Evolution losing popularity?

[rudy0908]

That's what I was wondering too. Why aren't monkeys still morphing into homosapiens? Is there an evolutionist out there who can riddle me this? If not, I think you're bananas.

One further point. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from apes, as it is commonly misunderstood to be. Humans and apes, according to evolution, evolved from a common ancestor species, resulting in two unique but related species.

 

[Showtyme]

My biggest problem is with your use of the word "morph." This isn't a quick process, as I'm sure you understand, it happens over millions of years. (Yada Yada Yada) ... and don't just accept some potentially uninformed definition.

I used the word "morph" in a slightly sarcastic manner, for comical affect ya know. Feel free to omit it and insert a suitable word of your choice.

Evolution also doesn't necesarily affect an entire species, but can occur within individual populations through genetic mutations and natural selection.

Sort of like X-men right? I hope my kid comes out with super powers.

On a more cereal note, I appreciate the feedback Rudy, and I'd appreciate it even more if you could supply me with some good evolution web sites to take a look at.

 

[rudy0908]

I just glanced at this site, but it appears to be a pretty detailed explanation of human evolution.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=22746

Sorry I didn't see the sarcasm in your post. I'm usually pretty good at that, but oh well.

 

[Windy]

One further point. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from apes, as it is commonly misunderstood to be. Humans and apes, according to evolution, evolved from a common ancestor species, resulting in two unique but related species.

I see; is this a matter of interpretation then? :rofl

 

[nkgupta80]

Quote:
Originally Posted by shuamort
Hey, Noah really did put 2 of each animal on every boat and was able to feed the carniverous animals during those 40 days and 40 nights with.... ummm.... hmm.... well, ya see. Well that doesn't make a lick of sense.



If you don't believe in God then of course it doesn't make sense! Silly Shuey.

That still doesn't explain anything.

 

[Showtyme]

Hey, Noah really did put 2 of each animal on every boat and was able to feed the carniverous animals during those 40 days and 40 nights with.... ummm.... hmm.... well, ya see. Well that doesn't make a lick of sense.

If you don't believe in God then of course it doesn't make sense! Silly Shuey.

That still doesn't explain anything.

Ok homie then let me break it down for you.

God = Creator, Supernatural, Omnipotent, etc...
Therefore, it would make sense that since He's capable of creating life, He's also capable of creating food. Mmmm Mmmmmm...

Call me crazy but that's probably just what He did during those 40 days and 40 nights.

An example of the Almighty Cook --> click me

P.S. If you still can't grasp this concept then I have an easy-to-understand "Noah's Ark" children's book you might enjoy reading. Free shipping to the 48 contiguous states.

 

[rudy0908]

Call me crazy but that's probably just what He did during those 40 days and 40 nights.

b]

Just out of curiosity, may I ask a personal question? I'm just wondering what denomination you belong to, but feel free to scold my rudeness if you are at all offended. My main reason for asking is I have been raised viewing much of the Old Testament as symbolism only slightly based in historical fact, and I wanted to know whether you really take it literally or are just overreacting in trying to defend the Bible.

 

[Showtyme]

lol

Don't be shy rudy ask away...

I don't consider myself belonging to any denomination. I actually happen to attend a non-denominational church. Go figure.

Curiosity killed the cat, but luckily you're not a cat. :smile:

 

[Fantasea]

Hey, Noah really did put 2 of each animal on every boat and was able to feed the carniverous animals during those 40 days and 40 nights with.... ummm.... hmm.... well, ya see. Well that doesn't make a lick of sense. :rofl

Well, perhaps not to you. However, for those who believe that God created the Earth and everything in it, making sure that Noah got the job done would be mere child's play, wouldn't it?

 

[Dezaad]

Great story on one of the world's leading atheists, Anthony Flew, has recently come to believe in intelligent design - because 'that's where the evidence leads.'

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.17077/article_detail.asp

Antony Flew has decided that he does in fact believe now that the first biological life form could have arisen spontaneously. He says that he was misled by a physicist, but that once he heard from protobiologists, he concluded that the physicist was ill-informed. It is interesting to note that Antony is not a scientist, but a philosopher who bases his philosophical writings on science.
Secular Web

 

[Fantasea]

Antony Flew has decided that he does in fact believe now that the first biological life form could have arisen spontaneously. He says that he was misled by a physicist, but that once he heard from protobiologists, he concluded that the physicist was ill-informed. It is interesting to note that Antony is not a scientist, but a philosopher who bases his philosophical writings on science.
Secular Web

Quite interesting reading. A first step. What's next? Who is next?

 

[Dezaad]

Quite interesting reading. A first step. What's next? Who is next?

What are you talking about?

 

[Fantasea]

What are you talking about?

Why, Antony Flew, of course. When a person of his stature changes course, even slightly, others are bound to follow, don't you think? Of course, having reached the age of 81 and possibly contemplating his mortality, perhaps he's simply hedging his bet.

July 15, 2005

ABC News
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence​

The Associated Press

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[OnionCollection]

As far as I am aware the Theory of Evolution has never been popular with the masses of the US. Many polls have shown double figure percentage points of those who say they don't believe it. Obviously even less people believed it 100 years ago.

But then most of those being polled are unlikely to really know what the theory of evolution is, and instead will have an incorrect notion of what it entails. All these polls tell us is what people believe, they are far from a reflection of the scientific status of the theory of evolution.

Polls done on fields related to evolution (biology, paleontology, genetics, etc) show over 99% support for evolution, and ultimately it is these experts opinions that reflect the scientific status of the theory, as they are the ones who have been studying the topic their entire lives.