Early Man

[wpeters]

If a process has 70% product 1 and 30% product 2 you don't just say that the result is product 1, and you don't base your explanation of the process just off of the process that produces product 1. If you want to talk about science, that's not how it works. It's methodical
Actually, ignoring the minor products is exactly how you end up getting half credit on organic chemistry II exam problems, speaking of which..

A child is made when a sperm fertilizes an egg and the fetus manages to reach a point where it's capable of living asymbiotically. Sometimes the resulting child is loved and sometimes not, but the chemical processes that lead to its creation march on regardless.

You are missing my point.  Evolution is the act of trying to believe in Random Chance. Survival of the fittest.

The summary of evolution is this.It’s the survival of the fittest. It means that any animal or human that is stronger or smarter will be able to dominate the others and live longer. In turn, it will have more offspring, and it will pass its strengths on to following generations, if you give it enough years the animals will have improved a lot.



Now let’s contrast that idea to the belief of being created by a Creator. It is a belief in kindness. It urges us to love and care for the less privileged. It promotes a uniting love for all mankind as well as a high regard for nature.

[Rich46yo]

There is no question, certainly to me, that we evolved from lesser hominids thru the process of natural selection and our ability to out think and out fight other hominid species. We are the ultimate Ape, tho not necessarily the greatest.

The only reason this is a religious conflict is because man in his arrogance "presumes" He knows Gods plan and the methods he choose to install to further it. Science and faith should be kept separate because the one we can understand but the other we never really will in this life. Only in the next. In the meanwhile we have to abide by the laws of God and keep faith in him. That doesnt mean ignoring scientific truths that are staring you in the face.

In the time of Jesus people thought sea life were mermaids and monsters. But that doesnt mean Jesus didnt live. God will clue us in in his own good time. In the mean time I'll keep current with science and keep my belief at the same time.

[wpeters]

There is no question, certainly to me, that we evolved from lesser hominids thru the process of natural selection and our ability to out think and out fight other hominid species. We are the ultimate Ape, tho not necessarily the greatest.

The only reason this is a religious conflict is because man in his arrogance "presumes" He knows Gods plan and the methods he choose to install to further it. Science and faith should be kept separate because the one we can understand but the other we never really will in this life. Only in the next. In the meanwhile we have to abide by the laws of God and keep faith in him. That doesnt mean ignoring scientific truths that are staring you in the face.

In the time of Jesus people thought sea life were mermaids and monsters. But that doesnt mean Jesus didnt live. God will clue us in in his own good time. In the mean time I'll keep current with science and keep my belief at the same time.

Well said

[Tank-Ace]

Well said

Except you follow a doctrine about the exact opposite of his.

You let your faith blind you to the truth, simply because that truth isn't written in the book you've decided is literal truth, even after thousands of years of copying and translation errors, much less that its obviously allegorical.

[Motherland]

You are missing my point.  Evolution is the act of trying to believe in Random Chance. Survival of the fittest.

The summary of evolution is this.It’s the survival of the fittest. It means that any animal or human that is stronger or smarter will be able to dominate the others and live longer. In turn, it will have more offspring, and it will pass its strengths on to following generations, if you give it enough years the animals will have improved a lot.

First of all, 'random chance' and 'survival of the fittest' are contradictory.
Second of all, the theory of evolution does not say that anything has to happen. It describes things that do happen. There were people about a century ago who falsely extrapolated the ideas of evolution and the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. They're not around anymore. The idea of 'directing human evolution' is not around anymore. People figured out before Hitler even came to power that eugenics was based on false premises.

'Survival of the fittest' is an archaic phrase. Genetics and natural selection are more complicated than that. The Origin of Species was written 150 years ago. Science has matured since then.
The idea of a scientist as someone who just sits down and does things by numbers and doesn't appreciate life and the human experience is also archaic, if it was aver based on much to begin with. Maybe for mathematicians or physicists this is a bit more the case (though this really hasn't been my experience necessarily either), but being constantly surrounded by biologists and chemists etc. who love art and literature and everything about life. And the discreet parts of life that operate under your nose, without you being able to see, are some of the most beautiful parts.

By the way, the mutations that lead to evolution are actually very slight and are actually often caused by background radiation.

[mechanic]

I have read and understood the replies directed at my posts. While I stick firm to my beliefs I lack the desire to debate it further.

Perspective is everything. That is why we all see things differently.

[Shane]

Nothing is impossible. It's merely a matter of (im)probilities.  Having said that, I'm more inclined towards evolution, assisted or not, as being more probable than us having a creator who pulls everything out of his wazoo.  But hey, it's not impossible that our little corner of the universe might indeed have a god or gods.

