Evolution

Just curious if anyone here doesn't believe in evolution? I'd be surprised since evolution is pretty well-accepted nowadays. But if not, it tends to become a weighted discussion.

I fully believe in evolution, but I also find the big bang slightly confusing. How can so much come from nothing? I'd just like to learn more about it, I guess.

The Big Bang didn't come from nothing. It came from energy being converted into matter/antimatter. Which we've replicated in labs, and is modeled by the ever-popular E=MC^2

If you want to debate where that energy came from, by all means. I'm not sure we completely understand energy. But biggest issue regarding the Big Bang is that the only unknown (which may not even be unknown; I don't follow these sciences) is the origin of energy. It is known that everything happening after the existence of that energy follows natural laws. The expansion, size increase, existence of matter, creation of solar systems, existence of antimatter, a visible universe, black holes, habitable zones, abiogenesis, evolution.

I imagine string theory explains the initial existence of energy, but I've never looked into it. I've never researched science beyond that point except for the limitations of potential energy.

For evolution, I believe a great deal of it is true. Certainly us evolving from a more primitive man is extremely plausible, but the hard part to comprehend is how a single atom could grow or combine to the point of creating any species which can further grow. Closest i can think of is something like Spore (evolving into an animal from a fuckin protozoa) but shit, it's just hard to picture the process.

GAMEchief wrote:

The Big Bang didn't come from nothing. It came from energy being converted into matter/antimatter. Which we've replicated in labs, and is modeled by the ever-popular E=MC^2

If you want to debate where that energy came from, by all means. I'm not sure we completely understand energy. But biggest issue regarding the Big Bang is that the only unknown (which may not even be unknown; I don't follow these sciences) is the origin of energy. It is known that everything happening after the existence of that energy follows natural laws. The expansion, size increase, existence of matter, creation of solar systems, existence of antimatter, a visible universe, black holes, habitable zones, abiogenesis, evolution.

I imagine string theory explains the initial existence of energy, but I've never looked into it. I've never researched science beyond that point except for the limitations of potential energy.

See, this is exactly what I mean. The Big Bang wouldn't confuse me if I just learned more about it, haha. I need to get a book on it or something.

Speaking of good books (a bit off-topic though) Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" was really good, you should check it out.

PrincessFluttershy wrote:

For evolution, I believe a great deal of it is true. Certainly us evolving from a more primitive man is extremely plausible, but the hard part to comprehend is how a single atom could grow or combine to the point of creating any species which can further grow. Closest i can think of is something like Spore (evolving into an animal from a fuckin protozoa) but shit, it's just hard to picture the process.

It's not a single atom. It's molecules. The same way viruses, which are merely RNA, can spontaneously combine and replicate when the elements that make up RNA are mixed together.

The smallest of organisms/life/cells/replicating-collections-of-atoms are not atoms themselves. They are made up of a lot of atoms. It's never been something that happens on a single-atom scale. Think more like water. H2O. Three atoms behaving as one molecule. It was a collection of molecules [which you should understand we already had in abundance; the earth was covered with water and minerals and salts and what-have-you] that grew/combined.

Flareboy323 wrote:

Speaking of good books (a bit off-topic though) Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" was really good, you should check it out.

Hawking is pretty brilliant, but like I said I don't follow these sciences.

A great book on evolution is The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Even if you already know about evolution, it is unbelievably informative and captivating. Even includes pictures so you can visualize the evidence, which is pretty important in an empirical science.

I usually find some books a bore, but it is really good. I have probably recommended that book more than every other book I've ever read combined.

I don't believe I'm descendant of any animal.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

I don't believe I'm descendant of any animal.

Why?

GAMEchief wrote:

Why?

Because synonyms for female dog and donkeys are demeaning!

Also, I guess I see what you mean by the molecules thing but it's still hard to believe that something similar to that of the Spore games really did happen. It's not that I don't believe it, more just trouble imagining how it would go along in a logical sequence!

The Spore games take huge leaps and aren't wholly accurate. They're designed to be fun, not educational. You have to remember, it took billions of years. It's only been 600 since America was founded. 200,000 since the first ever humans. Millions since dinosaurs. Billions since first life.

The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:
3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the dinosaurs died out,
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,
25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.

Found this beast on Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How'd it happen? Gradually.

