[WolfCoder]

Note:
This is for everyone, regardless of cultural background or religion.

There's a ton of people going around and being against Evolution with not even a high school level understanding of it. There are several reasons people might give that they don't like Evolution which have nothing to do with it. Also, notice how I didn't use the word "believe". The fundamental idea of science is based on flat fact, so something is or isn't. If there's anyone with a good command of Biology or related studies, feel free to correct me with solid facts (and provide a link to a reputable source) because I may make tiny mistakes.

Creationist propaganda will try and have you believe otherwise to make Evolution out to be something it isn't. You might wonder what's the point if Evolution has little to do with many things of why you might feel that it is against your religion. That would be a good realization.

Evolution is not a Religion, and is not at odds with God
Nowhere will you hear a real Biologist tell you that Evolution proves God doesn't exist. Also, people who study Evolution are not called Darwinists just as people who apply Newton's Laws are called Newtonists. Evolution is just a property of Biology in how living beings change over time. However, you can observe Evolution in other things too- anything with reproduction, variation and selection will be subject to Evolution.
It's also easily model-able to such a degree where actual computer simulations have resulted in creating some pretty cool digital organisms that walk and everything.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life
You're thinking of Abiogenesis or the study of the origin of life. Evolution has nothing to do with it. It also doesn't explain the universe either. Or anything that doesn't involve reproduction, variation and selection all in one for that matter.

Micro and Macro Evolution are fundamentally the same thing
You can't say one is true and the other isn't. It's like saying that you can put a bunch of bricks together in a clump but you can't build a wall. "Macro" is just what happens over a much larger period of time.

Evolution has practical applications
We can take charge of the Evolution of living things. We can do this in the field of medicine, for example. "How do you know, you weren't there" is a very weak argument, but even if true you can still observe Evolution occur. We do observe it whenever we can of course to learn more about it.

We are apes
Here's a pretty funny thing. One of the biggest problems people have is the idea that apes are our ancestors. We didn't just come from apes, we are apes. There's a very specific set of criteria that place a living being into the category of Hominoidea (those are apes) and we fit it just fine. The word "ape" isn't used for taxonomy as very big, hard to pronounce, and specific words are used. But you can take a look at the example trees and where we (Homo) are. Life branches off often and we are a branch off of what you see at your zoo. We're not exactly the same because we became something new. But we're still apes. We also share qualities of mammals and qualities of everything before us. There's no missing links in evidence, we have a ton of transitional forms and plenty of our genetic data matches up as well.

Also and very importantly, the fact that we are apes is independent of Evolution. While Evolution explains how we got there, and aids in classifying us as so, it is Taxonomy that places in the category of apes. Believe in creationism/intelligent design if you must, but it doesn't change the fact we're apes (because we fit the definition of an ape).

It's easy to go on and elaborate into sub categories, but by now I've already shown that Evolution has nothing to do with many things, including how life began and everything. If you've learned something new you may want to reconsider your position.

This post has been edited by WolfCoder: 29 May 2009 - 01:44 AM

[baavgai]

Excellent. Nice write up. Good emphasis on the Evolution!=Darwin.

WolfCoder, on 29 May, 2009 - 02:42 AM, said:

We are apes

Not quite, but close. We're also mammals, come to that. The human genus is a couple down in Homo. Anthropologists refer to everything in this category as a homonid. We are sometimes called homo sapiens, though you'll sometimes see homo sapiens sapiens. This is because we used to share our speieces tree with homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They've since shifted our heavy browed cousins up the tree.

[WolfCoder]

I was basing our classification under the Great Apes with the criteria. I already said the word isn't used in taxonomy often. We're still apes even if further down the tree just as we're still mammals. Saying we aren't apes is like saying we're so far down the tree that we're not mammals. Or eukaryotes.

I think I've heard a creationist say that eukaryotes don't exist anymore or something to that effect

This post has been edited by WolfCoder: 29 May 2009 - 08:28 AM

[modi123_1]

Just throwing this one out there in respects to our place in the 'great ape' line... it was tossed at me by a fairly... colorful... individual from a rural town:

"Evil-ution is wrong! I ain't from no monkey line - I ain't no gawd-damned homo!".

He may have been an offshoot of the Cleatus clan.

[erik.price]

modi123_1, on 29 May, 2009 - 11:30 AM, said:

"Evil-ution is wrong! I ain't from no monkey line - I ain't no gawd-damned homo!".

The son of one of my uber creationist Christian neighbors (which have since moved) once told me when I was telling him that I didn't believe in God (which he simply could not comprehend, in his defense though, he was like 8 years old) that "MY FATHER IS NOT A MONKEY!!"

[nirvanarupali]

WolfCoder, on 29 May, 2009 - 03:42 PM, said:

We are apes

No. you are. Me, I'm a tarsier

[nirvanarupali]

If you think that you are ape. Then you should look like this.

This post has been edited by nirvanarupali: 29 May 2009 - 05:53 PM

[nirvanarupali]

Quote

There's no missing links in evidence, we have a ton of transitional forms and plenty of our genetic data matches up as well.

There is a missing link wolf. Biology explains everything about genetics. However, did you try to read the books on Psychology and Psychiatry? How can Biology explain the existence of intelligence and will? How about the existence of the human soul which is different from the animal souls?

I accept every facts on biology as well as in psychology, both are particular sciences which are under the umbrella on philosophy.

This post has been edited by nirvanarupali: 29 May 2009 - 05:55 PM

[baavgai]

nirvanarupali, on 29 May, 2009 - 06:40 PM, said:

How about the existence of the human soul which is different from the animal souls?

Sorry, you just stepped out of science. As such, there really is no answer. Scientifically, neither exist.

nirvanarupali, on 29 May, 2009 - 06:40 PM, said:

How can Biology explain the existence of intelligence and will?

