Was Darwin right?

1. 66

   Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago

   Is evolution a reality?  Did humans really evolve from monkeys who evolved from fish who evolved from single cell organisms?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well.... yes.... Actually, no.
      
      I mean, this wasn't yesterday. (Some) monkeys gradually evolved into apes millions and millions of years ago. Then humans gradually evolved from those apes over millions of years.
      
      So, no, humans did not evolve from monkeys, they evolved from apes, who evolved from other, earlier apes, etc., who evolved from monkeys.
      
      Monkeys did not evolve from fish. Monkeys evolved from other forms of mammals, who evolved from earlier forms of mammals, and so on... If you go far back enough, you get to fish.
      
      But this is all very silly. I evolved from my great-grandfather. That doesn't make me a nineteenth century English farmer.
      
      So, no, humans are not monkeys, no matter what the lineage might be. (I am also, not my mother, thank God )

      replyreport
   2. 60

      DogSiDaedposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That is a misunderstanding of evolution. I shall not waste my time. Read something factual, (may I suggest Dawkins) or go boil your head

      replyreport
      1. 0

         zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Or an egg. Less destructive.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      NO!
      http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheists-you-are-without-excuse

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for the link you were the only one who was willing to provide any evidence of their opinion.  Much appreciated.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            DogSiDaedposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Deleted
            1. 60

               DogSiDaedposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               replyreport
   4. 80

      JBeadleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      We both (the monkeys and the people) evolved from a shrew like mammal.  Monkeys and man share a common ancestor way way back.  A creature that wouldn't be "monkey" nor "man" but since we humans are so sensitive it is easier to write "monkey like", etc.
      
      I have a feeling you know more than you let on about this.  I've done this circle dance a few times!!!  If you really want to learn about it, do some google searches or just read Origin Of The Species by Darwin.
      
      My two cents.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'll take that two cents. I mean, "do some research on Darwin" does not mean "surf the Internet" it means "Read Darwin" -- of course, that would require, well, reading...

         replyreport
         1. 80

            JBeadleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            To understand evolution, christianity or creationism requires quite a bit of reading!  If you want someone to tell you about it - I find then patience is handy.

            replyreport
   5. 59

      Ivan the Terribleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Darwin was on the right track, and since his idea was first developed, science has made many advances in suporting the idea of evolution.  By the way, Humans did not evolve from monkeys.  we are of the primate family, which includes great apes, such as chimps and gorillas.  Monkeys are generally a lesser form of primate, usually the small, cute animals you see in movies, etc.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         well, thats the 'facts' you have for this generation. it will be abandoned once 'new facts' arive.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            but doesn't that mean the first facts weren't really facts at all? oh this is so confusing, and yet exciting. Unlike that bible that never changes.

            replyreport
         2. 67

            AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            It might be, it might not. We still believe the earth travels around the sun, though that was doubted for ages of course. And Newton's theory of gravity has survived (mostly) for three hundred years. On the other hand scientists revise things all the time.
            
            The problem with not believing evolution is that the evidence in favour is a mountain of GIGANTIC proportions. Don't forget people all over the world have been prodding this since the middle of the nineteenth century -- and not just a few people: countless thousands of people.
            
            None of this should matter. A Christian is not called on to believe the account of Creation. He is called upon to believe in the Resurrection and continued possibility for "communion" with Jesus. I don't believe in that either, but at least here I have to hold my hands up and say that I really don't know, and cannot prove or disprove it. So you're safe either way.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               "So you're safe either way."
               
               please explain "safe" so that I may know what you are talking about.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I mean that, assuming you're a Christian, you are called to enter into a relationship with Jesus (or however you would like to phrase it). Show me where, in order to be a true Christian, you are called upon to believe in the Genesis account of Creation. So even if somehow you became convinced that evolution was real, you could *still* be a "true" Christian, because being one is all about how you think of Jesus. Period.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     The two are separate issues. though I understand your point, you will find many Christians who believe in Jesus but not creation. I took them individually though.

                     replyreport
   6. 0

      thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Here's my latest hub on evolutionism.
      
      http://hubpages.com/hub/Seeing-is-NOT-a … an-atheist

      replyreport
      1. 61

         sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Hey Truth. No, I'm not gone yet.

         replyreport
   7. 74

      Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I believe in evolution. I think it is of sound scientific reasoning. I'm not up to speed with the leaders of the field. But I for one think it makes sense.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory. It is, however, backed up by a lot of fact. We did evolve from simpler forms of life but apes of a type that no longer exist. Monkeys don't come into it except as a branch of evolution that went in a different direction.
      