Because I choose not to. I think monkeys are gross and why anyone would revel in claiming they are related to them in any fashion is hard for me to understand.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Because I choose not to. I think monkeys are gross and why anyone would revel in claiming they are related to them in any fashion is hard for me to understand.

That's like saying just because I hate my uncle and he's gross I can suddenly "choose" not to be related to him.
I also think you're misunderstanding what "related" means.

Yeah, you don't choose who you are related to, and it's flaw in and of itself to think that being related to something you feel is inferior to yourself somehow has any reflection on yourself. You are factually related to chimp-like animals. That doesn't mean you are gross. Everyone is related to equally related to them. And they always have been. The only thing that would make it gross is your choosing to think it's gross, which really has no foundation.

I believe in Evolution, but I think it goes back much much farther than ocean amoeba

The Catholic church believes in evolution. It baffles me that given that fact that anyone anywhere doesn't believe in evolution.
I mean, come on.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

The Catholic church believes in evolution. It baffles me that given that fact that anyone anywhere doesn't believe in evolution.
I mean, come on.

Most (serious) religions don't recognize evolution as factual.

My religion doesn't either. And what I don't understand is why so many atheist and hawkins-worshippers like to push it on other peopple.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

My religion doesn't either. And what I don't understand is why so many atheist and hawkins-worshippers like to push it on other peopple.

I mean no disrespect in asking, but what religion are you?
Also I am neither a Hawkins-worshiper or Atheist. Personally I'm agnostic but that's not to say I wasn't heavy into religion when I was younger.
I guess the thing that boggles my mind, is back when I was religious I always just believed god had created evolution.
Even as a small child. I just never got why other people didn't just apply god had made it and that's the end of it.
Especially because of all the logical reasons as to why it's plausible.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Most (serious) religions don't recognize evolution as factual.

Most serious? You mean Protestants? Protestants aren't more serious than any other faith and are a minority in terms of global religions.
Catholicism, Hinduism, and Islam are the three largest religions in the world. All Christian religions are based off Catholicism or Christians religions that are based of Catholicism. Catholicism is also regarded as one of the most conservative faiths in the world. Which collectively is probably why Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination worldwide.
Like 46% of Americans believe in creationism but that has to do with them being from 'Merica and/or Protestant.

I'm Catholic and I believe in evolution for the most part.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Most serious? You mean Protestants? Protestants aren't more serious than any other faith and are a minority in terms of global religions.
Catholicism, Hinduism, and Islam are the three largest religions in the world. All Christian religions are based off Catholicism or Christians religions that are based of Catholicism. Catholicism is also regarded as one of the most conservative faiths in the world. Which collectively is probably why Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination worldwide.
Like 46% of Americans believe in creationism but that has to do with them being from 'Merica and/or Protestant.

No, I mean the world's religions. Not tiny splinter groups confined to one area.

I'm religious and I don't believe it.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

My religion doesn't either. And what I don't understand is why so many atheist and hawkins-worshippers like to push it on other peopple.

Because unlike religious morality, evolution isn't an opinion. That's like asking why Galileo and other Capernicus-worshippers liked to push heliocentrism on the Catholic church.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

No, I mean the world's religions. Not tiny splinter groups confined to one area.

It's really more of an American thing. Even Egypt, currently known for its Muslim Brotherhood theocracy, teaches evolution as factual in its biology curricula.

If we come from monkeys then why don't I have a tail? Checkmate, evolution!

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

No, I mean the world's religions. Not tiny splinter groups confined to one area.

Catholicism is the largest international Christian denomination. Catholic means universal, there are catholics in basically every continent. You just called the majority portion of Christians a minority. 1.1 billion people are Catholic.
Like Charles said, Muslims are to a large degree teach evolution and Hindus support it. That's basically the majority of the Earth's population.

PrincessFluttershy wrote:

For evolution, I believe a great deal of it is true. Certainly us evolving from a more primitive man is extremely plausible, but the hard part to comprehend is how a single atom could grow or combine to the point of creating any species which can further grow. Closest i can think of is something like Spore (evolving into an animal from a fuckin protozoa) but shit, it's just hard to picture the process.

That's incorrect. You need organic matter. As for origins of life, scientists have found proteins (amino acids) on asteroids that land on earth, and have conducted experiments to show that, given the conditions of a young earth, these amino acids can foster more complex forms of life. The science is all there, really. Quite a few scientific papers on it.

