Evolution?

Question

I was once told that the odds of Evolution occuring were roughly the equivalent of placing a watchin in a bag, nailing it w/ a hammer, and after shaking the bag a million times, one shake would place all the pieces back together in their original watch format. There is no doubt these are very small odds, but the question is, what origin belief do you subscribe to? Evolution? Creationism(Intelligent Design)? or Panspermia (the belief that life on earth is the result of an extraterrestrial meteor carrying single celled organisms crash landing in the primordial soup, thus evolving into us)?

Answer 1

In evolution there is no hierarchy. A monkey did not evolve into a human because its the pinnacle of its career but rather a transformation brought on by environmental changes and adaptations to them. So a slug is being the best slug he can be. Over a couple of millions of years he is either going to be the same slug or changed to meet new environment criteria. People that feel they are above the spectrum of life are the aliens.

Answer 2

MY Thought's:
Evolution---you know, Nature has a way of dealing with danger. There might just be some Evolution that is going on or has happened in the Past, with-in the Species it's-self. Not that one animal turn's into a Human Being, or into a different kind of Animal, but maybe a certain Bird, down through the year's, adapt's through out-side force's acting on said Bird and it's DNA is changed little by little, and that Bird evolve's into a better, stronger, or just different type of the same kind of Bird. Still working on that one.

Creationism: That's mine, I Believe GOD AMIGHTY Created everything. Intelligent Design.

Panspermia: Just learning about this one, and I really think that it could happen. They found cellular stuff living beside the Lava flowing out under the Ocean, and alot of weird place's. Yeah, I really think it could happen, only problem I have with it is the Vacumn in Space and the Re-entry heat of Meteor's.

Answer 3

Here's an example of evolution in real life. You have a disease out their called staph, nasty bacteria that can kill humans in a hurry. There used to be alot of drugs that could fight this bacteria, but increasingly the disease has become immune to these drugs, because the bacteria that were susceptible to the drugs died off, leaving the few bacteria that were naturally immune to the disease (because of a genetic mutation), to grow and replace all the dead bacteria that weren't immune. This is evolution in a nutshell, and its happening everyday.

Answer 4

That made no sense whatsoever. Whoever told you that about evolution doesnt know shite. It's not all random. It's because of the laws of physics that these things happen.

Answer 5

i agree with marc, whoever told you that about evolution was on crack.

Answer 6

Given enough time................................... That is a very interesting religion!

Darwinism requires more faith that most other Religions.

Answer 7

Tirade against Creationism
Written by Jeremy Reimer, March 16th, 1999.
The sort of people who campaign against the teaching of the natural law of Evolution remind me of members of the Flat Earth Society, only they are more politically motivated and intent on furthering their own agenda. All over North America there are supposed religious leaders who are in fact stay-at-home hypocrites who crusade for either "equal rights for Creationism" or the treatment of evolution as a theory without any proof, rather than what it is, a natural law as solid and proven as the Theory of Gravity.

This really, really bothers me. Not so much that it is a political campaign to discredit scientific principles, which it is, but that the whole argument has less credibility than the Loch Ness Monster. Most scientists are too busy to take time to debunk creationism, and many do not wish to be associated with these sorts of neo-religious crusaders. Someone, however, ought to present the opposing view.

But the people who continue to champion creationism in the educational system are not likely to be swayed by rational argument. They are entirely motivated by political power, namely, the placement of pro-religious men (it is always men) in positions of authority in the educational system. They are the sort who wish for a status quo where religious males hold power over the rest of society, and use their religion as a means of domination, not for spiritual reasons at all. In fact, these people are the least "religious" and definitely the least Christian people on the planet-- they certainly have no tolerance, and they keep their minds tightly closed. They never mention the crucial fact that would disrupt their entire argument:

EVOLUTION IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH RELIGION OF ANY KIND.

You can believe in God, or no God, or even multiple gods, and still accept the scientific fact of evolution. Even the Pope, the highest earthly authority of the Catholic Church, has accepted that animals may have evolved from simpler forms. He in fact has accepted that science may be able to explain the ENTIRE 15-20 BILLION YEAR HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE, as long as God is accepted as the creator of the Universe before the beginning of time itself. (Physicist Steven Hawking has come up with several theories that do not require a creator at all, but as with anything that deals with the beginning of time, they are still only theories)

Here is a reference for the Pope's view of science (dated October 22, 1996)

http://www.catholic-church.org/phoenix/archives/Pope_and_Evolution.html

The highlights of Pope John Paul II's statement are:


In a message to international scientists, Pope John Paul II said the Church accepts evolution as a theory well-supported by research in a variety of scientific fields
and
At the same time, though, the pope said that the development of the spiritual aspect of human life cannot be explained scientifically.
Which is a completely rational argument (although somewhat late, but the Church took over 400 years to pardon Galileo for daring to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun!) The Pope is saying that science can explain the development of animals and humans, but that only religion can explain the higher spiritual path that people may take in life, and after life.
And lest you believe John Paul is just a modern-day Pope without connection to the past, how about this:


For example, he said, Pope Pius XII wrote in a 1950 encyclical that there was no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith, as long as there were certain firm points of faith where no concession can be made
Even if you disagree with the other teachings of the Catholic Church, it is an undeniable fact that they are the most dogmatic of all western religions, and even they accept evolution as fact.
So basically, if you argue against the teaching of evolution in schools, you are disagreeing with the entire Catholic Church. But the crusaders are anything if not persuasive. What if you are an independently-minded, intelligent person without religious or scientific background who just wants to make up your own mind? You are the ideal target for the Religious Right, and so you are the sort of person I hope would read this document.

But I saw this website that said that the evolutionists are mistaken...

This is exactly the sort of technique that the crusaders love to use. They appeal to people who have not received a complete background on the history of evolution, and try to pick apart small bits of theory, the 'thin edge of the wedge' that they intend to use to discredit scientists and further their own political agenda.

I have seen some of these websites, and every single one uses misleading, outdated or downright inaccurate information to try to discredit the science of evolution. It is easy, on the Web, to present articles that seem genuine, with real links and everything, but in fact just contain links to other pro-crusader websites. You will notice that my document contains only links to the actual sources, or as close as I could get to them. Also, I don't live or die by my sources. I intend to present an argument for evolution that requires no scientific background, just rational thinking and common sense to understand.

The rational argument for evolution

Charles Darwin was not the first person to suggest that animals may have evolved from simpler forms. He was, however, the first to come up with a testable, scientific process that explained how it could have happened. In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote about his observations in the Galapagos Islands, where many different species of birds, lizards and other animals existed that were unique to a particular island.2 He realized that many of these animals did not exist anywhere else in the world, yet were similar to animals that existed on the South American mainland. On an island with heavy ground foliage, for example, giant turtles existed with a very low neck reach. On a nearby island with higher foliage, the same turtles had an arched shell which allowed it to reach its neck much farther. Other scientists had already proposed this type of "evolution", for example giraffes stretching their neck to get at higher and higher trees. However, this theory was incorrect in that no matter how much an animal stretches its neck in its life, that animal's children will not have a longer neck as a result (for proof, look at the tribes in Southeast Asia who add rings to their neck during life to stretch it to up to twice its natural length-- their children are born with regular-sized necks3) Darwin's revelation was that two known factors could explain how animal species could change over time. These were:

1) Mutation, and

2) Natural selection.

Mutation is well-known. Children are sometimes born with deformities, or with characteristics not shared by either parent (like red hair, for example) At the time it was not known that natural radiation and toxins could cause mutation, but the idea of genetic characteristics being passed on and changed was well known since the 1800s (it was Gregor Mendel, a religious man himself, who first categorized how characteristics of plants could be combined by cross-breeding)4

Natural selection was what Darwin realized was the key to evolution. Animals and plants can be observed in nature competing for resources. If an animal has characteristics that in that environment are beneficial, it will likely have more children than its friends. You can actually observe this happening on small islands like the Galapagos, as Darwin did. On some islands, the high-necked turtle mutants would have a huge advantage, and thus have lots of opportunity to breed and have baby turtles. On other islands, the high-neckers might just be another weird mutation, lost in the mass of regular turtles who were doing just fine.

Over time, Darwin realized, there was no reason why these changes couldn't be cumulative. Species of moth in Britain have been documented as changing over the course of only 20 years. Light-winged moths used to be the dominant variant of the species, until pollution turned tree bark around London a dark brown. Then suddenly the mutant dark-moths, who were the same species but just had darker coats, became abundant and took over the population. Later, when pollution controls allowed the bark to remain white, the species reverted to its original color.5 If moths can change the color of their wings in 20 years, and turtles the shape of their shell in a few hundred years, what was possible over millions, or billions of years? Darwin surmised that even humans may have evolved from our close cousins, the apes, and this is what got him into such trouble.

But what if I don't want to be an ape?

Apart from the physical similarities between apes (particularly chimpanzees and orangutans) and humans, there is the small matter of DNA. Discovered in the 1950's, DNA was predicted by science years before microscopes existed that were powerful enough to actually see the tiny yet complex molecule. It is a stunning tribute to the power of the scientific method that the shape of the molecule was determined BEFORE anyone actually saw it. Today, DNA is well accepted. Genes that control diseases and characteristics are located and categorized. The entire genetic fingerprint of any animal can be unlocked and examined, and can be used in criminal cases like the well-known O.J. Simpson case. Work is underway on The Human Genome Project6 to actually categorize every single gene in the human body, but it is a Herculean task. Not only are there tens of thousands of genes, but the organization of the genetic code is so complex it is almost random. Huge chunks of our genetic material don't appear to actually do anything-- they may control some unknown characteristic, or may simply be unused "filler". Even more compelling is the fact that many of these "useless" sequences are repeated exactly in other animals This is exactly what one might expect if the genetic code were the result of billions of years of cross-breeding.

We share, on average, 98% of our genetic code with chimpanzees and other apes, more than with any other animal.7 This cannot be disputed. It is verifiable by simple genetic matching. Anyone can go into a lab and reproduce this result themselves, if they really wanted to.

Many people think that we somehow "evolved" from the apes, that they are our "failed" ancestor, and therefore we should feel somewhat embarrassed to be associated with them. In fact, scientists currently agree that chimps and gorillas are in fact not our direct ancestors, but that we share a common ancestor with them. Fossils of the various Australopithecus species agree with this premise, sharing characteristics of both apes and men. One group became the genus Homo: the species Homo Erectus is thought to have used fire, Homo Habilis made simple stone tools, and finally our friends Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens became what we are today.8 In the meantime, apes and chimpanzees live out their complex lives in their own societies, blissfully unaware that we humans believe that they are inferior. We do, as a species, possess greater intelligence than the apes-- we have a much larger brain case and have the ability to produce speech sounds-- but we are also physically much weaker and as a society, much more fraught with conflict. We are the "mutant apes", and we prospered as no other species (save the bacteria) did before us, colonizing the entire globe.

Work has been done with gorillas and chimpanzees using sign language for many years.9 Monkeys have been observed teaching their young new skills that were previously unknown to the species. Chimpanzees have been seen fashioning simple tools out of sticks and grass to get food. These skills, the ability to learn, to teach, to use language and to make tools were all once thought to be unique to the human species. It seems that we ought to be more proud of our link to the apes than we are, and less embarrassed. And we need not feel threatened: even the brightest adult gorillas working with the most dedicated human teachers have only achieved what we might consider to be the intelligence of a mildly developmentally-delayed six year-old. And yet even this is an astounding revelation. Koko the gorilla has been known to make signs to herself, to other gorillas, and combine known words to make new descriptive phrases (she is particularly human in her methods of insulting others-- she once called an annoying reporter an ugly toilet!) Koko has been known to express grief, sadness, joy, pride and even thoughts about life after death.10 This is no inferior creature-- merely different from us, and we have much to learn from her and from all animals.

So maybe we did evolve from apes

Yes, maybe we did. Current religions tend to state that for some reason, humanity is more blessed than the other animals, and that we are divinely inspired. That is a debate for the philosophers. Perhaps as a species we received some kind of heavenly assistance, or perhaps our brains are capable of higher spiritual connections with a Creator than the animals (perhaps Koko would disagree!) Maybe this is true, but then again maybe we were just a genetic accident. Evolution does not have any kind of purpose or direction, it merely adapts to the environment. It is just as likely to "devolve" into a simpler species as into a more complex one. (The word devolve is incorrect usage and does not actually occur: evolution works in only one direction, with unknown results)

If evolution works both ways, as it were, and with equal likelihood, one ought to see the majority of species being the simplest form possible, as a bacterium cannot evolve into anything simpler and still live. This is in fact exactly what we see on the planet. The most common group of animals or plants, in terms of numbers of entities, is the bacteria family. In fact, some scientists are suggesting that if you count the bacteria in the earth's crust, the combined weight of these little "bugs" is heavier than any other group, including the giant evergreen forests.11 This is somewhat more humbling than a mere association with apes-- the living body of Planet Earth is basically bacteria, plus some other bits and pieces.

But with the application of billions of years of evolution comes the possibility that one particular species may rise far, far above the bacteria and become something unique on the planet. Despite the new revelations about ape behavior, we humans are still different from all other animals. No other animal has developed organized religion, or built cathedrals, or mined metals, or developed computers, or landed on the Moon. We should be proud of our accomplishments, and not feel that evolution in any way diminishes us. We should instead look at our species and say, here is an animal, no different from any other, and yet we have risen to the level where we can travel anywhere on the globe and even into space. (We also have the ability to extinguish our species and many others through nuclear war, something no other animal has managed either!) So maybe we are divinely touched, or maybe we are just divine ourselves. That is something that people can choose to believe on their own.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT SUPERCEDE BELIEF, NOR DOES IT REPLACE IT.

EVOLUTION IS A FACT, NOT A THEORY.

THOSE WHO WOULD SUPPRESS THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION ARE NO BETTER THAN THOSE WHO THREATENED TO TORTURE GALILEO FOR DARING TO STATE THAT THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN.

EVOLUTION AND RELIGION CAN COEXIST; ONE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE OTHER, BUT IT DOES NOT DENY THE OTHER EITHER.

Still not convinced?

I can't imagine how anyone could read through all that and not realize the truth about evolutionary theory. Perhaps the problem is not that evolution is not taught but that it is so badly taught-- most people don't understand how it works, and thus believe that the scientists themselves don't know either. This is patently false. The workings are clear, the method well understood and the results plain for anyone to see for themselves. There are still some debates in the scientific community over gradualism versus catastrophism, which is basically the argument over gradual mutations and changes versus massive changes brought on by massive events, such as the impact of asteroids. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle-- it is clear that a catastrophic event is required to, say, extinguish the dinosaurs, yet no such drama is needed for some of these dinosaur species to slowly evolve feathers and become birds.

Also, there is still much debate about how life itself originally evolved-- scientific experiments have recreated the formation of complex amino acids (the building blocks of proteins, and thus all living matter) out of the same chemicals that were believed to have existed in the Earth's atmosphere 4 billion years ago.12 However, it is a huge jump from ammino acids to a single-celled animal, or even a bacterium. This jump is not well understood, and for good reason. Animals of this era, without any hard shells, rarely form fossils. There is much debate in the scientific community about how life could have made this leap, but the debate only means that answers have not yet been determined, not that life was divinely created. However, one must concede that until this event is better understood, the action of a divine Creator cannot be discounted totally. Once we get to bacterium, it is not hard to figure out the links to single-celled animals, as such creatures are basically cooperative conglomerates of various simpler forms-- even the mitochondria in your own cells right now contains its own, separate DNA from the rest of you.13 And there are plenty of living fossils that demonstrate how single-celled animals can easily form communities that act like a single, large entity. Thus there seems to be less and less need for a Creator to interfere with the evolutionary process, indeed, it works well enough on its own.

In closing, here is a quote from a scientist who has taken the time to debunk creationist myths, and who, like myself, is frustrated by the actions of the crusaders and their abandonment of logic to suit their own political agendas:

The creationist notion that you can pick and choose scientific findings that you like and discard those that don't fit your preconceived dogma--calling them Divinely created artefacts beyond our understanding, or a "test of faith"--is an anathema to real scientists like myself, and is a major reason for the vigor with which we oppose allowing the pseudoscience of creationism in science classrooms -- Edward E.Max, M.D., Ph.D.
If you are still not convinced, ask yourself the following questions:
Why would a Creator who was directly involved in development of species fashion the dinosaurs and then kill them all off?

How come there are so many fossils of half human, half ape species who lived millions of years ago? Why are none of them mentioned in the Bible?

How can you explain the white moth species turning brown, and then white again?

If all animals were divinely created in their present form, how come whales don't breathe through gills like the other fish, and how come the whales have small, vestigial leg bones deep in their bodies? Why do some snakes have tiny yet useless legs, some have vestigial legs, some have mere stubs, and some have no legs at all?

Why does every single piece of evidence (geological, radioactive dating, astronomical) point to the Earth as being 4.5 billion years old when the Creationists claim it is only 10,000?

Why do we have an appendix, if we were divinely created in the image of a perfect being? The appendix does nothing for us, can endanger our lives if it becomes infected, and can be removed without ill effect. Yet other, simpler animals use their appendix and can't live without it.

Why do our eyes produce flawed, doubled, upside-down images, if they were divinely created in the image of a perfect being? Why do our brains have to re-combine and invert the images? Why are our eyes so similar to eyes of all the other vertebrate animals, and yet so different from bug's eyes or squid's eyes?

Why does the panda use a mis-shapen bone at the base of its thumb to strip bamboo for eating? Why doesn't it just use its regular thumb? Why was a better bamboo-stripping solution not found, if the panda was divinely created in its current form?

If you take the Bible literally, you have to take the entire Bible literally. The Bible states that Noah saved all species (one assumes only the land-based ones) from the Great Flood. Also, Creationists believe that species cannot form on their own. Therefore, Noah must have saved every single species on his boat. Currently there are approximately 4 million separate land animal species that have been identified. Given that some are the size of elephants, and some the size of bugs, an average size would be about 1 litre, or 1000 cubic centimeters. Multiply this number by two (for male and female) and by the number of species, and you get a minimum boat size of 8,000,000,000,000 cubic centimeters, or 8,000,000 cubic meters, which would give a displacement of 8,000,000 metric tonnes, not including space for 40 days worth of food and animal waste. The USS Nimitz, the largest military vessel in the world, displaces 100,000 metric tonnes, and is approximately 300 meters long. Noah's Ark, even giving him divine wood that had the strength of today's steel (regular wood could not support its own weight at that size) would have to be 80 times larger, giving it a length of about 3000 meters, or 3 kilometers, or about 2 miles long. Such a craft, made of wood as strong or stronger than steel, would have to leave some kind of trace even after all these years, would it not? Yet no evidence of the Ark has ever been found, not even a splinter.

There are hundreds of possible questions that the proponents of Creationism simply cannot answer. If you think you can answer them while still denying evolutionary theory, I would like to hear from you. My email address is [e-mail]

Postscript: So why do these Creationists keep at it, anyway?

One would assume that anyone who continues to argue something that is so completely and utterly disproven is either soft in the head or carrying out a deliberate campaign of misinformation. I believe that it is primarily the latter. Creationists are deliberate, systematic and relentless. They cling to their beliefs without even pausing for consideration, attacking evolutionary scientists without mercy. Why do they do this?

The primary force for human interaction throughout history is not one of love, or even money. It is power. There is always enough money to go around in the world, but who controls it? Who decides how money is spent, and how much individuals can own? Who chooses how our children are to be educated, and what they will learn?

Ancient religion was primarily used by monarchs as a method of controlling large populations. The king was the direct representative of God, and could not be questioned. Of course, an armed mob attacking the king might claim to be inspired by God also, so the system did not always work. During the Roman Empire, Christianity rose from being an obscure sect to a governmentally-approved religion, but when the empire crumbled the religion was left on its own. The Roman Church became the most powerful force in Europe. Kingdoms rose and fell at the word of the Pope. The Vatican collected enormous, almost obscene amounts of wealth. Today religion is, some think, under assault by our rapidly-changing, technological society. The power is being pulled away from the Church, and some people feel this is wrong.

I believe that there is probably still a place for religion in the world today, but that to survive it should adapt to changing times and accept certain undeniable truths. We don't all believe that the Earth is flat, so why should we accept without question religious texts that were written by monks in the Middle Ages? If the Pope himself can admit the truth of evolution, why can't the Creationists?

Primarily, I think, it is because they wish to discredit all scientists, in the belief that science is a threat to their religion. I think that they are a larger threat to their own religion than any scientist could be. But again, this is not about spirituality, it is about control, because if the Creationists can control educational content in this one area (under the pretext of religious freedom) then they have a precedent for control of the entire educational curriculum. In the words of Albert Einstein:

Upon reading many of the popular scientific texts of the time, I began to realize that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true.
His doubts led to a general mistrust of authority, and anyone who felt that they knew "better" than him. His mistrust of authority is actually a natural human reflex, and in his case it saved his life when he realized that he needed to get out of Germany soon after the Nazis took control. And yet, the supreme irony is that Einstein was a deeply religious and spiritual man! When quantum theory was proposed in the 1920's, he rejected it completely, not on a scientific basis, but because
I cannot bring myself to believe that God plays dice with the universe.
It took years before the scientific validity of quantum theory convinced him to begrudgingly tolerate it. He never liked it. So here was a great man, a true intellect, who had deeply-held religious beliefs, and was also a great scientist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
FAITH AND SCIENCE CAN BE KEPT SEPARATE. SCIENCE TRIES TO EXPLAIN THE NATURAL WORLD, FAITH (BY DEFINITION) DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING, BUT MERELY TO PROVIDE SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE FOR THIS LIFE AND (POSSIBLY) AFTER IT.

Jeremy Reimer, March 16th, 1999.