      
      

      replyreport
2. 64

   SandyMcCollumposted 14 years ago

   I can tell you don't read the forums much. There's several threads about this, do a search of the forums and you'll get answers.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I just joined a few weeks ago so I am kind of a newbie. I will check under conspiracy theories and see if anyone has posted there.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Jeffrey Nealposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Try religion. The topic, I mean.

         replyreport
      2. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         LOL
         
         Conspiracy theories?
         
         I would look under religion - that is where the attacks on proven scientific facts usually get started.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
         2. 66

            Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            So Evolution is fact why is it called the THEORY of evolution??

            replyreport
            1. 0

               A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Don't do that....really

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
            2. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               So - another one starting with a question when they have the answer. Sorry you do not understand the facts that the theory explains.
               
               Do some reading Monkey boy.

               replyreport
            3. 70

               Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I recently learned that ALL scientific supposed "Laws" have been changed to "Theory". With so much anti-science from many people, who want to protect the "GOD" concept, continue to try to discredit science, so as to maintain it's position.
               
               Evolution is a FACT!

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  ..In addition to which, scientists use the word "theory" in a different way from the rest of the population (much like the British use of the word "fanny" is completely different from the North American... but I digress).
                  
                  In science a theory is the strongest explanation fitting the evidence until proven otherwise. This does not make it wrong. In fact it makes it VERY LIKELY INDEED to be right... because NO evidence has thus far caused it to be thrown out.
                  
                  In the general population, "theory" means "what I think is right" -- not the same usage at *all*.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                       Synchronicity or what?

                     replyreport
                  2. 67

                     AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     How about this for a thread title: The Germ Theory -- Do you believe it? Is it blasphemous to believe it?

                     replyreport
            4. 0

               EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Because its basic principles have stood the test of time and have been borne out by repeated observations.  The word "theory" has a somewhat different meaning to a scientist than it does to a lay person who doesn't know anything about science. 
               
               If the theory of evolution had the level of uncertainty that you attach to it, then it would be called "the hypothesis of evolution" instead of the "theory of evolution".

               replyreport
         3. 59

            C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            LMAO>>>>>>I was hoping you wouldn't see that!

            replyreport
      3. 69

         jdaviswritesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         conspiracy theories? for real man? the topic of creation vs evolution is a pretty big debate, and unless you've been living under a rock your whole life, i'm pretty sure you've heard at least something from both sides.
         
         after majoring in anthropology and studying things like darwin and his work...yes, he is right. its a "theory" because scientists can't prove every facet of it without a reasonable doubt, and because christians are afraid of it.
         
         dont listen to me though, read up. conspiracy theories man.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            jdaviswritesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            in my opinion...

            replyreport
            1. 67

               AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               It's also worth pointing out that IN NO OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is this debate going on. So I will. There, I just did.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I wish you were right about this.  Unfortunately there are people in Britain who want creationism/intelligent design to be taught in science classes, alongside evolution.  Blech.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     American influence I went to school in Britain till I was fourteen, and such rubbish never was uttered by anyone. I also noticed when I moved back there in the late nineties that most of the people spilling out of the churches on a Sunday were immigrants or descendants of immigrants. How about that one for the white supremacists... immigration *Christianizing* a country

                     replyreport
                  2. 50

                     cinnamon edgeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, yes, but they don't get to be national leaders over here.

                     replyreport
3. 66

   Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago

   Ok I took everyone's advice and went to religion.  Forget that I do not want to discuss the existence or non existence of god.  That is very personal to me and I am not willing to share with any of you.  I ask questions because I enjoy debates I enjoy disagreement as much as agreement.  I read every one of your comments in the hope that I could educate myself with the presentation of different ideas.  I am not trying to start controversy.  I am simply looking for a discussion.  (I disrespect anyone who has to resort to personal attacks, namecalling etc.)

