Biological evolution is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life. While evolution is very widely accepted, many people hold to misconceptions about it. This list should help to dispel some of those myths.
15. Evolution is a theory about the origin of life
The theory of evolution primarily deals with the manner in which life has changed after its origin. While science is interested in the origins of life (for example the composition of the primeval sludge from which life might have come) but these are not issues covered in the area of evolution. What is known is that regardless of the start, at some point life began to branch off. Evolution is, therefore, dedicated to the study of those processes.
14. Organisms are always getting better
While it is a fact that natural selection weeds out unhealthy genes from the gene pool, there are many cases where an imperfect organism has survived. Some examples of this are fungi, sharks, crayfish, and mosses – these have all remained essentially the same over a great period of time. These organisms are all sufficiently adapted to their environment to survive without improvement.
Other taxa have changed a lot, but not necessarily for the better. Some creatures have had their environments changed and their adaptations may not be as well suited to their new situation. Fitness is linked to their environment, not to progress.
13. Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance’
In fact, natural selection is not random. Many aquatic animals need speed to survive and reproduce – the creatures with that ability are more suited to their environment and are more likely to survive natural selection. In turn, they will produce more offspring with the same traits and the cycle continues. The idea that evolution occurs by chance does not take the entire picture in to account.
12. Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to adapt
Organisms do not “try” to adapt – it is natural selection that enables various members of a group to survive and reproduce. Genetic adaptation is entirely outside of the power of the developing organism.
11. Natural selection gives organisms what they ‘need.’
Natural selection has no “intelligence” – it can not tell what a species needs. If a population has genetic variants that are more suited to their environment, they will reproduce more in the next generation and the population will evolve. If a genetic variant is not present, the population will most likely do – or it will survive with little evolutionary change.
10. Evolution is ‘just’ a theory
Scientifically speaking, a theory is a well substantiated idea that explains aspects of the natural world. Unfortunately other definitions of theory (such as a “guess” or a “hunch”) cause a great deal of confusion in the non-scientific world when dealing with the sciences. They are, in fact, two very different concepts.
9. Evolution is a Theory in Crisis
There is no debate in science as to whether or not evolution occurred – there is, however, debate over how it happened. The minutiae of the process is vigorously debated which can cause anti-evolutionists to believe that the theory is in crisis. Evolution is sound science and is treated as such by scientists worldwide.
8. Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution
Actually, many transitional fossils do exist – for example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their dinosaur ancestors, as well as whales and their land mammal ancestors. There are many transitional forms that have not been preserved, but that is simply because some organisms do not fossilize well or exist in conditions that do not allow for the process of fossilization. Science predicts that there will be gaps in the record for many evolutionary changes. This does not disprove the theory.
7. Evolutionary Theory is Incomplete
Evolutionary science is a work in progress. Science is constantly making new discoveries with regard to it and explanations are always adjusted if necessary. Evolutionary theory is like all of the other sciences in this respect. Science is always trying to improve our knowledge. At present, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for all of life’s diversity.
6. The Theory is Flawed
Science is an extremely competitive field – if any flaws were discovered in evolutionary theory they would be quickly corrected. All of the alleged flaws that creationists put forth have been investigated careful by scientists and they simply do not hold water. They are usually based on misunderstandings of the theory or misrepresentation of the evidence.
5. Evolution is not science because it is not observable
Evolution is observable and testable. The confusion here is that people think science is limited to experiments in laboratories by white-coated technicians. In fact, a large amount of scientific information is gathered from the real world. Astronomers can obviously not physically touch the objects they study (for example stars and galaxies), yet a great deal of knowledge can be gained through multiple lines of study. This is true also of evolution. It is also true that there are many mechanisms of evolution that can be, and are studied through direct experimentation as with other sciences.
4. Most Biologists have rejected Darwinism
Scientists do not reject Darwin’s theories, they have modified it over time as more knowledge has been discovered. Darwin considered that evolution proceeds at a deliberate, slow pace – but in fact it has now been discovered that it can proceed at a rapid pace under some circumstances. There has not been, so far, a credible challenge to the basic principles of Darwin’s theory. Scientists have improved and expanded on Darwin’s original theory of natural selection – it has not been rejected, it has been added to.
3. Evolution Leads to Immoral Behavior
All animal species have a set of behaviors that they share with other members of their species. Slugs act like slugs, dogs act like dogs, and humans act like humans. It is preposterous to presume that a child will begin to behave like another creature when they discover that they are related to them. It is nonsensical to link evolution to immoral or inappropriate behavior.
