Who believes in evolution?

[Glockmeister]

Okay I didn't get 'made in Gods image' from the last post.

Quantum JG, I am going to assume since you used the word 'put' you were referring to God (or deity).

I believe.
The Earth was created for us, we do not know why here.

We are not perfect.

All I meant by theory was hypothesis.

Hypothesises by definition can be and in fact are regularly are refuted.

[Glockmeister]

"Sam
Girard, OH
 Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it! |#23 Apr 19, 2008
mutations

In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed.  "

this is also a good point

Yeah but I don't see how this relates to evolution.

[m@tty]

All I mean is I won't tell them they have to change it because I believe different.

[/0]

something obviously happened but i dont think evolution is the definitive answer and the fossil record is pretty incomplete

and no we are not perfect

In response to your quote from that article, physiological similarities often have little to do with genetic similarities. Instead of focusing on the physical/physiological similarities, we need to focus on the genetics behind it all. For example, the genetic disorder sickle cell anaemia, which causes blood to be restricted to organs and early death, is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide on chromosome 11, which has millions of nucleotides. Humans and chimpanzees share 97% of their DNA, but this does not mean that humans look or act 97% like chimpanzees.
To say god came in and designed chromosome number 2 himself is a massive cop-out. In history, whenever humans have failed to provide explanations for certain things, such as the sun, lightning, or the auroras, they have turned to gods to 'fill in the gaps'. This does not achieve anything except for giving people false ideas. Scientists may well have an explanation for this fusion, but regardless, it is not god's job to act as a placeholder.

[/0]

All I meant by theory was hypothesis.

Then you'd better get your definitions right if you want to argue science. They are not the same thing.

[TrueLight]

"Sam
Girard, OH
 Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it! |#23 Apr 19, 2008
mutations

In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed.  "

this is also a good point

Yeah but I don't see how this relates to evolution.

because they tried to increase mutations so that it may somehow change into something else but it didnt... so it does relate to evolution

[dcc]

I think QuantumJG brings up a very good point: Why are humans so special?  I think most people do not comprehend <just how large> the universe is.  I can tell you that (to a rough estimate), the universe is 156 billion light-years wide.  This is a truly unfathomable amount of space.  We are just one species, on one tiny planet, in one galaxy, out of many.

We are nothing special.

We haven't been here very long (in fact, if you imagined a person holding their arms apart, and this length designating the age of the universe, human existence is a sliver of the person's fingernail.), and we won't be here very long either (species have an unsettling knack for becoming extinct quickly).

To assume that evolution holds for all species except homo sapiens is essentially arrogance.  We are just another species.  I accept the theory of evolution for all creatures, great and small.  While the specifics may be heavily debated, I still accept that we evolved from something, which evolved from something else, which evolved from something else, ad infinitum.

[TrueLight]

something obviously happened but i dont think evolution is the definitive answer and the fossil record is pretty incomplete

and no we are not perfect

In response to your quote from that article, physiological similarities often have little to do with genetic similarities. Instead of focusing on the physical/physiological similarities, we need to focus on the genetics behind it all. For example, the genetic disorder sickle cell anaemia, which causes blood to be restricted to organs and early death, is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide on chromosome 11, which has millions of nucleotides. Humans and chimpanzees share 97% of their DNA, but this does not mean that humans look or act 97% like chimpanzees.
To say god came in and designed chromosome number 2 himself is a massive cop-out. In history, whenever humans have failed to provide explanations for certain things, such as the sun, lightning, or the auroras, they have turned to gods to 'fill in the gaps'. This does not achieve anything except for giving people false ideas. Scientists may well have an explanation for this fusion, but regardless, it is not god's job to act as a placeholder.

i dont think genetics 100% explains how we appeared from apes
and i dont say god came in and created chromosome 2


and i didnt say that apes came from fish or wateva....

like i said evolution is a theory even though its a logical one, there is no 100% concrete proof of it, we will never see it over the times scales that strict evolutionists say is required

[Glockmeister]