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      But what do you hope to gain by demonstrating your ignorance of the term "theory" when applied to science? There is no question that we evolved. There are millions of facts that prove it. Exactly how is open to discussion and is a constantly evolving theory that has yet to be dis proven.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I believe that creatures evolve I just do not think that One thing turns into another.  Lizards into birds etc. Could you provide me with an article that would show me a missing link not humonoid any missing link like lizard/bird creatures.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry, Do your own research.
            
            I don't care what you believe - which is apparently that humans have been on earth since the beginning, which is ridiculous nonsense.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I did my research here is the link
               http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread519306/pg1
               I do not mind doing research.  I knew you could not provide any.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "Research" means getting your information from sources recognized as having expertise in the subject matter. Using the Internet is a dangerous game -- if I believed everything on the Internet I'd believe that Jews were Pigs and that the Oklahoma Bomber was right (which I don't)

                  replyreport
               2. 71

                  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  You didn't do any real research!  Who are you trying to fool.  You should be ashamed of your God, if he condones such behavior

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     That is offensive you have no right to discuss my beliefs shame on you.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Why are you here trying to debunk evolution, if it's not about your beliefs?  Do you have an alternative that actually makes 'sense.'  The creationist view of things is nonsensical.

                        replyreport
                     2. 80

                        JBeadleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Sucks when someone steps all over a subject a person doesn't know anything about.  Like one persons personal beliefs or say crapping on a theory you don't know anything about if you are saying nonesense like a chicken gave birth to a duck one day, etc.
                        
                        I guess you like to do it but put shame on those who do it to you?  Nice.

                        replyreport
         2. 67

            AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            This is why the whole geological time thing is such a hotly debated topic on this site. If you have enough time, then things can indeed evolve, because of course the process is very slow. If you look at a chicken, you might think "gee that kind of reminds me of a Tyrannosaurus" -- given enough time, with small variations building up, then it becomes more believable -- like compound interest

            replyreport
         3. 61

            Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Here's one I  found quickly.  http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/500-599/nb595.htm
            
            (Welcome to HubPages, by the way.)   Respectfully, one of the biggest reasons people find Evolution difficult to believe is that they don't understand/see the science/process.  You mentioned Eugenics.  Eugenics has nothing to do with Evolution.    Species adapted over time, naturally.  Think of films that show unborn babies from conception to birth.  It goes from being a zygote to a simple clump of cells, turns into a fish-like, under-water-dwelling, creature, sprouts limbs, gets a developing brain, lungs, and eventually becomes what we know as a finished human being.  It's oversimplified, but it's like a sped up visualization of Evolution.  For that matter, if you picture how a baby learns to walk upright, and how toddlers usually have stockier bodies, larger heads, and an awkward gait; and then if you think of how a child's body/brain becomes more refined over time, you can see a relationlship between more primitive man and human beings as we know them today.
            
            Also, oversimplified, but if you've ever seen freshly hatched baby birds in a nest, and what they start out looking like; and if you've noticed that you can see the speed at which their heart beats (and noticed how in a matter of days they change to full-size birds) you can imagine how there could be subtle changes in their development in those early days when they have a newborn metabolism  and are in the process of so many dramatic changes.  Early fetuses (human ones) are most likely to become damaged because they''re in that forming stage.  The more undeveloped/primitive life is, the more likely the chance of somethikng happening to affect development.  Even today, most lizards reptiles are still a pretty primitive form of life.  Think of how there are genetically damaged frogs that act as a sign of polluted waters.  The same thing doesn't generally happen to other things existing in the same waters.   Also, there is one formula that may apply to all life.  (Look up the Mandelbrot Set, and the fractal that demonstrates the principle.)  It has been called, "The Thumbprint of Life", and once you see it in everything living you will have no doubt whatsoever about Evolution.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Will Bensonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Arthur - You touched the third rail of forums, i.e. anything relating to God/Science. Anyway...
      It's clear to me that evolutionary theory is factual based on the evidence. DNA is now being extracted from some surprisingly old specimens and studied. We have fossils galore. We've observed that in embryonic development, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - like gill slits in human embryos. None of this diminishes us at all...we didn't descend from apes, rather, apes and humans descended from some common ancestor. Of course, having majored in Biology, I'm a little biased.
      We all have a right to our own beliefs, including creationists.
      Thanks for an opportunity to respond to your very important question.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for your comment and maybe your right from now on maybe I should keep these topics out of the Hubpages forum and bring them to Twitter where I enjoy a sharing of ideas every day without so much anger.  I did not realize that these forums are strictly for judgemental views. 
         