2. Evolution Supports “Might Makes Right”
In the 19th and early 20th century, a philosophy called “Social Darwinism” sprung up from misguided attempts to apply biological evolution to society. This philosophy said that society should allow the weak to fail and die, and that not only is this an ideal situation, but a morally right one. This enabled prejudices to be rationalized and ideas such as the poor deserved their situation due to being less fit were very popular. This was a misappropriation of science. Social Darwinism has, thankfully, been repudiated. Biological evolution has not.
1. Teachers Should Teach Both Sides
There are tens of thousands of different religious views concerning creation. It is simply impossible for all of these views to be presented. Furthermore, none of the theories are based in science and therefore have no place in a science classroom. In a science class, students can debate where a creature branched off in the tree of life, but it is not right to argue a religious belief in a science class. The “fairness” argument is often used by groups attempting to inject their religious dogmas in to the scientific curricula.
This list was inspired by the brilliant Berkeley, Evolution 101 FAQ.
Sorry, your number 1 is completely wrong. Here in the USA we have brains.
Any thinking person would have to agree. Good assessment. Unfortunately though the U.S. has no shortage of foolish thinkers and teachers. Atheism is actually just another form of faith or ‘religion’, or anti-religion religion, don’t be fooled. Historically and traditionally America was formed and it’s educational system configured upon our faith in Christ. Those who oppose the true God have merely and all but entirely replaced the simple Truth -which our Forefathers rightfully held sacred- with every type of false hood and counterfeit belief, the theory of evolution being one of the most innocuous appearing yet insidious efforts to date. Otherwise it would seem ironic that virtually any type of false, fallen, pagan, occultist religion can bet taught and even awarded degrees in secular schools today, save one… the word of God, the Bible. How is it that Christmas, Easter, (which may actually have some dubious origins in the Church Of Rome), or Passover cannot be practiced in public schools all the while overtly pagan and occult ‘Holi-days’ such as Hallows Eve/Halloween along with evolution can be eagerly patronized? Once again, don’t be duped. Let he who has eyes see…
Uh… What history book were you reading? One filled with rhetoric and dogma, no doubt. The founding fathers were -not- men of faith, nor were they politicians who had to sway fundamentalist lunatics. They were human beings who wished to see a democracy where all human beings had the right to govern themselves and control their own destiny, rather than be governed by a dogmatic ruling body. They believed that ALL men, not just -some- men, not just a -few- men, not just Christians should be able to live, thrive and govern themselves justly as a secular political body. There are democratic nations all over the world who do just fine at governing themselves without muddying the waters with fundamentalist, conservative theosophical undertones. And big surprise; these rational people don’t teach creationism, dogma or Monotheistic rubbish; they teach Evolution, science and critical thinking. Religion has no place in science, and yet science can function perfectly well in religion, of course it’s not anyone’s fault that science normally -disproves- the tenents of religion. This is what happens when blind belief eclipses rational thought. You’re a prime example.
Gutsy call on number one, but I whole heartingly agree. I applaud listverse for publishing the idea that religion has no right in the classroom.
However, I do have a problem with number 12. Well it is fundamentally true that an organism either does or doesn't adapt, you fail to point out humans. Biologically, we are a very weak race. The only reason we truly survive is because of the advancements we have made in our technology. Thus we survived because we "tried" to adapt, we created houses and clothing to protects us, and developed weapons for hunting.
Though, it is also arguable that we evolved our intelligence and hence our ability to adapt is an evolutionary trait. Either way, I think it is worth noting that the human race adapts in a completely different way than others.
Unfortunately, it should be noted that there is some social Darwinism going on today, in that there is the belief that our advancements in technology have paved the way for those with genes not suitable for life in a more wild habitat to procreate, thus weakening the human race overall.
I don’t think you understand what is “adaptation” in Evolution. A species adapts when one of its variations are beneficial and, because of that, makes the creature succeed and procreate more, surpassing the population that does not have that variation. This is extremely linked to the inheritance factor, the genetic trait of this variations that will be passed forward.
When humans adapt the environment, build tools or study, they are adapting themselves in life and adapting the environment around. That is not genetic and will not be passed to their offspring. It has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory. In Evolution, adaptation is a morphological genetic trait that alters the physiology of a species, not the infrastructure it builds.
