jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (77 posts)

Proof of Evolution?

  1. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I think evolution is true without needing transitional fossils. There have been cases where humans have lived in the wild with no human interaction. They lived like animals, they were not "taught" to live like humans. My point is....


    We have to be taught to act as humans, how much more evidence is necessary that we evolved from animals?

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
      prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      we are social human beings, we are taught how to behave when we were younger and we socialize as well

      hi marine

      hmm TARZAN hehe

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Pretty, nice to see you!

        I'm not sure I am clear, do you think we would act like humans or animals if we had no one to teach us to act like humans?

        I think some of us in society still or has before acted like an animal with impulsive thinking and actions compared to when we make a rational or logical thoughts and actions.

        1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
          prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think that we will act as animals when we are not socialize, there has been cases where children are put into cage for longest time without human interaction and they talk like animals, and act wildly, they are stunted emotionally etc

          I dont know also if at some point Tarzan will have a feeling or a knowledge of A GOD or some sort of higher being if he socialize only with animals?

          Most of our knowledge and how we act are I think we get it from socialization other than experience, the intelligence part is a part of genes???

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe Tarzan goes to church every Sunday instead of using rational thought. lol . I'm jk. Seriously, I don't think we would have an awareness or would search for an awareness of a God if we weren't taught, I could be wrong. I'm not sure, but I think intelligence is part of the genes as well as our ability to learn and teach more information than any other animal. The thing is, we wouldn't have the ability to learn and teach if we were raised as animals our entire lives. Then we would only be able to teach others to act as animals rather than humans.

          2. profile image60
            (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That's because they were put into cages. One can remain alone and not wind up as you describe.

    2. Cly Walsh profile image60
      Cly Walshposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      We didn't evolve from animals. A human is an animal.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but those that act like animals rather than humans end up in jail or dead on a lot of occasions.

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Umm, you have an interesting view on how animals act. Is it based on something?

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Just analyzing how we act on impulses rather than rational thought when we are emotional.

            I wanted to add. I did a cage fight. When I looked back on it, I compared it to me being an animal in a cage using my physical abilities to fight instead of rational thinking. big_smile

          2. tantrum profile image61
            tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            On misinformation lol

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What is misinformation? big_smile

    3. profile image0
      JeanMeriamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I’ll go with you on this, but how was the first human taught to act like a human? And if this evolved naturally then why would we need to be taught to act like humans.

      The way you’ve worded this it doesn’t make much sense to me.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think this was done through awareness by the first language and writing. A human couldn't act like a human unless there was another human to compare with.

  2. mikelong profile image85
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    I don't know about "living like animals"...there are some "animals" I wish humans lived more like.....

    Like the Bonobo...

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I wouldn't mind being a bird.

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Mike, when I was in the Marines, many of us acted and lived as animals at times. lol

  3. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I think learning and teaching rational thinking is the biggest separation between us and other animals.

  4. Sab Oh profile image59
    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    Not to go off topic, but isn't this something like the 10th thread you've started about evolution?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I noticed you haven't responded on many of them, are you stalking me and counting? That is weird.

      1. Sab Oh profile image59
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You just seem a little obessessed with the topic, if I may say so. Wouldn't one thread cover it?

  5. Greg Cremia profile image60
    Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago

    To believe in evolution requires as much faith as believing in creation. Both theories are full of flaws which make both lines of thought irrational.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What are the flaws of evolution compared to religion and how does evolution require faith?

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So - because I believe in something that has millions of pieces of evidence and you believe in something that was written in a book 2000 years ago with no evidence - we are making the same leap of faith. I assume you have every respect for evolution in that case.

      Do you have a lot of respect for evolution?

      1. Greg Cremia profile image60
        Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "So - because I believe in something that has millions of pieces of evidence"

        This is exactly my point. You 'believe' in evolution. Evolution is still a theory and requires belief. Millions of pieces of circumstantial evidence do not prove anything.

        Creation is a theory and requires belief.

        Both theories are flawed, both have huge gaping holes and both have their devout followers. Science has become the new religion.

        Personally, I don't believe in either nor do I believe the subject deserves the amount of time and discussion involved trying to disprove each other.

        I know when I was born, I have a rough idea of when I am going to die and neither of these theories means squat.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So - how do you make any decisions ever? If belief in a scientifically proven fact is the same as a belief in an invisible super being - what criteria do you use to make decisions?

          Do you service the brakes on your car or do you just believe they will work? lol

          1. Greg Cremia profile image60
            Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution is not a scientifically proven fact.

            Evolution is a theory.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Evolution is both a scientifically proven fact and a theory.

              Creationism is a myth.

              Now answer the question.

              1. Greg Cremia profile image60
                Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I get the brakes fixed when they need fixing.

              2. Greg Cremia profile image60
                Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Why does one have to believe in either of these two options. Surely you are more open minded than to restrict thinking to just these 2 lines of thought.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  One doesn't have to believe anything. What makes you think these are the only options I have considered? Having said that - the proof that we evolved is pretty overwhelming.

                  Boundless other possibilities arise also.