         This is not in reference to you I do appreciate your comment.

         replyreport
4. 0

   zampanoposted 14 years ago

   A reference about Evolution Theory (and practice)
   is surely enough not found in these forums.
   Evolution is a phenomenon you can observe everyday in real life.
   Macro and microscopic views. Urban and country context.
   Start anytime in the past.
   Attend your biology lessons. Social sciences show it also well enough. But I'm more familiar with biology.
   And then you'll see.
   Definitely, he is right. No better theory has been presented since. And his, makes a lot of sense.

   replyreport
5. 66

   Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago

   Let me present a scientific theory if a Rolex watch was broken down to individual parts gears and such completely unassembled if you provided heat and vibrated it for a few million years it would put itself back together and be a watch again.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      DogSiDaedposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's not a scientific theory... That's the ramblings of an idiot

      replyreport
6. 0

   zampanoposted 14 years ago

   Hi Artur.
   No hassle man...

   replyreport
7. 58

   songsterposted 14 years ago

   i dont understand the way religious people are threatened by darwin, evolution is just some little thing that is happening on earth it doesnt explain the universe or where it came from or where the universe is.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      zampanoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      What is happening on earth, is happening in the universe, given the appropriate proportions.
      What is above, is like what is beneath.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      DogSiDaedposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It ruins the creation story of life on earth, that's why

      replyreport
8. 0

   zampanoposted 14 years ago

   Artur.
   I think you make a point there.

   replyreport
9. 58

   songsterposted 14 years ago

   yes, but jewish mythology is just one mythology of one tribe there are thousands of tribes with different mythologies they can't all be right which shows that they are all probably wrong. i just dont understand christians and their limited outlook to believe one tribes mythology is going to be the right one. people get bogged down in things that to me seem obviously wrong.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You think maybe it's a mental disorder?

      replyreport
10. 0

    lyricsingrayposted 14 years ago

    I believe so

    replyreport
11. 58

    songsterposted 14 years ago

    Well, its just the human condition, which involves a quite significant degree of stupidity. there are different forms of stupidity about different things i think we all fall foul of stupidity over some things.

    replyreport
12. 67

    AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years ago

    Well Darwin was a Christian, so if you don't believe in Christianity, then you are going to have to say he wasn't right about *everything* he believed..

    replyreport
13. 0

    zampanoposted 14 years ago

    I think you'll have to do a lot of research.
    As I said before, start in the past.
    Attend you biology courses...
    etc..., etc...

    replyreport
14. 58

    songsterposted 14 years ago

    personally i dont care too much about evolution, life is too short to argue about it.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       JBeadleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I'm always curious by this kind of reply.  If you don't care then why read this thread?  Why reply?  I agree with the statement btw.  I just get a kick out of the heated debate forums, where two sides are arguing and then one or two people do the "your fighting is silly" post - without stating any other opinion on the subject.  Why not just read something else?

       replyreport
15. 58

    songsterposted 14 years ago

    the hindus believe that the universe was created by God an incredibly long time ago then is sucked back to nothing then explodes out again then is sucked back to nothing over and over.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       songsterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       how absurd is that?

       replyreport
       1. 67

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Didn't you know the truth is determined by majority rule. So let's ask the Chinese what they think, and this will all be settled.

          replyreport
       2. 80

          JBeadleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          That would describe one of the variations of the big bang theory.  In the "big bang" you have a universe that either expands forever or eventually contracts.  IF it contracts it would suck everything back to a point called a singularity - or very close to it.  Most likely, conditions would be right again then for another "bang" (although there is no sound  so it isn't a great name) - which follows the Hindu belief.  I find that idea more comforting than a universe that expands for ever and then eventually grows cold and everything dies (a long long long long long long long long time from now but eventually).  I like the collapse theory myself but the grow cold and die is more wildly held.
          