I love this list.
So my favorite myth about evolutionary theory that creationists always like to argue is "Well if we evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?" (I've heard this a lot) Wow, well there are two problems with that question. Number 1: We didn't evolve from monkeys (not the ones still around anyway), we all evolved from the SAME ANCESTOR. Number 2: Monkeys still exist because monkeys and humans are two different branches in the complicated evolutionary tree. Branches keep evolving into different branches, and those species branch out into two more species and so on.
*sigh* I'm terrible at trying to explain this in writing…I just hate that particular argument against evolution.
Jackie, not sure whether we evloved or were created but I like your point about us and monkeys being related, I deffinetly think we are cousin to monkeys regardless of how we got here.
@Shannon
…How the hell could we be cousins if we aren't RELATED? Are you not related to your cousins (in terms of actual blood relatives)? You can't hold the belief that apes and monkeys are cousins to humans, yet not related. You fail logic (and biology) forever.
Look to point 15 I believe. Evolution is not about creation, rather the diversification of life.
Here we have a common example of what I like to call a hypocrite, jumping into the stronger side of an argument without understanding that for which they are fighting.
I am both Creationist and Evolutionist.
To me, there is no doubt that the world was intelligently designed, And there is no reason for that design not to include auto-pilot.
Glad you stopped trying to “explain” things back in 1999. We don’t need any more “thinkers” like you.
It works like this; a frog lays eggs. some of the new frogs have moles, nither benifeting them nor harming them, some get eaten. the servivers lay eggs. Those new frog’s moles ither become cancerous making them easer prey. And other frog moles become poisonous to prediters maling them sick and repelsed, alowing more poison-mole frogs to servive.
awesome, awesome list!
Wonderful List!, I can’t wait for the arguments….
A well written and informed list. Awesome!
ooo second!
You’ll stand tall with me when the creationists come rabble-rousing, right Mom424?
fouth.
Bring on the creationists!!!!
Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance’ is actually true in most respects. The original mutation is by chance alone. Those traits that are beneficial allow those mutated animals to propagate their new genes to more young and perpetuate the trait, but the original mutation is still by chance.
Not all evolution is brought about by mutations. All there need be is variation which is found among all populations without any mutations. Natural forces can act on that variation to select for the varieties most successful.
The selection of some individuals over others is not random at all. The individuals selected are predictable based on the environmental factors.
Where do you think those genetic variations come from? Each variation, no matter how long it has existed, started as a random mutation which propagated into a common variant. I think that’s what RockNTheFreeWorld meant.
Take into account dog breeding and eugenics programs. In these situations, humanity has done the honor of the usual ‘random chance’ to select and enhance the better traits.
As an interesting aside, there are some states in the Grand Ol’ USA where “public funds” are used to teach creationism as an alternate to evolution. Not a private fundamentalist christian school, but public school….scary
Good to discredit idiots like you.
And of course Slick; I got yer back….
Back in the day I went to a school that refused to teach evolution and how to world may have been created except for there theory that God just.. “made it”..
And when we read from the science textbook instead of saying “6 million years ago..” the teacher said “But we know God made the world 6,000 years ago!” So we had to say “6,000″ years ago instead.
Complete and utter bull*****.
The support the theory of evolution.
Peter; I disagree, evolution gave us the brain to succeed, brawn wouldn’t have been near as useful, no higher thought processes, no technology,,,we are but very smart animals…
Awesome list man!!
Very educational! A+
Peter: We are “trying” to adapt, but what you refer to is cultural evolution, not biological evolution. We can learn things and pass on our knowledge, but we can’t “try” to evolve anymore than my grandpa can “try” to grow hair to cover his bald spot. When a black bear moves north, he can’t say “I’m going to try to be white to match this snow!” *grunt* POOF! “I’m white!”
And with number one, YES! If creationism is made to be taught in a science classroom, then shouldn’t science be required to be taught in church?
I like your last point closet nerd
It would be more apt to say we’re the only species who attempts to NOT evolve biologically. We compensate by trying to evolve culturally.
Peter, I don’t think that would count as social darwinism, since your example is moving us in the opposite direction of natural selection….less fit, overall, instead of more fit. Physically speaking, human beings are more-or-less evolutionarily perfect for our environment (at least, perfect for our environment several hundred thousand years ago). It is our big brains that is our ultimate evolutionary gift….physically, we have no more need to adapt to survive in the modern environent. As the species expands into environments unsuitable for us to live, our technology takes over for us and evolves to suit the situation. We are still evolving as a species….it’s just a technological evolution rather than a physical one. As for your comment about number 12, you are right that we are the only species that is purposefully trying to adapt. We are also the only species with a brain complicated enough to perceive the environment as capable of being taken advantage of.