GAMEchief wrote:

The Big Bang didn't come from nothing. It came from energy being converted into matter/antimatter. Which we've replicated in labs, and is modeled by the ever-popular E=MC^2

I imagine string theory explains the initial existence of energy, but I've never looked into it. I've never researched science beyond that point except for the limitations of potential energy.

The common analogy is the universe was infinitely condensed to a ball the size of a pea, but that's just speculation, hinted at by the maths :p As for string theory, it does, but string theory (which has since been refined in to slightly alternate theories like m-theory) is really just a mathematical framework. I think it's a bit premature to use it to draw any serious conclusions.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Most (serious) religions don't recognize evolution as factual.

That's incorrect, and a generalisation. Moreover, that and what you said previously is just sheer ignorance, and its that sort of poison which is clouding a lot of judgement and advancement today. Even though you don't completely understand something, doesn't mean you should dismiss it so frivolously.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Catholicism is the largest international Christian denomination. Catholic means universal, there are catholics in basically every continent. You just called the majority portion of Christians a minority. 1.1 billion people are Catholic.
Like Charles said, Muslims are to a large degree teach evolution and Hindus support it. That's basically the majority of the Earth's population.

I know that hon, I am Italian lol

Artificial wrote:

That's incorrect, and a generalisation. Moreover, that and what you said previously is just sheer ignorance, and its that sort of poison which is clouding a lot of judgement and advancement today. Even though you don't completely understand something, doesn't mean you should dismiss it so frivolously.

Oh, I conceptually understand it 100%, I'm taking a class mostly based on it, my problem with it is:

A. First of all, there's no way to prove God(s) aren't real.

B. At that point, you can't disprove any creation myth.

This combined with the way I've been treated by many Atheists and the things I see them say drives me away from agreeing with any evolution theory. When they say it's fact, I laugh. The "scientific community" has been around for no more than 200 years. (And that's being generous) In 200 years many new things can be discovered. So I don't think it's fair to simply say, "Oh, sorry, you're religion that's been around for millennia isn't valid."

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Oh, I conceptually understand it 100%, I'm taking a class mostly based on it, my problem with it is:

A. First of all, there's no way to prove God(s) aren't real.

B. At that point, you can't disprove any creation myth.

This combined with the way I've been treated by many Atheists and the things I see them say drives me away from agreeing with any evolution theory. When they say it's fact, I laugh. The "scientific community" has been around for no more than 200 years. (And that's being generous) In 200 years many new things can be discovered. So I don't think it's fair to simply say, "Oh, sorry, you're religion that's been around for millennia isn't valid."

I'm sorry, but you just can't take that post seriously. Firstly, evolution is in no way affiliated with religion. You should stop right there. They're not mutually exclusive, so the fact that you can't disprove a God or religion (by definition you can't disprove religion, that's why it's such an intelligent construct), in no way invalidates a scientific theory.

Secondly, if I postulate that deep in space there is a flying spaghetti monster, and ask you to disprove it, what do you thinks going to happen? Obviously you can't. The consequence of your inability to disprove that has no bearing on religion or evolution or anything else.

Also, yes you can disprove creation. Traditional creationists believe the earth is roughly only 6,000 years old. It doesn't take a PHD in astrophysics or paleontology to show just how wrong that belief is. And, if you choose to dispute that, than your argument isn't with evolution, but with science as a whole, and if that's a case that's deeply troubling. A scientist will never came out and say something is fact with 100% certainty. That's a violation of a core scientific principle. I suggest you read in to the standard scientific process a bit more.

Also, science has predated all of the modern religions. To say the scientific community is only 200 years old is ridiculous. If you're using age as a large determinant for a religion's validity, why then are your beliefs any more sound than beliefs that predate it?

Artificial wrote:

I'm sorry, but you just can't take that post seriously. Firstly, evolution is in no way affiliated with religion. You should stop right there. They're not mutually exclusive, so the fact that you can't disprove a God or religion (by definition you can't disprove religion, that's why it's such an intelligent construct), in no way invalidates a scientific theory.

Well, the reasons I disagree are mostly religious.

Artificial wrote:

Also, yes you can disprove creation. Traditional creationists believe the earth is roughly only 6,000 years old. It doesn't take a PHD in astrophysics or paleontology to show just how wrong that belief is. And, if you choose to dispute that, than your argument isn't with evolution, but with science as a whole, and if that's a case that's deeply troubling. A scientist will never came out and say something is fact with 100% certainty. That's a violation of a core scientific principle. I suggest you read in to the standard scientific process a bit more.