          Or life is but a dream could be true...  where this is the dream.

          replyreport
16. 75

    cheaptrickposted 14 years ago

    I just watched a documentary on Darwinism.
    The Third Reich was the most extreme application of Darwin's Survival of the fittest.
    It seems that science must be tempered with something,perhaps the precepts of human decency of middle ground religion would do that.
    I also read that Darwin may have recanted his theory on his death bed...

    replyreport
    1. 67

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       That last statement is extremely unlikely.
       
       The Nazis also employed industrialization, capitalism, and trousers -- all of which are now equally tainted

       replyreport
       1. 75

          cheaptrickposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Please tell me I'm wrong here,Do you support the Final solution?
          I'm a simple man so feel free to talk down to me.
          Also,do you have information on Darwin's death scenario?
          cause I don't want to be ignorant of the truth.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             So - are trousers evil incarnate? I have always thought so myself.

             replyreport
          2. 67

             AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             I am sure it is conceivable that he recanted on his deathbed, I just don't think it's likely, in my opinion (which, like yourself, I admit, is based as much on television documentaries as on anything).
             
             Darwin was doubtless used by the Nazis, as, as you say, they believed in Eugenics. Eugenics was believed in by many at the time, including in the United States of the day. Eugenics is repugnant, and of course the Nazis as a whole were repugnant.
             
             ...But the Nazis got Darwin wrong! Because Darwin was saying the OPPOSITE of what Nazi policy was doing -- ie., that species are selected by NATURE, not DELIBERATELY selected out by a government or man-made institution. Darwin is specifically the foundation of the belief that NOTHING directs such selection of better-fitting characteristics.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Th Nazis were not interested in Darwin. They were on a mission from god to cleanse Europe of the scourge of the Jew.
                
                Hitler himself was an avid Catholic. I saw on a documentary once where he said he was spoken to by god and god told him to pretend to love Darwin.
                
                Darwin himself was forced to recant on his death bead after his daughter was kidnapped by Jesuits. Strangely - the Jesuits were also wearing trousers.
                
                Coincidence? I don't think so.

                replyreport
             2. 75

                cheaptrickposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                My opinion of you just increased by 1000%
                thanks for being civil and yes i agree they got it wrong.
                There is much more to Darwin than meets the eye.
                I asked my secretary to find a copy of his Biography so I can put this to rest.

                replyreport
          3. 67

             AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Sorry, what I meant to say was "Heil Grommit"

             replyreport
17. 61

    sooner than laterposted 14 years ago

    God created everything.
    Circumstancial accidents have nothing to do with it.
    
    There is a very complex 'theory' that excites the minds of those unwilling to accept truth. But the imaginative antics that hold the theory together are numbing to a thinker.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       In a nut shell evolutionary science spends countless hours and lifetimes trying to take God out of the picture. But it becomes more creation supportive the further they dig.
       
       The only part of evolutionary "science" that keep people from God is the imaginative sketches and diagrams of 'what really happened'. 
       
       and thus a new religion of mindless followers is born.

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Just what we don't need, considering the world is already filled with a bunch of mindless followers of the already famous "GOD" concept.

          replyreport
       2. 67

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I'm with songster. I only engage with these discussion because it stimulates the pleasure centres in my brain (sometimes). I "believe" in Evolution, just like I believe in the internal combustion engine -- though in both cases, I do not *know* for sure that they are true...
          
          ...But I don't care! If it turned out that it was all an elaborate hoax, I wouldn't weep. Just like I wouldn't weep if it turns out that the Periodic Table is really a bunch of fables (though I would miss Electrum, I think...).
          
          What I believe about God has got nothing to do with monkeys, space rocks, or Bishop Usshers. Science and religion are two separate spheres for me, as they are for billions of people on the planet, ie., probably the majority... of course most of the people I mean are in India and China, so they don't count. I realize Americans' opinions are more important than anybody else's (ok, edging towards the door....)

          replyreport
       3. 67

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Completely false. There are thousands of evolutionary scientists who believe in God, if not millions.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Ohh?

             replyreport
             1. 67

                AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                ...is followed by P... is followed by Q...

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   ...is after N...is 15th...is sounded when i go

                   replyreport
       4. 71

          getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Do I have to believe in talking snakes in order to not be mindless?

          replyreport
          1. 61

             sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             you mean the devil?

             replyreport
             1. 71

                getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                That's not an answer!