Peter; Evolution has allowed many animals to adapt by changing their environment, our large brains just allow us to do it more efficiently,,,polar bears dig dens to allow them to winter over, chimps make rain shelters and beds, moles dig huge winding masses of dens underground,,,animals adapt their environment to provide the necessities of life as do we. The so-called weakening of our gene-pool is also an adaptation of evolution. Our sense of empathy allowed us to live co-operatively, an obvious asset when yer not the biggest thing on the savannah…
All this talk about organisms is giving me a woody
Jackie: That was pretty much the correct response to that particular myth, without getting into needless details. (The creationist probably wouldn’t know what you were talking about, anyway.) Keep fightin the good fight.
Great list J. I’ve never understood how people can beleive in creationism with all the mountains of evidence against it. I laugh when I read how God ‘put the fossils there to put us off’ or ***** like that.
I am a Creationist and I have no qualms with this list. It is very nicely presented and makes sense. Evolution is real and does not in any way contradict the Bible.
I think the problem occurs when people take Evolution to explain that all things have a common ancestor. Sure species change and develop over time, but there is no evidence that a dog and a pine tree are both evolved from some single-celled organism. It begs the question of how life came to be, but I believe honest Evolutionists will say they do not know.
I believe religion should be kept out of the science classroom, just as mathematics should be kept out of the English classroom. Evolution is science. Theories about the origin of life is religion. Don’t make Evolution religion and everyone is happy.
Actually there is an abundance of evidence indicating that pine trees and dogs both evolved from a common ancestor (indeed, that every living organism did).
The evidence is in the shared cellular biology of all organisms. While we perceive dramatic differences between species such as trees and dogs, when you examine their cellular and molecular components, you discover an incredible number of similarities.
From the way DNA is processed, to the structure of the nucleus and other cell components, to the way chemical messages are transferred between cells – they all have a lot in common, be they in plants, animals, bacteria, fungi or indeed any currently known form of life.
In fact, just to show how similar we animals are to plants, there have been cases of animals symbiotically gaining the ability to perform photosynthesis from plants, progressing all the way to gaining and expressing their own genes for it: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-s…
All that aside, you sound like a very reasonable person. I encourage you to investigate evolution further, and you may discover that it explains quite a lot about the natural world.
One of the best lists i have seen on your site till date.
I am sure you will get loads of comments on this one.
I diasgree with peter, well because early humans did try to adapt to their environment but they still had to possess the required genes for adaptation.
For example, the neanderthals were the more stronger race physically than the modern human who migrated to parts of central europe where the neanderthals had gone extinct 30000 years ago because of compeition from homo spaiens who were more intellingent than their conterparts.The neanderthals had been living there for tens of thousands of years why couldn’t they try to adapt to warmer climate or become more brainer?
The point is a organism cannot evolve into another just because it tried to adapt to a environment. Number twelve is absolutely true.
Once again a great list from the listverse.
LOL @ buclism (#19)!!
This is an amazing list Jamie…
The difficulty here is putting someone off of their personal beliefs. Most hard core religious folk consider evolution to be an affront to God Himself, so it doesn’t matter how much evidence you pile up in front of them. Another problematic area is that the church hasn’t had the greatest record when it comes to scientific things. (Galileo, DaVinci etc,) So it’s easy to point to the stereotypical believer with the glazed over eyes, willing to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the dude in a slick suit and plastic hair, and willing to go to war with anyone who disagrees with the creative power of the Almighty.
Science on the other hand has difficulty in answering the really interesting questions – who am I, how did I get here and what happens when I leave and when is the ‘White Sale’ going to happen at Penneys. Everyone who has a brain considers these things.
Some think we’re trail mix for worms, others think the big black box at the end of the bed will tell us the answer, and Tom Cruise thinks Xenu holds the key to this mystery.
It’s a cosmic pickle, and only when the scientist gets on his knees to pray will he change his mind, or when the believer forsakes his god will he begin to doubt.
I think I’ll have another beer and watch Gilligan’s Island and wonder why if the Professor can make a radio out of bamboo, why the ***** can’t he patch up the hole in the boat.
