<p>What is your opinion on the Theory of Evolution?</p>
<p>I’m not going to say anything else, because I don’t want to influence answers.</p>
<p>I’ve always found it a little hard to stomach that we come from “primordial goo”. If you ask me, our bodies work too perfectly to have just “happened”.</p>
<p>Maybe your body works perfectly…</p>
<p>There are too many examples of natural selection in nature that the theory of evolution of species cannot be discounted (Darwin’s finches, moths in England that over time turned from white to gray as pollution increased).</p>
<p>You don’t find it fascinating that the acid in our stomach (Which can digest almost anything) doesn’t eat away the rest of our bodies (with the exception of the occasional ulcer, which most of the time are caused by outside forces rather than bodily dysfunction)? How about the fact that everything in our body is connected and works in harmony (again, most of the time, and with most mishaps being caused by outside problems or forces)?</p>
<p>As for Darwin’s theory…has anyone ever done the same experiment and come out with the same answer? Or even a different answer, for that matter? Until someone repeats his experiments, I have a hard time believing the findings of one man.</p>
<p>Darwin’s experiments have been reproduced:</p>
<p>[Garden</a> exhibition replicates Darwin’s work and experiments - International Herald Tribune](<a href=“http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/25/arts/25darw.php]Garden”>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/25/arts/25darw.php)</p>
<p>Look, there aren’t only two groups of people in the world: atheists who believe in natural selection and people who believe in God who don’t believe in Darwin’s theories. As a scientist, one cannot discount the fact that the theory of natural selection explains a lot about the evolution of species. Whether you choose to extend the theory to humans is another matter. I happen to believe that all questions will be resolved in the great hereafter. And until then, I am willing to compartmentalize my two beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Somehow this seems fishy to me. If he never even took the time to bother to label which bird was which, how could he possibly know which one came first? I have a little trouble believing that if he studied plants as much as that article makes it out that he did, he couldn’t possibly have known as much about “natural selection” as people make it out that he did. I also wonder, with very few eyewitnesses, how much he actually wrote and how much people added in later as his book was being published and/or what people infer from said readings. I don’t know, as I haven’t read the book myself, but I do wonder.</p>
<p>Well if it’s easier for you to ‘stomach’ the idea that humans and animals (and plants) as we know them were simply placed onto earth by a higher power that no one in 4.5 billion years has ever seen, then by all means do so. If you believe that how do you explain the difference among similar species throughout the world. why are polars bears white and why are there no white bears anywhere but arctic regions. Seems like more than coincidence to me.</p>
<p>It’s clear that you really don’t know much about Darwin, his studies, the process by which he came to his conclusions and the publishing of his work. That’s not surprising since you haven’t been to college yet and haven’t made a serious study of biology. High school biology does its best to avoid talk about evolutionary science–too politically sensitive.</p>
<p>I remember reading an article in the Smithsonian about 3 years ago about the evolution of Darwin from a young man who believed in creationism to a much older man who published his theories. It makes fascinating reading (and is a lot shorter than trying to read his actual tomes) and if you are intellectually curious, you should at least read this article:</p>
<p>[The</a> Evolution of Charles Darwin | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine](<a href=“The Evolution of Charles Darwin | Science| Smithsonian Magazine”>The Evolution of Charles Darwin | Science| Smithsonian Magazine)</p>
<p>Darwin joined the HMS Beagle as a young man without real training–he took notes, collected species, didn’t always write down which island he took the species from (for the finches, he had to rely later on the collections of others from the Beagle who had labeled from which islands the finches were found). He spent at least 20 years after his return from the Galapagos doing plant research and was a well respected researcher and naturalist.</p>
<p>He spent decades researching, looking for evidence of his theories and refining his theories. He knew his theories would be extremely controversial, as they still are today. That he wrote his own material is unquestioned. As for what others infer from his writings, that, too, is an ongoing process. Darwin’s theories don’t explain everything and experiments and revisions to his theory are continuing.</p>