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   I know. Its a question. that's why it ended with "?" <--- question mark.

                   replyreport
       5. 0

          thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Amen! Hey Sooner you're still here!

          replyreport
18. 61

    sooner than laterposted 14 years ago

    ahh, one of these mindless followers is here now.
    
    allow him to introduce himself.

    replyreport
19. 61

    sooner than laterposted 14 years ago

    There's one. where are my others?

    replyreport
20. 61

    sooner than laterposted 14 years ago

    valid point. see you later.

    replyreport
21. 58

    songsterposted 14 years ago

    i believe that God created evolution.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       interesting

       replyreport
    2. 75

       cheaptrickposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       The term that seems to appeal to some scientists is "Intelligent Design".
       Most shy away from using the word "God".

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          If by some you mean 3 - sure.

          replyreport
       2. 67

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Most shy away from using the term "Intelligent Design."
          
          The ones that believe in God use the term God. They just don't talk about him at work, necessarily. Believing in God does not equal Believing in Genesis.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             songsterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             ya, christians seem to refer to the old testament alot as an authority even though that is the jewish book. And yet jesus turned so much of the old testament on its head. bringing a more compassionate view and defending the poor. i am not well versed in the bible though.

             replyreport
             1. 67

                AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I'm confused. I actually thought that the PURPOSE of Jesus coming was to make the Old Testament redundant? I mean, I don't believe that, because the Old Testament would not be my first pic as a guide to life anyway, but nevertheless I thought that this was the central idea of Christianity -- New Covenant, and all that...

                replyreport
             2. 61

                sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                "I am not here to abolish the law, but complete it"

                replyreport
                1. 67

                   AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Do you eat pork

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      No

                      replyreport
                2. 58

                   Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   You know - we have a special forum for irrational beliefs. It is called the religion forum.

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      I know, I see you there talking about your religion all the time.

                      replyreport
             3. 75

                cheaptrickposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                It is a bit curious that you can go to many churches and listen to the preacher expound on the Old testament but go to any Synagogue and you never here the Rabbi talking about the New testament...

                replyreport
22. 66

    Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago

    I have researched evolution. I do have my own opinions as you do yours.  What I would like to see is fossil evidence of the transformation of one creature into another.  I have looked and have been unable to find any.  Perhaps I am searching in the wrong places.  I am sure all of the experts know exactly where the fossil evidence is but if they tell me they will have to kill me.  I have no explanation for creation, none but I am sure you do and I am sure you are absolutely correct without question.  I bow to your superior intellect and vastly greater intelligence then a mere creature such as I. Have mercy on my pathetically inferior opinions.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "What I would like to see is fossil evidence of the transformation of one creature into another."
       
       WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? didn't you get the artistic renditions? That is what happened OK.
       
       ask mark for some pictures of the 'in-between' stages. He can provide them.

       replyreport
    2. 50

       cinnamon edgeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Arthur, every science and natural history museum in the world has fossils by the thousand that show the evolution of species into new species. What else do you expect to see as evidence? Most evolution is too slow to see, but evolutionary pressure acts upon every species all the time. The struggle to survive acts upon every individual and the ability to procreate is the deciding factor in each generation.
       Being faster runners, better hunters, ultimately being better procreators - surviving long enough to procreate - that's all life is ultimately about.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          ...though the one exception is human beings, who have so much culture and intelligence by this point that it hardly seems likely that we would evolove biologically any more than we did a hundred thousand years ago, because evolution (well, "natural selection") is called that because it depends on a species living in "nature" -- and we don't do that: heck most of us don't even live in villages or on farms any more, let alone in nature, properly speaking.

          replyreport
          1. 50

             cinnamon edgeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             I'd still say there's selection and therefore evolution going on. The last hundred thousand years has seen human races evolving to suit the climatic and environmental niches they occupied. If one group were to become totally isolated they would ultimately become a separate species. Not 'better' or 'worse', just different enough that they wouldn't be able to reproduce with other humans.
             