                  Not really sure why some one who cannot even be bothered to learn about evolution before expressing an opinion has the gall to suggest I am not open minded.

        2. profile image60
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          True, but millions of pieces of "hard" evidence does demonstrate that evolution is more than just theory and requires understanding, not belief.



          Creation is NOT a theory, it is an assertion with no observable evidence whatsoever.



          You don't understand evolution, do you?



          That would most certainly be the typical response from those who wish to believe in magic and learn nothing of the world around them. Well done.

          1. Greg Cremia profile image60
            Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There is only circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution. Evolution is still a theory.

            I do no believe in magic or creationism.

            Is this the best you can do?

            1. qwark profile image61
              qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Greg:
              Micro evolution has been empirically proved.
              Macro evolution is much slower with complex life. It, also, will be proved.
              The generic term, for inherited changes over great lengths of time, is evolution. It is no longer theory.
              Do some in-depth study. It's all there for ya.

            2. profile image60
              (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Complete nonsense appears to be the best you can do.

    3. getitrite profile image82
      getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      I think that eventhough both seem to be irrational, the creation theory is just silly, and without Any evidence.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        At first I thought evolution was irrational, now I think it is very logical. I think being born with things like "vestiges/tails" makes a pretty solid case that we are not created independently/seperately, but evolved from other animals.

        1. getitrite profile image82
          getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



          There is also the glaring fact that we "LOOK" like the other animals, as well, ie., nose, mouth, eyes, hair, larynx, etc.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I agree. There is overwhelming evidence that logically relate us coming from other animals with explanations requiring little to no faith to believe.

  6. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    In my experience, many of those who are so against evolution, and the science behind it, rely on this same science to heal them with scientifically developed medicines and extremely difficult surgery. 

    When they recover, it was because of "God's will."  Funny though, they still want scientifically researched medical care.

    1. Patán profile image61
      Patánposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There is no proof of the existance of God, and neither is there a proof against it. Science and Faith do not exclude but complement each other.
      In the ancient civilizations people believed in their gods, but were also good scientists to raise piramids and invent extremly precise calendars.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Science and Faith don't always compliment each other when some have faith against science.

        1. Sab Oh profile image59
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Seriously man, how long are you gonna beat this horse?

    2. profile image0
      JeanMeriamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Out of curiosity, what do you call it when they don’t recover?

    3. Pandoras Box profile image83
      Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Huh. Good point.

  7. FranyaBlue profile image76
    FranyaBlueposted 7 years ago

    I accept the idea of evolution but what about the evolution of the first living things to come into existence - what could they have evolved from?

  8. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago

    I'm not so certain we're the only animals capable of rational thought. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that other animals are far more rational than human animals.

    Honestly, I think of humans as animals, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There isn't another living organism on Earth that has the level of consciousness that humans have. Not a single one even comes close. smile

      As for who taught a human to act like a human, then you would need to go back to when humans first realized that they existed in the first place. And, since there is no physical way to prove who helped humans to act like humans, the evidence you seek can and only be provided by 'religion', because it's the only thing that was directly responsible for teaching others how to act, at that time.

      Yes, "religion" is based on a moral/ethic code of conduct, however, it is tied to a higher cause than that of humanity. smile

      1. motricio profile image57
        motricioposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And that Cagsil, is the reason why we need to take care about all animals. smile

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That's not really true. We do not need to take care of all animals. The human race uses a lot of different animals for survival, luxury and amusement. We do so, because it's what makes us truly happy and allows us to live a sustained, prolonged life.

          The many aspects that many different companies around the world make noise about, like saving certain animals, is absurd. Simply because we need a lot of them for food for survival.

          Also remember, in different cultures, certain animals are used for food, but are not the same in all places. Example: Japan, China, Taiwan, Philippines and many other places...cats and dogs are great food sources and taste pleasantly to those of that culture.

          In America, killing of cats and dogs, is illegal and can put one in jail. smile

          1. motricio profile image57
            motricioposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So, you mean that the "level of consciousness" that we have, is better used to "survival, luxury and amusement"?
            neutral
            Orient cultures negotiate with nature to feed and take care about natural balance.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently you missed something or taking two different parts of two different posts to make your question. And, then added a frown smiley for effect.

              You make no sense, because you're trying to interpret what I said.

              My words were simple enough to understand. The human being has the highest level of consciousness. We are aware of our own existence and can manipulate your own individual future.

              Animals cannot. smile

              1. motricio profile image57
                motricioposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                If avoiding been killed, is not manipulating their future and decide if the will live or not; is not considered a change to their future.
                Then you can say so.
                - I can put a smile anywhere I want, any time smile

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't be foolish. If avoiding been killed? You make no sense. Your English language is really bad. Survival for animals in the wild isn't a manipulation of the future. And, to think so, shows your ineptitude to understand the knowledge you've learned. It might help if you knew the difference between manipulating the future and instinctively surviving. If you don't know the difference, then take my advice below. smile


                  Do you live your life like this all the time? And, yes, you can put a smiley face...but you didn't put a SMILE...you put something different, which means something completely different. I would have thought you knew that much....yet you're trying to engage in a conversation about Evolution?