<p>The museum of ‘creation’ in Kentucky (funded by some bible beating clan) has paintings of humans riding dinosaurs… since the earth was only ‘created’ a few thousand years ago.</p>
<p>I got a bridge for sale, anyone interested?</p>
<p>
It’s the fundamental work on which modern molecular biology rests, and a tremendous amount of evidence and research supports it.</p>
<p>I’m a graduate student in developmental neurobiology, and I think about the evolutionary processes that shaped the brain and the neuronal populations I work with every single day.</p>
<p>I often hear ‘evolution deniers’ make the comments about how we couldn’t have developed from ‘goo’ and how would I explain that, but I generally take the line of flipping the tables on them and asking them to explain some basic observations (eg the fact that there is irrefutable scientific evidence showing that there was a time when animals, but not modern humans, existed on earth).</p>
<p>Evolution is backed by a massive body of real tangible evidence and can be replicated in a laboratory (eg evolution in bacteria can occur over a matter of days and can be seen right before your eyes). Evolution itself is a proven fact… due to the time scale we can’t see it occur before our eyes for humans, but all the evidence supports the conclusion that it occurs for all biological species (plants, animals, bacteria, fungi…). </p>
<p>When I present these facts to evolution deniers, the only general reply that I get is what I call ‘The Matrix Explanation’ where one says that ‘all that stuff is virtual and God just put all that stuff there for us to find to test our faith.’ Throughout history, religion has accepted scientific fact but has always been very slow and reluctant in doing so. For centuries, they said the Earth was the center of the universe but in the face of irrefutable evidence they were finally forced to admit that perhaps that wasn’t true. The same thing is happening with evolution… religion is resistant to the idea but is slowly accepting the fact that it’s an undeniable fact.</p>
<p>“Well if it’s easier for you to ‘stomach’ the idea that humans and animals (and plants) as we know them were simply placed onto earth by a higher power that no one in 4.5 billion years has ever seen, then by all means do so.”</p>
<p>Gee, that’s not condescending at all! Note to world. Sueinphilly has not seen God, therefore He does not exist.</p>
<p>Microevolution is no big deal, even for Christians. Nowhere in the Bible does it state or imply that plants and animals cannot change over time. The real issue is creation. Atheists have to account for the world being created out of nothing. Some “philosophy of science” articles trying to discount creation use double-speak to state that the world did not really have a beginning, it was just a “singularity in the time-space continuum.” </p>
<p>Furthermore, an atheist needs to believe that nothing supernatural (i.e. that cannot be accounted for by natural laws) has ever occurred. This is not simply that man does not completely understand science, but further that even if he did it could explain away every claim of a “miraculous” cure of anyone from a disease, every “strange” happening would have to be a coincidence, etc. In my view, this takes much more faith than any religion, because it is contrary to my experience.</p>
<p>Finally, there is no scientific way to determine how long the world has existed the way it is except by assuming that none of the physical laws have ever changed (in other words by using a circular argument, assuming the world has not changed for billions of years to show that the world is billions of years old). Scientifically, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility that God created the world less than billions of years ago but with non-zero initial conditions (i.e. He created it much later than the “big bang,” but consistent with where stars, planets, etc. could have been if a bag bang had occurred). Both atheists and theists need to make this decision based on faith in something, because science is incapable of distinguishing between the two possibilities. Frequently, atheists then somehow add their own “ethics” to the argument by saying somehting like, “Well, if God created a world that could intentionally fool some people into believing that it was created without God, then I would not be willing to worship such a God anyway.” </p>
<p>Most people are familiar with the work of Gregor Mendel, etc. Obviously genetics play a role in development of animals and plants and there are some mutations, etc… But I and many others believe that the evidence (scientific AND experiential) overwhelmingly is consistent with a world that was created by a Creator.</p>
<p>Romans 1:20 (King James Version)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:</p>
<p>rocketman08: "For centuries, they said the Earth was the center of the universe but in the face of irrefutable evidence they were finally forced to admit that perhaps that wasn’t true. "</p>
