Is Evolution True?

you should listen to this…




Or, this is an interseting view, that the bible is actually A METAPHORE for what really happened? How else were those dudes back then supposed to explain it? Maybe the bible tels of the big bang but does not explain it properly beecause they had no way to?

I leave you with these thoughts…

You can believe anything through faith…

No really, not trying to be arrogant or anything…

This is probably because science bases its affirmations over knoweledge and logic while religion bases itself upon revealed truths that are imposed rather then argued.

Well theorically you can interpret a book in any way you want o_O

I mean, some people are still re-interpreting the book of revelation every 3 or 4 years to make it fit to the current political situation so that they may claim that the end of times is near.

I’ve seen people adapting the big bang theory and dirac’s sea to the creation myth represented in the Qabbalah.

Anyway it was me in the previous post…

Most Christians in England (and all Catholics who follow papal doctrine) believe that Genesis is just a metaphor for the big bang. Creationism is only strong in the good old USofA. Cause there’s a lot of stupid people in America (and conversely lots of intelligent ones).

It has been quite obvious since Galileo that they are different. It is the Creationists who want to turn back the clock 500 years and eliminate this crucial distinction.

I dont actually agree. Religion and science offer humans exactly the same magic, mystery and hope of salvation as each other. Science is the new religion.

If they are going to use this excuse why then can we not point out that they can not prove evolution wrong so thus we are justified in believing it exists.

I recently read a book by a creationist (scientist). He managed to convince me that there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution. There is ample evidence for micro evolution, but weak evidence (if any - I haven’t actually come across ANY scientific evidence) for macro evolution. (Macro evolution is the process of one species developing into another. )

I don’t believe in a God for philosophical reasons. However, if I did not hold these philososophical beliefs, after reading the book I read I would be strongly inclined to believe in a created universe.

I think most people presume macro evolution must be real because there is strong evidence for micro evolution. But that is not necessarily the case. Evolution is NOT a proven fact. It is only a theory, and a pretty weak one at that, going by what I have read. It sounds I nice idea - mutations and natural selection and so on. But what appears as obvious is not automatically true. Because the majority believe something also doesn’t make it automatically true.

In this forum people have argued both sides on the basis of it being ‘obvious’ but without supplying any real argument. Evidence for micro evolution is NOT evidence for macro evolution. An argument needs real evidence or reasoning to back it up. No one has done that in this forum, yet most take a very strong stance. Therefore, has this thread actually made ANY progress?

Evolution is absolutely proven true as a possibility. It just isn’t proven for humans. But the reality of evolution doesn’t require it to be specific to humans.

The easiest thing to do is test evolution on bacteria, which multiply rapidly and are easily categorized. Rabbits and mice and fruit flies and corn are fairly useful in this regard too. That’s why they’re used - and hence I know - anyways.

However, in order to absolutely prove evolution in humans - there is still a great statistical certainty that evolution is true for humans - one needs a time machine to convince the most staunch of skeptics.

Regardless, evolution has been proven true tens of thousands of times over in the past 150 years. Just not in humans. If only there were an intelligent species here that lived 10 times as long as us… they’d be able to do the research on humans.

Some points,

Leo nice observation about the wolves although not all dogs came from wolves and we still have undomesticated dogs in the world today.

Secondly I am not so sure that the only difference between man and lower life is his brain and mind. I believe the organs of man are probably superior to that of other animals, we dont have much in the way of physical armour besides muscle and technology took alot of time to become an adequate survival mechanism. God doesnt give all to any particular creature or thing. I will have to think more about this but I know for one thing that man’s immune system is superior to any other creature and this is not so much because he is more able to control his mental state, it just possesses an innate strength that is not seen in other animals. Animals from small ones to ones larger in stature then humans often die in the matter of days of a virus which would take a lifetime to wipe out a human. I would have to do research to find evidence but i believe this to be the case. The reason our bodies seem so fallible or we dont live as long as certain animal species is that we choose to be that way and we choose not to . Elephants don’t do much, we humans wear ourselves into the ground with a lifetime of work. (I am sorry if most of this is conjecture, there is no usually alot of support for out of the box thinking).

Thirdly, I don’t see why religion and evolution cannot both be the truth unless one takes the garden of eden as existing in another realm, which perhaps it did, but perhaps it didn’t. I used to think that the garden of eden existed in a different realm because paradise seemed so unreal, but now I realize that the garden of eden coincided with the beginning of evolution. God did create man, but first he created ape. Anything without a prototype is risky business. Religious zealots are afraid to think, if they did they would realize that things are not so bad or not so different than they think they are. But try reaching one, thats the rub.

Look, this whole concept is really easy to understand. Different organisms are set up with different tools in order for the organism to sustain life. Most animals have a few basic systems: musculo-skeletal, reproductive, circulatory, endocrine, digestive, pulmonary, excretory, neural, circulatory, and immune. There are a couple I’m neglecting.