                  Please....just read and learn. This is a spot, I'm sure your parents taught you.....shut up and listen. It helps more than you running your mouth about something you know nothing about.

                  And, before you jump to any sort of statement....you need to seriously stop in your tracks and evaluate what I've said, because it will only get worse for you from here on.

                  Just a helpful thought. smile

                  1. motricio profile image57
                    motricioposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    smile

                  2. motricio profile image57
                    motricioposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Hate to admit it, but talking with you leads to nowhere. wink

              2. qwark profile image61
                qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                cags:
                We are "animals.
                I know I'm picky, picky, picky...lol
                I think ya just made and "inadvertant" slip of the "fingers" on the keyboard...:-)

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Qwark, you want to put Humans into the same category as animals, then you are more than welcome.

                  I do not, because I see human beings as a race, not a species. I understand the science behind it, but I'd rather not be a part of the separation tactics used to keep people apart from one another.

                  Yes, animals and humans, share one thing in common, history. That's it. The Evolution of Human beings, no longer makes them animals, regardless of how they act.

                  Our awareness/consciousness is much higher, and allows each of us to develop free will thoughts and develop honest actions that can bring what we want.

                  An animal does not have the ability to talk in English. Nor do they have the ability to consciousness construct complex equations.

                  So, please let's not get picky. smile lol

                  1. qwark profile image61
                    qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Cags:
                    Oh yes! I will get picky.
                    To gain my respect, I'm not sure you care about that, you must earn it.
                    We are "mammals." A "mammal" is an "animal."
                    If You missed that in "science 101," then you were remiss or 'tokin' and jokin' when ya should have been sittin' and listen'n.
                    I read your comments carefully.
                    I am now suspicious about the depth of your "alledged" knowledge in ref to reality.
                    Not that you give a damn...but that's NP. I judge one by his action and verbal/written expression.
                    By denying that we humans are not a member of the animal species...you become suspect.
                    I know what your response is gonna be and don't give a damn that you will demean this response. I won't waste a defensive retort when ya do.
                    I'll just, meaningfully, consider the source.....:-)

      2. qwark profile image61
        qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Cag:
        Respectfully, would you expand on this:

        "..."religion" is based on a moral/ethic code of conduct, however, it is tied to a higher cause than that of humanity."

        Thanks...:-)

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What would you like to expand on? Are you reading more into my statement that appears?

          There was no interpretation for you to do with my statement. I plainly pointed out, that human beings who existed, long ago were captured by "religion", through the "God-Kings", "Oracles" and "Mystics", all who claimed to have a connection, with some sort of "GOD". Hence, the higher cause other than humanity.

          The "GOD" concept was an accident. Many people from that time, relied on others to learn from, simply because their newly acquired awareness had brought them into existence, but really didn't understand their own existence. This lead them to those who had more knowledge or a better understanding.

          Therefore, when looking for answers to questions, people could only turn to others who had awareness. Most of the people at that time, were the people who claims powers to talk to the "GOD" concept.

          1. qwark profile image61
            qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks Cag:
            yes! I did "read" something else into that sentence.
            You just cleared it up.
            I understand and agree...:-)

    2. motricio profile image57
      motricioposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      We are part animals, but the fact that we are aware about our own death, having consciousness and creative capabilities is a proof that we have not an animal rationality.
      Even some of humans do act as animals.

  9. getitrite profile image82
    getitriteposted 7 years ago

    If there is a dog, a cat, two people, and a hamster in the living room, how many animals are in the living room?

  10. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Yeah, ignorance is always blissful. Thank you for your time. smile

    1. motricio profile image57
      motricioposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You're mustly welcome sir, I hope you enjoyed.

  11. Shlomo SL Abrin profile image60
    Shlomo SL Abrinposted 7 years ago

    Walt Whitman on Animals:

    I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and
    self-contain'd,
    I stand and look at them long and long.

    They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
    They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
    They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
    Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of
    owning things,
    Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of
    years ago,
    Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.

    WW

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      His last line is false. Other animals get happy and sad just as we do. My St. Bernard also whines when she gets hot.

  12. aware profile image71
    awareposted 7 years ago

    a egg and a sperm meet. they evolve right before our eyes. its undeniable i think.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There are many unknowns in evolution as for the complexities of the mind and how our mind evolved. It doesn't make me doubt it, but there is still room for improvements.

  13. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    Well the liberals are the proof for devolution so since there is devolution there must be evolution!big_smile

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The trouble is, we liberals would become conservatives if we devolved.

  14. aware profile image71
    awareposted 7 years ago

    ever think that were not suppose to know everything? i mean i hate know it all's. their so dang smarmy .

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No. I think what we can learn and know is unlimited.

  15. aware profile image71
    awareposted 7 years ago

    ohh . no is a acceptable answer.  im good with no

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks. You proved my point. Now maybe you will question whether or not you are limited in what you can or can't know.

 
working