<p>I have never read in any religion book that the earth is the center of mass of the universe or that the earth is the only allowable reference frame to use when performing kinematic calculations. The only issue was with regard to Galileo and the Catholic church as to whether the stars, sun and other planets traveled around the earth each day (in somewhat wobbling orbits) or whether the earth rotates and revolves around the sun. However, this is simply a matter of selecting a difference reference frame for kinematics. If you choose the sun as your reference frame, then the earth rotates and revolves around it. If you choose the earth as your refernce frame, then the sun undeniably revolves around it once per day. This is simply a question of basic kinematics. I have never read any religious book discussing inertial refernce frames, or anything like that. The only thing “true” about considering the earth rotating and revolving around the sun is that the physical equations are easier to describe mathematically. There certainly is nothin in the Bible that forces one to select one kinematic reference frame over the other.</p>
<p>Please provide the “irrefutable evidence” that it is wrong to use the earth as a kinematic reference frame. I have a PhD from MIT in mechanical engineering, so feel free to use whatever level of physics you may require. I look forward to your response.</p>
<p>Pafather, when did the first humans get ‘put’ here in their present form. </p>
<p>The one thing that always bothers me about dinosaurs and prehistoric ‘man’ is that I have always wondered what people use to decide what sounds they made. You know, the roars or grunts. I mean, I don’t think radio carbon dating tells you sound :-)</p>
<p>FYI, you can belive in God and evolution. I never said they were mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>Pfather, I have a PhD from a top university too so your degree flaunting exercise has no effect on me! ;-)</p>
<p>I suggest that you re-read what I wrote… I never said that a religious text says that the earth is the center of the universe. I said that there was a dispute with religious beliefs. You’re comments about reference frames are true in a scientific sense, but totally miss the point. The religious figures were objecting to the scientific statements that the Earth was not the center of the universe because it flew in the face of their beliefs as to where we, humanity and our world, stood in the grand scheme of things. The idea that we might just be a small tiny part of a much bigger system was a big pill for many people to swallow… and that’s the same thing that’s happening with evolution.</p>
<p>pfather, you’re also making the false assumption that people who believe the evidence for evolution are atheists. Some are, but many aren’t. I very much accept the scientific reality that is evolution, but I do also believe in a higher power. I simply don’t take everything said in the Bible to be literal fact. I don’t subscribe to its comments about ‘creation’ in the same way I don’t subscribe to its derogatory comments towards women, its acceptance of slavery or the long list of things for which it says we should stone people to death or burn them alive. </p>
<p>Finally, if you’re so confident in your scientific arguments against evolution then write up a paper presenting your arguments and submit it to a respectable scientific journal. I mean you have a PhD from MIT and all so everything you say must be true then right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can our bodies be perfect with birth defects and childhood cancer 
</p>
<p>Faith is a wonderful thing and has a place in our lives. Faith should not contort reality however.</p>
<p>“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms” - Stephen Jay Gould</p>
<p>The refusal to accept scientific evidence for evolution is largely based on the doubters’ personal Biblical theory. Literal interpretation? Evolution is a huge conflict. It sure is easier in the Catholic faith, where we believe in theistic evolution – complete support of all scientific findings (it’s hard to argue with carbon dating & fossil records) with full credit to our Creator for setting this amazing process in motion. When one does not read the Bible as the literal Word of God, but rather as sacred writing that is inspired by God to teach & instruct us, belief in evolution and belief in a Creator do not contradict one another.</p>
<p>Well said StickerShock</p>
<p>First off I think a lot of people, pro- or con- want to take this as fact or totally untrue…it is a theory, no more or no less, that IMHO won’t ever be proven. That being said, I am not a religious or spiritual person at all but I do think there is evolution that occurs. I don’t know if amoeba begat fish which begat amphibian and so on but I don’t believe there is some divine creator that put all of these varies species on earth and that’s just the way it is. Similar to what sticker was referring to. I don’t believe in religion and I don’t believe evolution is the be all, end all.</p>