             We 'undo' that process by travelling and mixing enough to prevent that happening. The only other species that are essentially the same the world over are those that travel the world over - some whales and fish species, migrating birds, domestic pets.

             replyreport
       2. 66

          Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I visited the Harvard museum of natural history over the summer.  The strange thing is that was what started my curiosity in this subject.  I used to believe without question until I realized that I should question everything.  I am leaning towards a certain opinion but in no way have I answered this question in my mind.
          
          You have given a great explanation and definitely some things to ponder and for that I thank you.

          replyreport
          1. 50

             cinnamon edgeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Ok. Questioning is good, unless that starts a debate on what we mean by 'good' :-)
             
             I'm intrigued to know what raised your doubts in a museum that is dedicated to the established view of natural history (I presume), or are things presented and explained in the museum in such a way as to avoid offending creationists?

             replyreport
23. 67

    G Miahposted 14 years ago

    How have humans evolved from monkeys! Why aren't monkeys evolving into humans? Why aren't humans evolving into something? This radio presenter once said that humans will grow extra arms because we need an extra one to do more tasks, the next day i heard they were replaying all his presentaions in bits, and realised God took him away from the surface of the Earth! Anyway, my opinion is simple, if evolution happens, then why aren't scientists discovering them?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       As another poster corrected, we did not evolve from monkeys, both monkeys and the apes that were our ancestors evolved from a common lineage.
       
       Monkeys could be evolving into anything, for all we know, (except humans, that would be extremely unlikely, to have a species evolve twice, makes no sense), evolution is too slow to see it happening.
       
       Radio presenters rarely have a thorough training in evolutionary biology.
       
       What is "them"?

       replyreport
24. 58

    songsterposted 14 years ago

    as a christian how does one decide what to go along with in the old testament and what not to go along with?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       are you asking as a christian or a mocker?

       replyreport
       1. 67

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Are those the only possibilities?

          replyreport
          1. 61

             sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             for me right now, yes.

             replyreport
             1. 67

                AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think songster is either. Isn't it a good question? Hence the new thread I set up about pork.... there are some good answers on there, actually

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   I thought it was an excelent question, and I would love to give 'my' answer. However, I just want to know that I am not baited- as there is some fine detail that could take some time.

                   replyreport
25. 58

    songsterposted 14 years ago

    i am not mocking.

    replyreport
26. 58

    songsterposted 14 years ago

    you say you want a evolution well, you know, we all want to change the world.
    But if you go carrying pictures of Darwin
    you aint going to make it with anyone fat or thin.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       fat or thin? I didn't know that was the end of that line?!!!

       replyreport
27. 88

    Will Apseposted 14 years ago

    What's this doing in Social and Political Issues? It's a scientific issue. Opinions are not facts.
    
    There is plenty of evidence around to make a judgement.
    
    p.s. the phrase 'intelligent design' only appeals to that very, very small number of scientists who believe in creationism.

    replyreport
    1. 75

       cheaptrickposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Respectfuly.
       Do some more research.There's a whole segment of scientists that have been black listed and denied tenure in teaching positions because they merely Introduced Intelligent design to there curriculum.When you follow down the ladder of Co don transcription In Genetics You will find that the essence of genes and chromosomes is Information.The question of Intelligent design has been Brought up among scientists because no one not even the Gods of Physics has a clue WHERE that Information comes from.
       Also,Facts are platforms of understanding that we rely on until new information is input to create more accurate perception.
       Facts are not Eternal.

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I enjoyed your comment you are the first person who responded with an answer that makes this point.
          
          It is as if science has stopped research on any other theories that creatures evolve.  It is like the flat earthers burning heretics at the stake for questioning their supposed theory.
          Scientists are ostracized if they even mention disagreement with the norm.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             LOLOL
             
             Can anyone say "paranoid delusions"
             
             Of course scientists who claim the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a fascist lie get ostracized from scientific institutions.
             
             LOL Just like they don't let self-professed atheists hold high office in the catholic church.
             
             Dear me.
             
             You guys really are sad.
             