Traditionally, that is the consensus of Jews and Xtians, and maybe Muslims (I haven't studied Islamic cosmology in depth but I will assume it's fairly similar). I think much of the meaning of the original texts is lost within modern-language translations. The way we understand the "world" today is markedly different than a Semitic person thousands of years ago. But I digress, this is something we can talk about for hours. Specifically my religion doesn't follow this tradition.

Artificial wrote:

Also, science has predated all of the modern religions. To say the scientific community is only 200 years old is ridiculous. If you're using age as a large determinant for a religion's validity, why then are your beliefs any more sound than beliefs that predate it?

Well, you tell me this: When was science created?

The first time science was not linked with overtly religious tones was probably about 300 years ago during the Enlightenment. After that it spread over the world throughout the Modern period. Before this, science was always heavily woven into the religious fabric of people's lives. Also, my religion doesn't really have anything pre-dating it.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Well, you tell me this: When was science created?

The first time science was not linked with overtly religious tones was probably about 300 years ago during the Enlightenment. After that it spread over the world throughout the Modern period. Before this, science was always heavily woven into the religious fabric of people's lives. Also, my religion doesn't really have anything pre-dating it.

The ancient Greeks and Romans were famous for their scientific and philosophical advancements. A strong reason for there being a significant decline in scientific advancement (i.e. the dark ages), was that there was no separation between Church and State. Even Kings had to bow before the Catholic church, so nobody could publicly push forward any radical ideas without being labelled a heretic.

What is your religion? If it's a desert religion then there were obviously others before it.

Artificial wrote:

The ancient Greeks and Romans were famous for their scientific and philosophical advancements. A strong reason for there being a significant decline in scientific advancement (i.e. the dark ages), was that there was no separation between Church and State. Even Kings had to bow before the Catholic church, so nobody could publicly push forward any radical ideas without being labelled a heretic.

What is your religion? If it's a desert religion then there were obviously others before it.

Their technology and advancements were based on their religion, for the most part.

I'm actually a polytheist, don't laugh at me

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Their technology and advancements were based on their religion, for the most part.

Not necessarily. Where are you pulling this information from? It sounds like you're subscribed to some obscure creationist journal or something.

Artificial wrote:

Not necessarily. Where are you pulling this information from? It sounds like you're subscribed to some obscure creationist journal or something.

What information are you having trouble with?

You're making assertions which to be quite blunt border on lunacy.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

A. First of all, there's no way to prove God(s) aren't real.

B. At that point, you can't disprove any creation myth.

This is incorrect. The inability to disprove the metaphysical does not mean we cannot disprove the physical. Creation myths are creation myths for a reason. We can and have proven evolution and thus have disproven creation myths, which are stories of physical occurrences. Gods being metaphysical are separate discussions entirely. Evolution as a physical occurrence is factual and creation myths as physical occurrences are disproven.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Oh, I conceptually understand it 100%, I'm taking a class mostly based on it, my problem with it is:

A. First of all, there's no way to prove God(s) aren't real.

B. At that point, you can't disprove any creation myth.

This combined with the way I've been treated by many Atheists and the things I see them say drives me away from agreeing with any evolution theory. When they say it's fact, I laugh. The "scientific community" has been around for no more than 200 years. (And that's being generous) In 200 years many new things can be discovered. So I don't think it's fair to simply say, "Oh, sorry, you're religion that's been around for millennia isn't valid."

Well, no one here is stating that religion isn't valid, but you also have to consider the idea that religion was created on the emphasis of fostering people together to have a positive outlook on life. It created community, good personalities, good deeds, and over all good will between people. Religion, as an entirety, is meant to plug in some form of answer to people who can not possibly fathom the contents and inner workings of the universe. Most people can not even grasp how the universe may have been formed, or how evolution occurs on such a scale (myself included prior to this enlightening topic). That being stated, while religion DOES have it's merits, it was not derived from any factual means but more spiritual enlightenments to explain phenomena which occured where no plausible and logical answers happened.

In case that ramble was a little too long and not worth reading. I see religion as something that oversimplies the answers to the biggest questions in life. Science seeks to prove every intricacy and every detail of everything that happens in a logical manner, supported by laws of the universe which are still unknown to us. That being said I think religion has answers that science can't provide, but those answers lie in the spirituality of humanity.