{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by AZ100349:
12/6/2016 5:36:58 PM
39
Stupid poll. "If you don't believe what I believe then you're stupid!"
Edit: fixed grammar. Didn't notice it since I wrote this at 2:00 this morning.
English
-
Well if you dont believe in evolution you are either lazy or dumb so...
-
I don't think "lazy" is the right word.
-
You havent bothered to look at facts or actual science yet try to make points. That makes you lazy
-
You're making assumptions. Science actually interests me a lot. I do believe that on a certain level we do evolve, what is usually called adaptation. The thing that bothers me most though is that some people take what little we actually know, and try to make it seem like there is no way that this "fact" could be wrong. It used to be a fact that the earth was the center of the universe. They even had scientific proof! But as our knowledge increased, we learned that the earth actually isn't the center of the universe. We have no way of knowing whether or not a few hundred years from now people will think we were stupid for believing what we do about evolution today. I'm not saying that's the case, but what is considered a fact in science is constantly changing.
-
First of all we know a lot more about evolution than you think right down to being able to demonstrate it in a lab https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/amp/?client=ms-android-att-us Second, back then there was no scientific proof. It functioned on a basis of muh bible says so and even the greeks predicted the round earth in their time.
-
So you're saying we know everything there is to know about evolution? Then tell me how everything was created out of nothing. Where were all the necessary elements? Which came first, time, space, matter or energy? Which came first, male or female? These are just some questions that as far as I can tell we don't have an answer to yet. And yes, there were scientists who conducted experiments hundreds of years ago. The romans would take a piece of cloth and drop it and watch it float to the ground. Proof that the earth is the center of the universe. Also the planets, the sun and moon especially, seemed to rotate around the earth. That's more proof that the earth is the center of the universe. Of course now we know those aren't reliable experiments, but they were reliable to them, and seemed infallible. Again, who can say wether or not hundreds of years from now people will think we were really primitive in our experiments?
-
What you are describing is abiogenesis not evolution. All those questions pertain to the origin of life not how it changes over time. We dont know everything about evolution but we know an incredible amount. At this point it is fact and there is no possible argument that you could make to disprove it. Go ahead try.
-
I never said I could disprove it, I even believe some of it, though not all. All I'm saying is that there is still a lot that we don't know, and what we consider a fact could drastically change within the next few hundred years. Unless of course you can prove that everything we know about evolution is 100% true and will never change due to new discoveries. Go ahead, I'll wait.
-
What about evolution dont you believe? Merely stating that in the future it [i]could[/i] be wrong is no basis for an argument.
-
Mainly that we evolved from apes. To my knowledge we are one of the, if not the only, species to undergo such a drastic change. Why just us, and not any other apes on the planet who still have not undergone the same changes that we have? Why have all the changes to our DNA been good change? Why are we the only species to have ascended to this level of intellect?
-
You betray a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Things evolve from a common ancestor, meaning at some point billions of years ago we were all just a single celled photosynthesizing organsim. Gradually this thing replicated with minor gene differences and mutations. The beneficial mutations were the ones that survived to reproduce again and the bad ones died before they could reproduce on account of these changes. Fastforward a few billion years of population seperation and change and you'd arrive here. All living species have undergone extremely radical changes from their ancestors and all species can be traced back to one point. That is basically evolution and the tree of life
-
So if we all evolved from a common ancestor, where are all of the millions of fossils of all those different stages of life? Those we do have usually make huge leaps in the supposed evolutionary chain. This problem has been noted by several evolutionist paleontologists. How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
-
The reason we are missing fossils is for two reasons. One is that it is incredibly difficult for fossils to form. First the animal has to die on top of soil that is [i]just[/i] right for it, then it has to remain undisturbed by other animals and storms, and it has to die somewhere wet where it can be naturally buried, and a whole host of other factors that make it like winning the lottery every time we do get one. The second reason is that every time we find one transitional fossil like tiktaalik or archeaoptrics it creates two gaps where there was one. Its like trying to find every point on a ruler. Even if you pointed to every inch mark i could just as easily say that you forgot about the half inches, and your points (fossils) would double to 24, then i would point to the quarter inch marks and again it would double to 48, and so on. There is no realistic way we will find every transitional fossil but the fact that we have found the number we have is in and of itself both amazing and evidence, since they wouldnt exist without evolution.
-
But the problem persists that we are missing huge gaps in the evolutionary line, and so you can't definitively say that "this evolved from that, just because this sort of, kinda looks like that." Take the Archaeopteryx for example. Is it the ancestor of all birds? Maybe yes, maybe no. There is no way to prove it though. So why have evolutionist textbooks almost universally and dogmatically declared Archaeopteryx to be an obvious transitional form? it is impossible to determine whether any ‘candidate’ fossils (ones that might have the appearance of transitional forms) actually were real transitional ones. In other words, they might look like missing links, but how can one know for sure?
-
Archeaoptrics is declared a transitional form because it is the earliest fossil known to be a bird. If we found a different before it then it would no longer be a transitional fossil. Also, the amount of transitional fossils we have is is more than wnough to say the transitional fossils exist, therefore that part of evolution is true. No part of evolution is false and saying that "in the future we could find new information" is not an argument because there are no hole in evolution to be filled. The [i]only[/i] thing we could hope for are more transitional fossils and like i said the fact that they exist at all shows that it is true.
-
But we cannot be 100% certain that what we know about evolution is true, due to us not being able to go in the past and observe those evolutionary chains. You fault me for talking about the future and how we might find more evidence, yet you go and make assumptions in your logic based on evidence that is not there. It's a trade secret in paleontology that we can't produce enough transitional fossils to definitively prove evolutionary lines. Yet textbooks around the world show detailed charts of evolutionary lines, based on non-existent evidence. In other words they are based off an artists interpretation, not scientific fact. They are misleading us to believe everything about evolution that these textbooks tell us, without telling us that not everything in this textbook is scientifically proven. This is what I've been trying to say this whole time. Admit that we don't know everything about evolution, and stop trying to pass of these assumptions as fact.
-
You do know that fossils arent the only way to tell evolution has happened right? Shared characteristics, gene patterns, and environmental factors all play a huge role. We dont know 100% of evolution but we know enough that it is fact and should be common knowledge.
-
That is what MM does on this poll. His only defense are insults.
-
[quote]That is what MM does on this poll. His only defense are insults.[/quote] You'll have a hard time finding me posting insults. Don't confuse criticism or disagreement with insults.
-
It's more condescending behaviour than anything else. If he was to criticise someone I assure you it wouldn't be anything the Internet hasn't seen before.
-
This poll is an insult. Calling people dumb who don't fit in your version of reality. Nuff said.
-
[quote]This poll is an insult. Calling people dumb who don't fit in your version of reality. Nuff said.[/quote] My poll doesn't say anything about being dumb.
-
You imply it here, and all other comments you responded it to as: 1+2=3. Also, all other posts, you want others to give evidence, but you say, "your wrong". Can you post a link to a source that confirms evolution? So many sources out there. You claim it is very basic, so a website shouldn't be to hard to find.
-
[quote] Can you post a link to a source that confirms evolution? So many sources out there. You claim it is very basic, so a website shouldn't be to hard to find.[/quote] The E. Coli experiment is a good example because of how many generations are observed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment This short video on the fusion of Chromosome 2 and our link to apes is very good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk Here's a good paper that covers many topics relating to evolution: https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4 This is also a good explanation article, along with a good chart of human evolution: http://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/ http://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/hominid_evo.jpg There's also this article which gives simple explanations to creationist claims against evolution: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
-
Thanks.
