Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  Next -- Posted by Mein Alias at 9:34 am on June 28, 2009 -- Posted by zamrambo at 9:35 am on June 28, 2009 Yes. -- Posted by not human at 9:35 am on June 28, 2009 yes... -- Posted by lolums at 9:36 am on June 28, 2009 How can people NOT believe it? -- Posted by GlassHearts at 9:36 am on June 28, 2009 No. -- Posted by Mikoto at 9:37 am on June 28, 2009 Yes -- Posted by Forever Angel at 9:37 am on June 28, 2009 I believe the TOE is probably correct. -- Posted by SpM at 9:40 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from GlassHearts at 5:36 pm on June 28, 2009 No. Describe your understanding of evolutionary theory. -- Posted by DemonicRainbows at 9:41 am on June 28, 2009 Yes. I find it hard not to believe. =| -- Posted by DirtyConspiracy at 9:41 am on June 28, 2009 Yeah -- Posted by Sexy 69 at 9:42 am on June 28, 2009 To many holes in it, no. -- Posted by Ziggy Stardust at 9:42 am on June 28, 2009 yes -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 9:45 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Sexy 69 at 12:42 pm on June 28, 2009 To many holes in it, no. Somehow I doubt you have the education that would let you be able to analyze that appropriately, Sexy 69. -- Posted by Go Steph Go at 9:50 am on June 28, 2009 Definitely -- Posted by Tavis at 9:51 am on June 28, 2009 For sure. I believe that God created the base of humans, but from there, we have evolved, and even today, we are evolving. Did you know that during the first days of men, while Homo Erectus was still in competition, when women would give birth, they would die. It is because at 12-13 months, the baby is able to be sustained by itself, and so that was the only time that the women would give birth. The mother would then die. From there, we forced the babies out at 9 months to let the mothers live, and now, it is becoming a lot more natural for it to happen. All thanks to evolution. -- Posted by SpM at 10:07 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 5:51 pm on June 28, 2009 Did you know that during the first days of men, while Homo Erectus was still in competition, when women would give birth, they would die. It is because at 12-13 months, the baby is able to be sustained by itself, and so that was the only time that the women would give birth. The mother would then die.   From there, we forced the babies out at 9 months to let the mothers live, and now, it is becoming a lot more natural for it to happen. All thanks to evolution. Considering infant mortality rates back in the day, the population would crash if every mother died in child birth and, even if every single baby lived, the female sex would soon disappear as there would only be a 50% chance that the replacement child would be female (and that's not even delving into breast feeding and the like). And even if the male:female ratio was drastically skewed in favour of the latter, the population would still be unable to sustain itself, because every male baby born would be unable to replace itself. All in all, that sounds wildly preposterous. -- Posted by Before at 10:09 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from GlassHearts at 9:36 am on June 28, 2009 No. Quote: from Sexy 69 at 9:42 am on June 28, 2009 To many holes in it, no. Let me guess... you believe god created everything in 7 days? -- Posted by Tavis at 10:14 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 1:07 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 5:51 pm on June 28, 2009 Did you know that during the first days of men, while Homo Erectus was still in competition, when women would give birth, they would die. It is because at 12-13 months, the baby is able to be sustained by itself, and so that was the only time that the women would give birth. The mother would then die. From there, we forced the babies out at 9 months to let the mothers live, and now, it is becoming a lot more natural for it to happen. All thanks to evolution. Considering infant mortality rates back in the day, the population would crash if every mother died in child birth and, even if every single baby lived, the female sex would soon disappear as there would only be a 50% chance that the replacement child would be female (and that's not even delving into breast feeding and the like). And even if the male:female ratio was drastically skewed in favour of the latter, the population would still be unable to sustain itself, because every male baby born would be unable to replace itself. All in all, that sounds wildly preposterous. We are talking about the first humans, in Africa, thousands of years ago. Some believe, including myself, we were adopted from either Neaderthals or H. Erectus, and that is why we didn't die out right away. We found a way to avoid it early enough, that the other race hadn't been wiped out by whatever it was. -- Posted by SpM at 10:17 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 6:14 pm on June 28, 2009 We are talking about the first humans, in Africa, thousands of years ago. Some believe, including myself, we were adopted from either Neaderthals or H. Erectus, and that is why we didn't die out right away. We found a way to avoid it early enough, that the other race hadn't been wiped out by whatever it was. Unless these first humans created dozens of offspring with each pregnancy, which somehow I rather doubt, your idea is literally impossible. -- Posted by Tavis at 10:19 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 1:17 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 6:14 pm on June 28, 2009 We are talking about the first humans, in Africa, thousands of years ago. Some believe, including myself, we were adopted from either Neaderthals or H. Erectus, and that is why we didn't die out right away. We found a way to avoid it early enough, that the other race hadn't been wiped out by whatever it was. Unless these first humans created dozens of offspring with each pregnancy, which somehow I rather doubt, your idea is literally impossible. The other species created the dozens of us. And we went from there. -- Posted by SpM at 10:23 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 6:19 pm on June 28, 2009 The other species created the dozens of us. And we went from there. Explain. Also explain how a species that could not maintain itself for even a few generations even in the best of circumstances managed to evolve in the first place. -- Posted by Moridin at 10:25 am on June 28, 2009 I do not believe, I know. -- Posted by Moridin at 10:31 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 8:19 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 1:17 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Tavis at 6:14 pm on June 28, 2009 We are talking about the first humans, in Africa, thousands of years ago. Some believe, including myself, we were adopted from either Neaderthals or H. Erectus, and that is why we didn't die out right away. We found a way to avoid it early enough, that the other race hadn't been wiped out by whatever it was.    Unless these first humans created dozens of offspring with each pregnancy, which somehow I rather doubt, your idea is literally impossible. The other species created the dozens of us. And we went from there. So you reject common ancestry between humans and the other great apes? Then why is there so much scientific evidence for this conclusion? Do you also reject universal common descent? Why do you do this when there is so much evidence for this? Independently discovered phylogenetic trees ranging from areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, evolutionary psychology, biogeography line up seamlessly showing the conclusion of universal common descent. Why is this? Why does these findings also line up seamlessly with data from the sequencing of endogenous retroviruses. Was all this evidence planted by an evil and malicious god in order to lie and deceive mankind? -- Posted by Charolastra at 11:16 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 10:25 am on June 28, 2009 I do not believe, I know. This. Scientific inquiry isn't something that's open to interpretation or else it wouldn't be science. I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I know and accept it based on the process it was derived from. -- Posted by Shaknbake at 2:47 pm on June 28, 2009 What does it mean to believe in evolution exactly? Is it anything like disagreeing with homosexuality? (englishfail) -- Posted by Forever Angel at 2:56 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Charolastra at 1:16 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 10:25 am on June 28, 2009 I do not believe, I know. This. Scientific inquiry isn't something that's open to interpretation or else it wouldn't be science. I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I know and accept it based on the process it was derived from. But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know. -- Posted by Charolastra at 3:46 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:56 pm on June 28, 2009 But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know. All scientific theories should be falsifiable. I have no personal attachment to the theory, if it fits it fits, if it doesn't discard. But based on what we know now, there's more than a wealth of evidence in it's favor. It's just good science. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 5:55 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Charolastra at 5:46 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:56 pm on June 28, 2009 But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know. All scientific theories should be falsifiable. I have no personal attachment to the theory, if it fits it fits, if it doesn't discard. But based on what we know now, there's more than a wealth of evidence in it's favor. It's just good science. My objection is to the "I know" statement. You can "believe" and/or "accept" that it's correct or that it's true, but "know" it is? I'm not sure you can go that far. -- Posted by Charolastra at 7:22 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:55 pm on June 28, 2009 My objection is to the "I know" statement. You can "believe" and/or "accept" that it's correct or that it's true, but "know" it is? I'm not sure you can go that far. "But based on what we know now, there's more than a wealth of evidence in it's favor." If you know enough about something and have evidence that are pieced together in the most honest way possible, then isn't it safe to conclude that you know something based on the wealth of evidence behind it? I thought it was, I could be wrong. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 7:30 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 10:25 am on June 28, 2009 I do not believe, I know. You sound like a religious person. Even though, pretty much how it is. I tend to use the word 'understand'. It doesn't take a gap of faith to understand why the sun rises and sets. Just information and understanding. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  Next