Do you believe in Evolution?

[darktyranitar]

Here's a thought: if all life evolved from one tiny algae cell, then where'd the algae came from in the first place?

...magic?

[Negrek]

Here's a thought: if all life evolved from one tiny algae cell, then where'd the algae came from in the first place?

...magic?

An interesting question, but irrelevant to the process of evolution itself; evolution deals not with the origin, but what follows after, although in some cases we trace it backwards in order to speculate what might have come before.

Everyone who I've seen use that argument seems to forget that there are different religions who each believe in different Gods. So you've really just got a one in however many religions there are chance of coming up with a win-win situation.

True that. I think it would be funny to discover post-mortem that, in fact, this place is run by some forlorn little deity (or pantheon thereof) deeply embittered by the fact that nobody recognizes him/her/it for what he/she/it is. Because even with all the philosophies and religions extant as of now, there's no way of knowing that even a single one of them is correct--there's an infinite number of possibilities in that regard.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Evolution is not so much a matter of "belief" in it as much as it is a matter of whether or not you believe that the Universe is something that can be completely understood by humans or if you believe that reality is this magical thing that nobody could ever understand. Personally, I subscribe to the former and I can't imagine living otherwise. But on the other hand, the great Dostoevsky once wrote in one of his books how he couldn't understand why atheists, knowing that there was no god, no afterlife, and no divine meaning in life, didn't just shoot themselves on the spot. Ah the diversity of human opinion.

And as for DT's comment, it's a very interesting question, one that scientists are working on. Why is life preferable to inanimacy? *shrug* The universe would be so much simpler if we were all rocks. One theory is that in some primordial goo some atoms randomly combined to form the first amino acid and subsequently the first protein, hence the first organic molecule, and things went from there. There's no real observable answer to that though.

And finally, I think it would be pretty funny if the Universe was actually run by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that the afterlife has a beer volcano. I would get a kick out of that.

[Weasel Overlord]

Bleergh, beer volcano. *makes face at the beer* Now if it was vodka...

Wait wait, I did come here with a point!

I do believe in evolution, although according to Vulpix.ck (my resident zoological studies homie) they're even starting to question the whole evolution thing... (bear with me while I try and remember all this, it's really interesting)

Okay, so I believe in evolution. But it's probably because I'm far too sensibly-minded (occasionally) to believe in God. (or Allah, or anything, really) The Bible was written by a man, and changed over history. The Bible is therefore a "story", with a human author, and any story written by a person is going to be altered by that person's point of view, or prejudices, or even just how they saw a certain situation. And that's basically why I'll never feel able to take the events of the Bible, say Genesis, as being truth. Now taking them metaphorically, that's acceptable, but there's still the question of God. How can there be one single being in the universe who created the human race? And then there's the age-old argument; If God created the world, and is omniscient and merciful, then how can there be so much evil in the world?

I'm not contradicting myself when I present the counter-argument; God gave humans free will, according to the Bible. We are therefore free to choose whether we want to go down the path of good, or whether to live a life of evil.

Then there's the lovely; If God was perfect, how could he have created evil?
Well, a similar answer. Free will can once again be applied, and then there's the fact that without evil, there can be no good. For we need evil to define good, and vice versa. It relates back to the philosophical argument debating whether God, being infallible, could make a rock that he cannot lift. Since God is infallible, and can basically do anything, he is capable of creating the rock; however, if he created a rock that he could not lift, then that would make God himself fallible. And so, we have a vicious circle.

And I think now I'm done talking about God... hehe.

Evolution. Right. According to new research (university lecturers are constantly researching new theories, so don't complain at me if you've not heard of this before - you won't have done, likely enough)
concerning the old fossils.

There are soft cell organisms, and hard cell organisms (I'm explaining this how I remember Vulps telling me... so don't pick at me if it's wrong, or for not using the correct terms - I'm an English Language student, not a scientist any more, lol) which have been found as fossils.

But apparantly, all the fossils that have ever been found only ever date back to a certain period in history. Can't remember the date. But there have been no fossils found anywhere in the world which predate this certain "date" in history. Now, soft celled organisms don't fossilise well, they're soft celled, so they decay instead, unlike hard-celled organisms, which preserve nicely. (fossils are cool, hooray!)

So, as far as I remember, this seems to mean that there could have been soft celled organisms pre-dating any fossils that we've found so far, because of the fact that they don't fossilise.

I guess this could therefore imply that there were human-like organisms before the fossils we've already dated.

This probably isn't anything like the actual theory that I was told (I was drunk, leave me alone!) but it's still interesting no doubt!

[pokemasterfrank]

Bleergh, beer volcano. *makes face at the beer* Now if it was vodka...

Wait wait, I did come here with a point!

I do believe in evolution, although according to Vulpix.ck (my resident zoological studies homie) they're even starting to question the whole evolution thing... (bear with me while I try and remember all this, it's really interesting)

Okay, so I believe in evolution. But it's probably because I'm far too sensibly-minded (occasionally) to believe in God. (or Allah, or anything, really) The Bible was written by a man, and changed over history. The Bible is therefore a "story", with a human author, and any story written by a person is going to be altered by that person's point of view, or prejudices, or even just how they saw a certain situation. And that's basically why I'll never feel able to take the events of the Bible, say Genesis, as being truth. Now taking them metaphorically, that's acceptable, but there's still the question of God. How can there be one single being in the universe who created the human race? And then there's the age-old argument; If God created the world, and is omniscient and merciful, then how can there be so much evil in the world?

I'm not contradicting myself when I present the counter-argument; God gave humans free will, according to the Bible. We are therefore free to choose whether we want to go down the path of good, or whether to live a life of evil.

Then there's the lovely; If God was perfect, how could he have created evil?
Well, a similar answer. Free will can once again be applied, and then there's the fact that without evil, there can be no good. For we need evil to define good, and vice versa. It relates back to the philosophical argument debating whether God, being infallible, could make a rock that he cannot lift. Since God is infallible, and can basically do anything, he is capable of creating the rock; however, if he created a rock that he could not lift, then that would make God himself fallible. And so, we have a vicious circle.

And I think now I'm done talking about God... hehe.

Evolution. Right. According to new research (university lecturers are constantly researching new theories, so don't complain at me if you've not heard of this before - you won't have done, likely enough)
concerning the old fossils.

There are soft cell organisms, and hard cell organisms (I'm explaining this how I remember Vulps telling me... so don't pick at me if it's wrong, or for not using the correct terms - I'm an English Language student, not a scientist any more, lol) which have been found as fossils.

But apparantly, all the fossils that have ever been found only ever date back to a certain period in history. Can't remember the date. But there have been no fossils found anywhere in the world which predate this certain "date" in history. Now, soft celled organisms don't fossilise well, they're soft celled, so they decay instead, unlike hard-celled organisms, which preserve nicely. (fossils are cool, hooray!)

So, as far as I remember, this seems to mean that there could have been soft celled organisms pre-dating any fossils that we've found so far, because of the fact that they don't fossilise.

I guess this could therefore imply that there were human-like organisms before the fossils we've already dated.

This probably isn't anything like the actual theory that I was told (I was drunk, leave me alone!) but it's still interesting no doubt!

Wouldn't it make more sense that it implies that there were only things like ameobas? I mean, when we die, we leave bones behind. Humans are probably classified as "hard-celled".

And it's perfectally possible for multiple organisms to have the same evolutionary change. The evolutionary features occur when one trait suits whatever environment better, so those with it live and those without it die. And those with the trait breed and yield more organisms with said trait.