   For those who can positively say there is no Creator.......

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Slate]

  Why do dogs Dream? 

[BreakingBad]

There is no question, certainly to me, that we evolved from lesser hominids thru the process of natural selection and our ability to out think and out fight other hominid species. We are the ultimate Ape, tho not necessarily the greatest.

The only reason this is a religious conflict is because man in his arrogance "presumes" He knows Gods plan and the methods he choose to install to further it. Science and faith should be kept separate because the one we can understand but the other we never really will in this life. Only in the next. In the meanwhile we have to abide by the laws of God and keep faith in him. That doesnt mean ignoring scientific truths that are staring you in the face.

In the time of Jesus people thought sea life were mermaids and monsters. But that doesnt mean Jesus didnt live. God will clue us in in his own good time. In the mean time I'll keep current with science and keep my belief at the same time.

Well said. 

[Brooke]

  Why do dogs Dream? 

Dreaming might help the neural network of the brain incorporate memories better ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_learning ).

Also, some research points to sleep as a time were repair and maintenance functions can proceed more thoroughly ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/373 ).

[gyrene81]

When Mendeleev created the periodic table in the mid-19th century, there were many holes in it that could not be explained at the time (there of course were still many undiscovered elements). Of course, this wasn't based on any kind of the sub atomic theory we now know is responsible for the properties of the elements, which wasn't discovered until the first half of the 20th century.
So, Mendeleev did not say 'oh there will be an element with this many protons between this element and this element so that the table can be complete'. He saw that there were repeating series of properties that were periodic among the elements, and where he saw holes, he said 'there must be this element to complement these two elements so that the table can be complete'. When elements such as Germanium were discovered later on, with properties that Mendeleev predicted to fill his holes, the Periodic Table became canon, since the idea is that with the scientific method you can form a hypothesis and predict later results, and he did. Sub-atomic theory corroborating his theory didn't matter- people didn't know about the underlying things that caused the periodic behavior of the elements until way after the Periodic Table had become the law of the land.

Similarly, we didn't understand DNA until 100 years after the origin of species.  We predicted that creatures would exist based on our understanding of the way that genetics, heredity and in the larger picture evolution worked, and we found creatures that fulfilled the properties we predicted, and the prediction-affirmed prediction (and more importantly, consistently confirmed predictions) affirmed the theory. DNA isn't necessary to prove that the gaps are filled in in our evolutionary chain just as subatomic theory wasn't necessary to prove that the gaps in Mendeleev's table were filled in.

the prediction of base elements is an easier exercise in logic than the evolution of a species. the number of variables is finite unlike the variables of the evolutionary process. the creatures you think fulfill the predicted properties needed to explain human evolution haven't actually materialized. there has been a lot of generous extrapolation to fill in the picture due to the lack of full fledged evidence. a single jaw bone or finger bone does not make a species nor does it show the evolution of that species to its end point. the amount of pure conjecture that has been used (and readily accepted) to explain the evolution of humans is astounding. if someone were to walk up to you with a few fossilized remnants of a creature the size of a muskrat, of which no other remains have been found anywhere on the planet, and told you that it was the direct ancestor of a horse, i would hope that you would be skeptical, because that is exactly what has been happening yet i don't sense any skeptcism from you.

Nothing is impossible. It's merely a matter of (im)probilities.  Having said that, I'm more inclined towards evolution, assisted or not, as being more probable than us having a creator who pulls everything out of his wazoo.  But hey, it's not impossible that our little corner of the universe might indeed have a god or gods.

assisted evolution (in some manner) is highly probable...and based on what is now known about ancient civilizations as well as evidence found across the planet, god could very well be many.

[caldera]

Evolution and Creation are both likely to be real.  Just not exactly like they are believed to have happened. 

To think that all of the incredible complexities that make up living beings, their interaction with different living beings and our own history of thinking, building and creating - is all just because of a totally random series of events and not the work of some higher power, seems impossible to me.

And despite the similarities with apes, if humans evolved from them, why are apes still around? 


Some things will never and can never be proved, nor disproved. 

[Lusche]

And despite the similarities with apes, if humans evolved from them, why are apes still around? 

They didn't, and
why not?

[Bear76]

 Why do dogs Dream?  

After being neutered what else are you going to do? I imagine Midway dreams for the same reason.

[caldera]

They didn't, and
why not?

I don't believe we did.  Just putting the theory to the test.

If evolving is improving out of necessity or for some natural advantage, then how come the inferior species A. didn't evolve and B. still exists?  Survival of the fittest doesn't seem to always apply if we did come from them.  Just a bunch of conjecture that's presented as facts.  Nobody alive knows for sure and never will.