple to explain or demonstrate, but I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.


Duke
 
Evolution is a complex process that never exactly stops. A species may not appear to be evolving at one point; in fact, the genetic makeup of some species has not changed significantly for many thousands of years. Very simplistic organisms have lived in the same ecosystems, the same way, using the same resources and being preyed upon similarly for long periods of time also. If this situation is stable, and certain genetic makeups are not being favored by natural selection in this species, evolution will not take place.

We cannot see the exact evolutionary pressures that were put on our early ancestors. However, by looking at our own attributes that stem from our genes and our evolution, we can make good guesses as to why we evolved to where we are now. For example, apes that mutated to have developed hands and convenient opposable thumbs may have had a leg up on the other apes. An ape with a mutation that increased the brainpower of an ape, allowing it the cognitive processes to use its hands to use tools would also have an advantage over its fellow apes, and it would reproduce more, spreading this mutation. As arms became more important, apes that could walk on two legs were favored. The myriad of influences and interactions that lead to a species' development over millions of years is never simple to explain or demonstrate, but I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.


Duke

Thanks alot Duke, thats so useful ..
Dude you memorized me with high school days, damn biology :lol:
 
Thanks alot Duke, thats so useful ..
Dude you memorized me with high school days, damn biology :lol:

Ha ha yeah, just so happened to be my favorite science class! Though I'm sure you figured that out by now. :2razz:


Duke
 
Ha ha yeah, just so happened to be my favorite science class! Though I'm sure you figured that out by now. :2razz:


Duke

No and Never !! :rofl
 
No and Never !! :rofl

Ahmed, i thought you was muslim and was expecting you to turn to creationism? Do you believe the process of evolution is currently happening all the time and has happened to us in the past?
 
What's most interesting to me about these evolution debates online is the frequent flipping back and forth between the ideas of creationism and intelligent design. Very often those who refuse to accept evolution will make arguments for both... with little or no understanding of the difference. Thus terms such as evolutionist and Darwinist get tossed around in vitriolic fits with little or no meaning.

darwin_animal.jpg


;)

Grateful Heart, if you decide to undertake another attempt to disprove the fact proven in a series of experiments - that evolutionists cannot understand simple sentences, cannot understand and answer simple questions and, - in the same way as Darwin, - are incapable of basic arithmetic, then you can address me as a creationist, an Intelligent Designer or simply an intelligent, as a X-ian, neocon or SOB. And then I may decide to explain you the difference between all the above in simple sentences. So far your meaningless and irrelevant lament just adds to my proof that evolutionists and/or Darwinists are incapable of maintaining an intelligent conversation not even speaking about understanding an intelligent design.
 
More accurately, Einstein said that Relativity "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one." And that Relativity "may be conceived as an organic development of Newton's thought." .

The degree of accuracy often depends on the task at hand. The task was not to quote Einstein for the simple reason that evolutionists do not understand simple sentences. The task was to try to explain simple sentences in the words that possibly could be accessible to evolutionists.

Would an evolutionist understand what does mean "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one."? No way.

If you wish to compete in accuracy, let me know…


I agree that it was an advancement of Newton's work. .

More accurately,it made it quote more accurate and liable to exceptions end of quote.

It didn't demolish them as was said (to clarify: when I said "well said", I was referring to the point that was being made about the presumption of truth that people have regarding evolution. .


Next time do not include in the quote things which are not well said when you say ‘’well said’’ under the quote.

The presumption should be that the theory is falsifiable. .


You have not noticed how I characterized the rest of the post, have you? Why? Or may be you have ignored an indivisible part of my proof?


You also put your signature under the statement ‘’Scientific theories are not verifiable; they are only falsifiable. Newton's iron laws, for example, were "verified" for hundreds of years’’
You see I have told you that this is what they teach you everywhere. This is the danger, the damage evolutionists inflict on young brains. You see, Commi is a good man and he has a good personality and good brains. Evolutionists did not damage his brains but turned it completely up side down. Commi and you just agreed on some positions of scientific method I was lucky never been forced upon in my young years.

Atheists have invented and called it scientific method to brainwash you and inflict a permanent damage on your brain . They start feeding it to you in schools, then in colleges, then… step by step.. How do you, guys swallow this delirium? What is verification, what is falsification? I could never understand…

Appendices: III The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920

Experimental Confirmation is the verification. TOR was verified at the moment it was published. If you wish accuracy :
‘’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’’.
Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920

(Where did you get your quotes?)