             Funny but sad.

             replyreport
             1. 66

                Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Just because I am paranoid DOES not mean that you are not out to get me!!

                replyreport
28. 66

    Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago

    Lisa HW
    
    Thank you so much for welcoming me to Hubpages and you provided a great explanation and I agree with everything you said.  The link you provided, I read it but I still would like to see the lizard scale that is almost a feather yet still kind of a scale  with the same kind of like you mentioned fractal design.
    Fractals are one of the most interesting thing I have come across in a long time as of right now my knowledge consists of I know what fractals are but not much else about them  I do read articles about them occasionally.  I think I first saw a Nova special on fractals

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Arthur, I find the fractal thing particularly interesting too, to the point where you can see how one formula can be applied not just to the roots of life/growth, but also how it can be applied to things like sociological changes in a culture (but that's another subject). 
       
       I know absolutely zero about lizards (and not much more about a lot of Evolution-related science) (today or at the beginning of lizards' existence), but the way the one fractal principle/formula would apply in something like a species' shift from having scales to having feathers would be at the level of genetic changes/shifts, with changes in the internal and/or external environment (external changes can cause internal changes) that would alter previous programming (most likely slightly).  If you imagine how the fractal image shifts as only slight changes are introduced, you can see how if you take whatever you have now, replicate it, but make a very slight change, and the replicate the slightly changed thing; over time and repeated replications what  you end up with will be very different from what you started out with.  If "what you have" to start with is something like the genetic material/programming of something like a lizard, something like the nature/design/"material", of something like body covering was slightly changed at the genetic level, to the point where, over time, what once made up scales was change so much they're just "made of different stuff".  At some point there was enough of the original genetic programming in place to make the creatures still form some version of a body covering, but the slight changes in the nature of that covering gradually changed over time.
       
       Here's one article that addresses the connection between scales and feathers: http://www.backyardnature.net/birds_gn.htm
       
       Here's another one that's kind of interesting:
       
       http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC557315/

       replyreport
29. 0

    Will Bensonposted 14 years ago

    Arthur Fontes wrote:
    
        Ok I took everyone's advice and went to religion.  Forget that I do not want to discuss the existence or non existence of god.  That is very personal to me and I am not willing to share with any of you.  I ask questions because I enjoy debates I enjoy disagreement as much as agreement.  I read every one of your comments in the hope that I could educate myself with the presentation of different ideas.  I am not trying to start controversy.  I am simply looking for a discussion.  (I disrespect anyone who has to resort to personal attacks, namecalling etc.)
    
    
    Arthur -
    
    Maybe the most telling evidence for evolution in the fossil record is by what's not there. If animals did not evolve into more modern forms then isn't it reasonable that modern mammals would have to have existed from the beginning? Wouldn't there be fossils of mammals?
    
    Just a thought. Also, your hub has generated some great thoughts by it's readers.
    
    Respectfully, Will

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Good point but is there a fossil of a mammal who is not quite yet a mammal but still some kind of other species.
       
       I only pose these questions to engage in some intelligent discussions,  I got the feeling from the responses to this question that I was somehow baiting people to answer so I could tell them they were wrong.  That would never be my intention I have no desire to cast doubts on what an individual believes. I am willing to discuss any point of view but I do not think I have any right to tell others they are wrong.  I appreciate everyone who responded to this thread and every comment is a subject of contemplation.  I have a lot of time to ponder things.
       Your comment definitely requires some thought on my part.

       replyreport
30. 62

    BobLloydposted 14 years ago

    There are two aspects to whether or not evolution is correct.  One is whether or not it is a fact, and the other is whether natural selection is the theory that correctly explains it.
    
    That evolution is a fact is now so well established that we are falling around with so much evidence, we're spoilt for choice.  We can point to genetic evidence, the fossil record, speciation studies, and a whole load more.  Evolution is a fact.
    
    The theory that explains it is judged on its ability to comprehensively show how it works consistent with all of the available evidence, and also show itself to be better than any other explanation.  Natural selection does that exceptionally well.  It remains the scientific theory which has been most attacked, for the longest time, during which it has accumulated a wealth of evidence.  It has not been disproved in over 150 years.
    
    Amongst rational people willing to view the evidence, it is no longer even a discussion. It is as well accepted and understood as photosynthesis, electrolysis, refraction, or electricity.
    
    When people insist on calling evolution a theory they are clinging to the idea that it is not yet proven or accepted.  It is a fact.  The evidence is in, and the question has been settled long ago.  It needs some new evidence to disprove the theory of natural selection before the debate is on.

    replyreport