Most people I talk to really don’t understand the implications of their musculo-skeletal systems. It exists to provide support to keep the body together, and to make movement possible. Those are the major advantages to be had, but there are certainly many more.

So knowing that, consider this animal:

Compare your skeletal system to a cheetah’s here. Whose skeletal system is superior? Not yours. Actually, by the description, it looks like a cheetah has a superior pulmonary (quick air intake), circulatory (large heart), and endocrine (large adrenals). I’m also willing to bet some neural pathways in brain are more developed than their human counterparts, but not the brain on the whole.

This is basically what you see when you compare and look at all species. You see which of their systems are superior to the same systems in other species. It’s not too often that you see a system that is superior to a human’s, but it does happen. Ask Crush the Sea Turtle how many U.S. presidents he’s lived through.

What makes humans the most powerful animal rulers on earth? Superior brain ability when it comes to three crucial areas: memory, analysis of memories, and communication. However these superior brain traits would be considerably lessened if the tools that we use for sense - the ears, eyes, nose, tongue, nerves under the skin, nerves on the heart - were of lesser quality. Hair’s a good tool. It lets us know which way the wind is blowing before we stick our wet finger in the air for confirmation.

So we’re superior rulers of the earth. No doubt. But we’re not absolutely superior. We just have the most successful combinations. Of course, you wouldn’t know it, considering some of the inferior things we do.

Tigers are probably not exceptionally creatures, they are legs and teeth, population control, like shotguns for bears in New Jersey. They don’t live nearly as long as humans.

This assertion doesn’t do anything to refute my point or enhance yours.

I don’t mean to belittle your argument as a whole, but there is a significant flaw in it. That is the notion of superiority of systems and of organisms.

The cheetah is much better adapted to chasing down Thompson’s gazelles than than humans are, but cheetahs would probably have a hard time wielding a hammer, or welding a hammer even. The musculo-skeletal system and the respiratory systems of the cheetah are designed to help a cheetah do what a cheetah does. They are very efficient, but they are not superior to those of a human, after all, we’re not in direct competition for antelopes and such. They have explosive strength and speed, we have fine dexerity.

The human skeletal system allowed us to stand up on our hind legs and free our hands for making and using tools. Bipedalism also helped keep us cool in hot climates, allowing for development in the brain. Brains alone did not make us rulers of the planet. Tools also made us dominant. If the intelligence of a dolphin or an elephant could be measured in human terms and shown to be as capable as humans, without the means to make nuclear missles and striped toothpaste, they are not much of a threat.

Your premise of relativism is sound, but it must be taken a step further.

You’re partially right. It’s not the premise that must be taken a step further, but my comparative analysis of a human vs. cheetah.

So I will. Excluding deviations from the norm, the particular musculo-skeletal structure of a cheetah is superior in mature cheetahs to mature humans in providing incredible locomotion and brute strength. Having an enhanced circulatory system for quick exchange of carbon dioxide for oxygen, and higher heart-pumping pressure assures quicker delivery of oxygen to a cheetah’s muscles than it does in humans. The larger adrenal glands suggest the possibility that adrenaline release might be quicker than in humans, which the article I linked to suggested, but is open to some easy scrutiny that may or may not have been shown to be true. This certainly makes a cheetah’s locomotion from point A to point B, where the two points are at least 10 feet apart, incredibly more superior to a human’s.

However, they can’t open doors, and they can’t organize cheetah unions to attack human civiliaztion in a concerted effort. Not that they would.

After all, they’re not human.

First of all, tools wouldn’t have been made without brains. So I’m going to strip that part away while reading your paragraph. I realize it’s an important factor in many discussions, but not this one. There are lots of things that the human brain creates to help or hurt further human progress. Contradictive thought patterns created by hard-wired beliefs on how the world works is one major hindrance. And that doesn’t even have an outward physical manifestation! However, the pattern of learning through senses and processing in the brain is the same with adults and children, and for the sake of the beginning of the discussion, I’d like to keep it as clear as possible that that’s the only thing we’re talking about; not including discussion of the origin of environmental concerns (this is what a tool is once it’s being used, an environmental concern outside of the structure of the brain and senses).

And I’m going to stop for a secong, because I have this discussion with quite a few people, and it is always muddled by alternative ideas on what is intelligent. I see intelligence as the logical reckoning using cumulative knowledge. So if you compare a two year old baby with another two year old baby, one of them is going to be learning quicker, and I’d deem them more intelligent. This is not a condition set in stone. The slower child could end up overtaking the faster over the long haul - the course of one’s life - due to changing external and internal environment conditions.

To compare human to human is very difficult because in the end, we are very alike with only minor deviations from the norm. In fact, the most overt difference is the manifestation of our individual personalities. To properly analyze this requires honest response to controlled questions. This is a trusting endeavor at best. Our DNA has a high percentage of similarity, our outward appearance is very similar, with most differences being found in face structure. It’s probably been a long time since we compared other body structures - no laughing please - because we’ve been wearing clothes for so long. Some races of human are even closer in similarity. You can expect a wide range of eye and hair color combinations along the electromagnetic spectrum - not including contacts and hair dye - from most Europeans and their ancestors, but not from Asians and Africans.

But to compare human to flower is striking with differences. Compare human to frog, and the differences are fewer, but there’s still enough to see striking fluctuation. Move to orangutan and human… you’re going to have a much harder time finding the differences. But they are there.

I sense that I have drifted, because I forget what I was responding to… hold on a sec… oh… I was just offering more food for discussion to the last of your post. I think I’ll stop now.

Perhaps I should restate (or state) my arguments here, they seem to have been lost in translation.


Form follows function. In comparing the cheetah (or Orang, or frog, or daisy) form to that of the human, if one does not state the fundamental difference in function, one may be led to specious conclusions. The cheetah’s skeleton and musculature is without doubt superior to humans at doing what a cheetah does. The human skeleton, however, is designed to do what humans do (make tools, for one). And it is far superior to the cheetah’s in doing what humans do.

Take the example of a top-fuel dragster. It is the fastest automotive means of crossing a 1/4 mile of pavement from a dead stop. Compare that to the Jeep Wrangler. Certainly if we compare 1/4 mile track times and speeds, the dragster is (no pun intended) miles ahead. However, if we change the venue to a rock-strewn mountain trail, the dragster cannot compete. Both have suspensions systems, internal combustion engines, tires, steering wheels, and seats; but those of the dragster are not designed to crawl over boulders. Nor are those of the Wrangler designed to travel a 1/4 mile in under 5 seconds. Which is superior? Neither. They are different.


I would be foolish to argue that the human capacities for tool making and manipulation are not tied with our ability to reason. The first human tool would never have been made or used without a well-developed brain.

However, to assert that the “brain ability” is the single trait leading to our dominance is an oversimplification, I think. Our intellectual capacity precipitated tool making, to be sure, but our intelligence leveraged our dexterity in making this paragon of animals. Our brain alone could not have created tools for farming (and thus population growth), it could not have formed weapons for hunting and defense (and for offense), and it could not have created shelter and clothing to allow our expansion into climates our hairless, sweaty bodies could not otherwise survive.

How different the human world would be had we hooves or flippers or no limbs at all! Our dominance would not be a given, me thinks.

I suggested, but did not explicity state, in my previous post, that bipedalism not only allowed for tool making by freeing our hands from locomotion, but also allowed for increased brain size and complexity by improving our cooling mechanisms. When humans stood, so the theory goes, our noon-time shadow, decreased in area from that of our backs to that of our heads and shoulders. We also picked our upper halves up above the wind-blocking grasses of the savannahs. Brains are very heat-averse organs. Bipedalism reduced our heat absorbtion and increased our ability to dissipate heat. Without bipedalism, our brain development would have been stunted.

I think it’s better to consider the organism as a whole, rather than focusing on a handful of systems or traits.

blah, blah, blah, intellectuals sure can talk alot without being refreshing in the least.

I have a dexterious mind but my hands are definitely not a wonder of dexterity, the raptor of prehistoric ages probably had more than me. Maybe your theory aint so swell either. Blah, Blah, blah…

The dexterity required to type the above message is unmatched by any other species, extant or otherwise.

Hi Ray. Sorry to have neglected this. Nevermind what I was going on about before about absolute superiority of systems. The way I was addressing it was too subjective. Superiority depends wholly on specific instances in a controlled setting. I understand where you were correcting me.

Still. Evolution happens. People who equate it with creation theory are missing the point. They treat it as a creation theory in debate, most likely because they’re fixated on the idea that God or the gods created humans. Evolution doesn’t create anything. It isn’t making snap decisions on what to allow to live and what not to like a ruling spirit would. It’s the observance by humans of gradual changes over time in environment and subsections of the environment (such as a living thing), and how they relate to one another.

Evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of the Christian God. It does negate the particulars of the stories told in Genesis though. The many Christian factions which have a thorn in their side would do well to just accept it. I don’t know too many people who believe the Bible’s stories exactly anyways. The stories in the Bible are great for not relying too heavily on the particular where, why, and who questions that make it so universal. The remaining lessons to learn from the stories are most important to providing humanity with as much peace as possible.

i want to point something out

this is from the pamphlet that the one guy was talking about. but the reason they don’t repel each other is the Strong Nuclear force, on of the 3 or 4 (depending on who’s counting, i think) forces in the universe:

electromagnetic force
strong nuclear
weak nuclear

or, alternatively

electroweak force
strong nuclear force

so that whole argument is completely wrong.