As well all Newton’s theories were verifiable upon publication of Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica. What I am telling you is not opposite to the absurd atheists tell you, their absurd has no relevancy because ‘’atheistic idea is such an absurd that I cannot express it in words’’ as Kelvin used to say. Moreover, a theory- if it is scientific -gets put in immediate use, such as – if in classical mechanics- in calculations of positions of celestial bodies in space and time as we observe them staring at them through telescopes. Look at these theories as we use them everyday: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Machines-Mechanisms-John-Uicker/dp/019515598X]Amazon.com: Theory of Machines and Mechanisms: John J. Uicker, Gordon R. Pennock, the late Joseph E. Shigley: Books[/ame]


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Wing-Sections-Including-Summary/dp/0486605868/]Amazon.com: Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data (Dover Books on Physics): Ira H. Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Hydrodynamics-L-M-Milne-Thomson/dp/0486689700/]Amazon.com: Theoretical Hydrodynamics: L. M. Milne-Thomson: Books[/ame]

and try to ‘’falsify ’’ them, or to ‘’falsify ’’ Newton’s Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica aka Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920
Give it a shot. You see? You are a smart man you don’t have to play a poo all the time. You have to accept that atheism can happen only in a few types of brains – either in undeveloped ones or in damaged ones, or in ones which are turned upside down.

I was not referring to the irrelevant detail regarding Einstein and Newton because, well, it's accuracy was irrelevant. The point was still clear regardless of the accuracy of that detail. .

First you want to be MORE accurate, then you say accuracy was irrelevant … God is in details. Accuracy of following rules of science has 2 qualities – either you follow or you don’t. And that is very relevant if you ever discuss anything from POV of science.

And the point is that nothing should be regarded as "truth" while knowledge is still incomplete) .

I cannot recognize a thought here. I hope you don’t take drugs as many atheists do. What are you talking about? It is an indivisible property of humans – not to have a complete knowledge. Humans as species are characterized as ones not having a complete knowledge. This truth comes from all experiments and experience of humanity, not even mentioning that these experiments and experience of humanity just confirm the truth of the Bible. Science itself exists only due to the incompleteness of knowledge and Science itself maintains incompleteness of knowledge.

Science does not seek ‘’truth’. It is you who does. It is you who finds.


As far as Poincare goes, I, too, am a huge fan of his work. .


I am sorry, but I have difficulties to believe you. Poincare, for instance, was telling you that even a hypotheses (not even speaking about a theory) ‘’should be verified at the first opportunity and it should be verified as often as ever possible’’ (he had a specific meaning and service for a hypotheses). As well in my view there are other huge differences between his views and yours as I can see them, he would agree with me that science does not seek the truth, but you do. Still, I am glad to see you in the club. I have some disagreements with him, too.


BTW Atheists often say also that Euclid’s geometry was wrong or had mistakes or was not advanced enough, - Poincare says that it is the same absurd as all other atheistic ideas, - let me translate it by memory, - ‘’one geometry cannot be more true than another one, - yes it may be more convenient [for a specific task] – but not more true’’. I am not even sure that this text is available in English. In the same way Relativity cannot be more true than Newton’s Principia.

He is well-known to mathematicians and physicists, .

It may be so, but, - like everything else, - he is not known to evolutionists who live by fantasies.

but he deserves far more recognition than he gets in general discussion when discussing the most brilliant minds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially when discussing relativity. .

Well said Tucker!

The point that was beng made and affirmed as a good one by me was that we shouldn't assume that evolution is written-in-stone "fact". Nor should it be assumed to be written-in-stone "fantasy".
It should be viewed as a scientific theory and, thus, it should be considered falsifiable. As it stands, it may or it may not be accurate..


It is a declaration, a blind belief of yours, it is an assumption of yours - because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption.

There are tools, sure ways, litmus tests which would indicate exactly if it is a fantasy or a scientific theory. I have been using one of them – the easiest one and the first one required. A theory either follows rules of science or it does not. The rules are very simple and they all including. That’s all. Evolution does not pass the test. That’s all. From POV of science evolution is a fantasy. And as I have demonstrated each evolutionist has his own personal fantasy. However attractive and logical it looks to you meeting your personal taste and your personal logical abilities, from POV of science it is a ‘’written-in-stone "fantasy".”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom