Evolution or creation?

[ziggy]

I guess I'm kind of atheist and God doesn't really seem real to me, but the universe is very incomprehensible and science can't exactly explain how life/the universe began. I mostly believe in evolution, but still it would be nice to go to a better place when you die than just rot in the ground.

[Bullet Magnet]

This is what we are all going to look like after we die. Hardly "rotting in the ground".

[Munch's Master]

Anybody who disbelieves evolutionary theory is a complete and utter, utter fool.

I voted for atheistic evolution.

You can't call someone a fool just for having a different opinion to you. Also did you actually read my post in full? I said I don't beliveve that we came from primates (as much as I can put up a very strong evidence-supported case for it, I can put up an equally strong evidence supported case against it). However i said I DO believe in Evolution. I believe in it, but not in that 'All humans are from apes'. Apart from the man-ape theory, I believe in evolution nearly 100%. As for whether I'm a theist or atheist, I don't know anymore. I used to be atheist, but recently I've had what you could call religious thoughts. I believe the universe is too large and strange to know whether God does or doesn't exist. Also, since death can be linked to dreams/sleeping (unconscious mind) heaven could in fact be a state of mind, or indeed lack thereof. All I can say is, we'll all know when we die, or not, if that is the case.
Therefore, why bother with humans in the first place? They'd know what'd happen.

Therefore, why bother with humans in the first place? They'd know what'd happen.
And why would they bother with all the other planets and everything?

Maybe God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever was drunk when he made the universe?
Joking aside, a serious answer to such a question would be: Perhaps he wanted to see just how life would turn out, and besides, what do you do if there isn't any other life. I imagine even God would get bored if he didn't create the universe. But then we're getting into the realms of religious/scientific debates and that's not what this topic is intended to be, or so it seems.

[Patrick Vykkers]

Munch's Master, sorry to burst your bubble, but two things. One, humans didn't evolve "from" primates. They are primates and apes, much like crocodiles are reptiles. Secondly, humans didn't evolve from other modern primates and apes, anymore than I evolved from my brother. Both species evolved from a common ancestor.

[Munch's Master]

Munch's Master, sorry to burst your bubble, but two things. One, humans didn't evolve "from" primates. They are primates and apes, much like crocodiles are reptiles. Secondly, humans didn't evolve from other modern primates and apes, anymore than I evolved from my brother. Both species evolved from a common ancestor.

Theory again. But you partly stated my point- mankind is NOT from chimpanzees as biology teachers so wrongly try to claim. i never once in my post said I thought we came from apes, in fact I claimed the EXACT opposite. Humans are not actually primates, we are homo sapiens, they are I believe homo erectus? Different subclass of the same gene. We may well be from a common ancestor, but we haven't come from monkeys. and I know you already said that, but my whole point is we aren't apes or from apes. We are from a distant ancestor which split into 2 different species. We are related to apes but we are not apes, nor were we once apes. People say our closest relative is the chipanzee but in fact they are wrong- our closest relative is incredibly, the pig. Chimps are 99.something% similar to us, but pigs are 99.something+anothersomething% similar to us. Phsyical similarities are not everything. There's nervous similarities, reproductive similarities, organ process-similarities, and various other similarities between us and pigs (Pig-related insults notwithstanding). And yes there are mental similarities but the human brain is still considerably different to an ape brain. I'd compare our minds closer to dolphins.
Although much of what I said (apart from the statistics) is of course theory or intelligent suggestion, as is your point of view. I say that so you don't call me a hypocrite for branding a large chunk of your argument as theory when of course, an equally large chunk of mine is theory. However I find it odd we have different ponits of view on this when in fact our point of view is essentially the same- neither of us think humans are descended from apes. You think we are apes and think we share an ancient ancestor with apes, I just think the latter point. You say toe-may-toe, I say tuh-mah-toe.

[Patrick Vykkers]

Apes refers to all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, which humans belong to. Much as mammals refers to all members of the class Mammalia. There are large amounts of fossil evidence to corraborate a close link between modern humans, their ancestors, and their brothers likes chimps and orangutans.
For example:
This

vs this

Also, bonobos are the closest living relatives of humans, not pigs. Even higher DNA similarities than chimps.

[Bullet Magnet]

I'm not sure where you got those facts, but pigs definitely do not have similar DNA to us than chimpanzees. Pigs are of the order Artiodactyla, even toed ungulates, great apes are all primates. Yes, we use pigs in medicine alot, because they have similar cellular proteins and organs of the same size. Chimps are a lot harder to come by, and their closeness to Homo sapiens sapiens makes puts them under protection. It also being revealled that dolphins may not be as intelligent as we once thought, though they are closer to pigs than primates, being ungulates themselves.

I have yet to meet a biology teacher who has said anything to the effect that we are descended from Pan troglodytes. We are not descended from any modern ape species, but we, like them, are apes.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Unranked taxon: Synapsida
Unranked taxon: Mammaliaformes
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Eutheria
Unranked taxon: Euarchontoglires
Superorder: Euarchonta
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Homini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

[Nate]

Pigs have very similar biological characteristics to humans, which makes them useful as a source for various hormones (for instance insulin, before industrial production was invented) and tissue (heart valves being the most common). Chimps would work well for these also but are slightly harder to come by.

In any case, as others have stated, chimpanzees have much higher genetic similarity to humans than pigs.

[Munch's Master]

Well I'd heard we have higher similarity to pigs, my source must be wrong then. But my biology teacher has stated we are descended from modern apes, so there you go. I was just basing my arugment off facts and info I had. Obviously you have more accurate info. I still say we arent' apes though. There's a difference between being in the same genetic family and being the same genetic family, isn't there? Again, the facts I've found my be incorrect.

[Mutual Friend]

This is what we are all going to look like after we die. Hardly "rotting in the ground".

Speak for yourself.

[Arxryl]

I see a possible war occuring... (because right now it is just a really big fight...)

[magic9mushroom]

Other. Life has continued by evolution, and become more complex by evolution, but did not originate by evolution. It originated by random processes which caused the first proto-life which then evolved.

[Nate]

... which would be a proper definition of evolution.

[magic9mushroom]

Yes, but you can only really call it evolution after there is at least some proto-life.

[Bullet Magnet]

Um... it is dangerous to use this word "random" and "chance" all over the place in these discussions: evolution is not a random process. One random element is introduced at the beginning: the occurrence and nature of a mutation. This random element is then immediately shaped and controlled by powerful governing forces, most importantly, natural selection.

Somehow those arguing against evolution take this one random input, and assuume that there must also be a random process and output as well. They then go on to apply this myth of "chance" to every other aspect of scientific study that contradicts their beliefs. Astrophysics, geology, climatology, physics, astronomy... And then they feel that they have the authority to label this all as indisputable scientific proof, which of course, they don't and it's not.

I'm sorry, I have just been embittered by the struggle of re-explaining the same things to hordes of deaf ears, one person at a time.

[mitsur]

I say both. I think that God made us into the organic soup we have evidence of, and then waited until we became Adam and Eve.

[Kamille]

Evolution. Afterall, who says God didn't create that?

Yeah I like that answer, because evolution is a fact and there are other worlds besides this.... *Resets universe*

[mitsur]

Yeah I like that answer, because evolution is a fact and there are other worlds besides this.... *Resets universe*

Was there a veiled quote from the Dark Tower Series in that post? Or did you not mean to quote John 'Jake' Chambers?

[Kamille]

I'm really glad you noticed. *Gives you present early.*

[snuzi]

I believe in the theory of Panspermia: that life has existed throughout the universe before Earth even existed, and that Earth was seeded with life at one point.

However, I also believe that evolution occurred, and that without evolution, no creature on Earth or throughout the universe alive now could possibly exist.

[Patrick Vykkers]

I think life exists elsewhere too. However, I think the distances between worlds are too great for much contact between Terra and other worlds inhabitants, so for me that rules panspermia out.

[snuzi]

However, I think the distances between worlds are too great for much contact between Terra and other worlds inhabitants, so for me that rules panspermia out.

I believe the seeds of life can be transferred to other planets by means of asteroids or comets. I mean, there is, after all an asteroid belt just beyond Mars.

[Nate]

Yes, but you can only really call it evolution after there is at least some proto-life.

But that is an assumption of the Theory of Evolution so it is an irrelevant distinction to make.

[Mojo]

DO THE EVOLUTION!

AE for me.

[magic9mushroom]

I believe in the theory of Panspermia: that life has existed throughout the universe before Earth even existed, and that Earth was seeded with life at one point.

However, I also believe in evolution, and that without evolution, no creature on Earth or throughout the universe alive now could possibly exist.

Do not believe in evolution. Believe that evolution is true. If you believe in a scientific theory you are lost.

[Patrick Vykkers]

I prefer the term "accept" or "acknowledge" to "believe", given that evolution is a fact. Else you could I say I "believe" in "round Terra theory".

[snuzi]

Do not believe in evolution. Believe that evolution is true. If you believe in a scientific theory you are lost.

Oh, you know what I meant. I meant I agreed with the theory. God, forgive me for not being overly specific.

[Arxryl]

It is not God that you must seek forgiveness from...

and I'm sure I've made the same mistake... numerous times. I see why one would get upset with the word "believe" being used in scientific terms, but we know what he meant.

[snuzi]

Believe me, God's the last person/thing/idea, I'd seek forgiveness from. I only said the g-word because it's a hard habit to break

[Bullet Magnet]

Best stick with "I accept Evolutionary Theory and the Modern Synthesis because that is what the evidence tells us." Belief is incorrect terminology within science.

Though it is fun to answer "no" to creationists when they ask you if you believe in evolution.