For some strange reason, this made me think of monkeys sexually harassing women in Kenya. This is quite bizarre. Apparently "monkey squads" engage in psychological intimidation of female villagers who mind the crops they want to poach. More than that, they can tell the different in human gender and aren't fooled by cross dressing!

Humans are certainly the smartest critter on the planet. However, beyond that, most of the things we might believe exclusively human are found in other species. That humans have unique qualities in the animal kingdom is hardly evidence of a divine plan.

This post has been edited by baavgai: 29 May 2009 - 06:56 PM

[nirvanarupali]

What I really mean is, the existence of the intellect and will, these are two faculties of the soul. This is belong to the area on Psychology. You can read to any books on Psychology, Introduction on Psychology.

Second thing, Psychology is a science.

If you dig the etymology of Psychology, it means psyche which means soul, logos which means word via the word logy which means study.

What I want to emphasize is, Biology is only a part of body of knowledge about the human being. It explains everything about genetics, DNA etcetera about physical characteristic. But it does not explain about behavior, intellect, will, conscience which are also part of a total human being.

I am not against with the theory of evolution, but this knowledge is limited if you study the human being as a whole.

This post has been edited by nirvanarupali: 29 May 2009 - 07:54 PM

[nirvanarupali]

I don't have to debate anybody about the intellect and will of human being and the lower animals are only guided with their instincts, unless you are convinced that Psychology is a science.

This post has been edited by nirvanarupali: 29 May 2009 - 07:49 PM

[baavgai]

nirvanarupali, on 29 May, 2009 - 08:40 PM, said:

What I really mean is, the existence of the intellect and will, these are two faculties of the soul.

Fair enough, still has nothing to do with science. The soul is a concept, a belief, not a measurable property.

nirvanarupali, on 29 May, 2009 - 08:40 PM, said:

Psychology is a science.

You might wish to look into the different between soft and hard sciences.

nirvanarupali, on 29 May, 2009 - 08:40 PM, said:

If you dig the etymology of Psychology, it means psyche which means soul, logos which means word via the word logy which means study.

Psyche also means breath. In the context of modern psychology, the term is taken to mean "study of the mind".

nirvanarupali, on 29 May, 2009 - 08:40 PM, said:

What I want to emphasize is, Biology is only a part of body of knowledge about the human being. It explains everything about genetics, DNA etcetera about physical characteristic. But it does not explain about behavior, intellect, will, conscience which are also part of a total human being.

I am not against with the theory of evolution, but this knowledge is limited if you study the human being as a whole.

Absolutely. I agree. However, this is not the domain of an anthropologist, zoologist, biologist, etc. The nature of the mind has nothing to do with how the physical creature homo sap. came to exist.

nirvanarupali, on 29 May, 2009 - 08:49 PM, said:

I don't have to debate anybody about the intellect and will of human being and the lower animals are only guided with their instincts, unless you are convinced that Psychology is a science.

Again, this how no meaning in the context of evolution. However, I do think this smacks of human arrogance. That much touted psychology has proven time and again that humans are more at the mercy of instinct than we'd like to believe. behavioral psychologists do extensive animal studies and translate those observations to humans. Pavlov ring any bells? ( Ouch, that was a horrible pun, I'll keep it. )

[nirvanarupali]

In the context of evolution, when I say the missing link it's about the transition from being an ape to human being. An this means from being not rational to being rational. The rest of the chain is ok and this what makes the link missing. Physically, and in genus we are close to apes but how about being rational.

Is it like magic that it came out sometimes in the past and that is why we are rational now and apes are not?

This is the reason why I touched other areas such as psychology because, the study about rational thinking, intellect and will are not anymore the area of biology.

The point here is about the missing link in the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin failed to explain that also.

[WolfCoder]

Wow nirvana. I didn't expect someone with evidence of higher thinking to be so... well, to be blunt, stupid. There's not missing link as we have so many transitional forms you could show them really fast like a flip book. Seriously. We have solid evidence, to deny it would be silly.

All of what you are saying might be true in Darwin's time which is a very common fallacy shown, for example, by Ben Stein. He came up with many ideas, but it took years of strong diligent study in the field of Biology to piece it all together.

And instinct. It is not an enemy, you sound like Dr. Breen from Half Life! There's plenty of animals that display intelligence, and instinct is just a feature, like all else, we can use to our advantage. Don't be so smug, humans aren't all superior, we're just different in that we adapt our environment to us instead of the other way around.

Just because you can piece a bunch of seemingly intelligible ideas together to form a philosophy might be fun and all, but it really has little to do with flat fact. I can come up with plenty of strange, bizarre, and weird ideas (which I do all the time), all of which prove nothing because I can't give anyone but myself solid evidence on it. There's all sorts of time wasting, meaningless conversations you can have and debate philosophy, or you could crack open a box of Strawberry Pocky and enjoy yourself (which I'm doing right now). There's lots to be enjoyed from these weird snacks.

This post has been edited by WolfCoder: 30 May 2009 - 02:00 AM

[baavgai]

nirvanarupali, on 29 May, 2009 - 10:58 PM, said:

This is the reason why I touched other areas such as psychology because, the study about rational thinking, intellect and will are not anymore the area of biology.

Thank you. I follow now. You believe that human consciousness is a unique quality that is unexplained merely by our relation to "lower animals?" I understand such a view, though I do not agree with it.

I enjoy animals. They obviously have some kind of consciousness, feel emotions, hold their lives dear, care for each other. A relative of mine actually made her career studying the cognitive abilities of a bird. That bird sent my wife an email once, I kid you not.

I do believe humans are unique in the rational thought department. However, I don't see this facility as some kind of spontaneous happenstance. I simply find enough evidence for it in other species that I don't need outside influence to explain it.