"Sam
Girard, OH
 Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it! |#23 Apr 19, 2008
mutations

In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed.  "

this is also a good point

Yeah but I don't see how this relates to evolution.

because they tried to increase mutations so that it may somehow change into something else but it didnt... so it does relate to evolution

Most mutations are deadly to the functioning of cells and by proxy, life (for example, cancers are a form of mutation). Some mutations, however do bugger all to the species (often due to the fact the mutations occurs in these non-coding sections of DNA). Some give benefits to the species and thus there is a greater chance of these being passed on to their progeny (for example, antibiotic resistance). Over time these changes give rise to the diversity in life we see today.

[QuantumJG]

We haven't been here very long (in fact, if you imagined a person holding their arms apart, and this length designating the age of the universe, human existence is a sliver of the person's fingernail.), and we won't be here very long either (species have an unsettling knack for becoming extinct quickly).

I reckon that explanation you used to explain our time of existence is a great rule of thumb (pun intended). We will never-ever witness evolution on a macroscale, the Earth has an expected life-time of about 10 billion years (The Sun will have expanded in a way that will stop life being supported on our planet), now nobody could understand what 10 billion years is, yet, there are so many stars that live for much longer than that, a star may orbit a black-hole for ages before being sucked in. Our time on Earth is too short. The longest a human can live at maximum as of a few days ago is 115 years. In space 10 billion years may be just a drop in the sea, for us its an amount of time you cannot understand.

[TrueLight]

quoting ron paul

[evolution]"because it doesn't change the nature, the only thing that changes the nature of our life is our understanding of about what personal liberty is, and restraining the government and making sure we have a government that will never restrain you in making a discussion on these topics."

[QuantumJG]

like i said evolution is a theory even though its a logical one, there is no 100% concrete proof of it,

This itself comes down to the heart of why there is so much debate over creationalism and evolution. As someone who believes in evolution I do have 100% faith in it and yet religious people see it to be so trivial they dismiss it having any merit and look down on those who do see merit in it.  

[Glockmeister]

something obviously happened but i dont think evolution is the definitive answer and the fossil record is pretty incomplete

and no we are not perfect

In response to your quote from that article, physiological similarities often have little to do with genetic similarities. Instead of focusing on the physical/physiological similarities, we need to focus on the genetics behind it all. For example, the genetic disorder sickle cell anaemia, which causes blood to be restricted to organs and early death, is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide on chromosome 11, which has millions of nucleotides. Humans and chimpanzees share 97% of their DNA, but this does not mean that humans look or act 97% like chimpanzees.
To say god came in and designed chromosome number 2 himself is a massive cop-out. In history, whenever humans have failed to provide explanations for certain things, such as the sun, lightning, or the auroras, they have turned to gods to 'fill in the gaps'. This does not achieve anything except for giving people false ideas. Scientists may well have an explanation for this fusion, but regardless, it is not god's job to act as a placeholder.

like i said evolution is a theory even though its a logical one, there is no 100% concrete proof of it, we will never see it over the times scales that strict evolutionists say is required

There's no concrete proof for the existence of gravity. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like to fall off a top of the cliff.

[TrueLight]

lol im no way "religious" like strict orthodox, i dont really go to church that often

yeah i see ur point although im not looking down on those who see merit in it! even i learnt all that stuff! and i use some of the concepts in molecular bio! im just arguing about the ape > to human thingo... or fish to human or wateva to human......lol but as ive always said the theory is quite good and logical but u just can't lay it smack down on evolution. although u do which is great

[excal]

@/0
Ok, but is there any evidence/testing of evolution? You didn't show any.
And I did say it was a good theory.

Ok, but did you show any evidence/testing of creationism? Oh and,

Over9000: How do you test God? I want to hear your answers.

As I said above belief requires faith. No test.

doesn't count. I could simply say that 'I believe in evolution and therefore it is right', which is what you're saying that it should be ('[it] requires faith, no test') for creationism.

For the record, I am a Catholic.