Maybe he needs glue?
You’re making a common error. Just because science can’t answer the who am i, how did i get here, and what happenes when i leave questions doesn’t in any way mean that religion can. Religion doesn’t even require evidence for their claims, they can just make it up as they go along, as they often do. Do you really want something like that to answer the most important questions there are?
Thanks SlickWilly!!
Sidereus: I wish more creationists were like you! Evolution does NOT contradict a belief in God. Everything you said I totally agree with.
Haha bucslism: “and Tom Cruise thinks Xenu holds the key to this mystery”.
Maybe we ARE all wrong and scientology is the answer to where we came from.
..ok I couldn’t even type that with a straight face.
Sidereus:
I hate to pick on you, because you seem like an honest, intelligent person. However, there is evidence of common ancestry in most animals, and most animals (even almost *all* animals) share DNA with many kinds of plants and trees. This suggests that the DNA for both organisms has a common origin. It’s not enough evidence to be considered factual, of course, but it *is* evidence nonetheless, and given how extensive our knowledge of genetic heretidity is, it’s fairly strong evidence that both dogs and pine trees evolved separately from the same primordial, single-celled ancestor.
As for the question of how life came about, any honest person, evolutionist or otherwise, will admit that they don’t know. Nobody knows. Creationists *think* that God created life, but the don’t *know* it, not like how we know about thermodynamics or natural selection. Abiogenicists (those scientists that study the origin of life – which is an entirely separate field of study from the study of evolution, and not generally related, though it does use the tenets of evolution to venture theories) don’t *know* how life started, but they have a few good ideas that are supported by a certain amount of evidence.
Siderus; Evolution is the path, God started the journey…who’s to say it didn’t begin with the big bang….
I know this is a long time after when this comment was posted, and he hadn’t said it at the time, but certainly not the Pope. http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/07/god-behind-the-big-bang-pope-benedict-xvi-says/
Very, very good list. JFrater: I appreciate your being ballsy and choosing “Evolution and Creationism are Equal” for #1.
Wow. And the debate has already begun. Well done Jamie! Excellent list, well thought out and well delivered. While I’m sure to enjoy all the debates this list will stir, I likely won’t read all of them.
Mind if I write an alter list about creationism?
I wish I knew more people like Sidereus.
Mystern: definitely – I was hoping to do one eventually so you are more than welcome!
An informative and well-written list! Definitely one of my favorites. Even as an ardent supporter of evolution, I learned a few things. Number one was a great point. Science is not a religion, and religion is most certainly not a science. You’d think it’s such a simple distinction, no? Religion already has its place; a church. Sidereus, you hit the nail on the head with one of your points, and it’s another misconception that I’ve seen a lot of people have. So many people get the idea that evolution and religion are mutually-exclusive areas and belief in one is incompatible with belief in the other. I myself am not religious, but I have many close Christian friends and they don’t have a problem with evolutionary theory. I don’t know if a belief in both depends on how strong your beliefs really are, or how literally you interpret the bible. That’s something I am curious about.
Oh God, was this list just created to ***** off the creationists? I am a Christian, and I believe that God had a hand in evolution. For all those atheists that just creamed their pants reading this article and pranced around denouncing the Bible, you have failed to realize that the Bible is largely a symbolic story full of metaphors. While it says God created Earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, who says that it’s Earth days? One day for Him could be millions of years for us. I fully support this article, but I’m just disappointed that all the liberal atheists took it and used it to make fun of Christians. I hope your proud of how childish you look now. Way to be mature about it.
Yeah, also when you take the fact that the sun was created on the third day, so those two previous days could have been billions of years…but, the most probable answer is that, in the time the book of Genesis was written, people didn't know that you needed the sun for a day to exist
You might be one of the more reasonable Christians – this list wasn't aimed at you. You believe the Bible is a story of metaphors, but sadly there are many who take everything it says literally, and reject all evidence to the contrary. They're the ones who need to read this.
On a side note, I've yet to see a creationist take these points one by one and demonstrate why they're false.
Perhaps I am losing my sight, but I didn't see anyone making fun of Christians? Up until this point people have calmly and reasonably debated over different aspects of evolution and the origin of species. If you consider scientific evidence offensive, then… too bad for you.
Thank you Listverse. Gutly as ever!
Unfortunately in my daily experience, one of the biggest misconceptions is that evolution means one animal changed into another. Part of the problem is that “march of time” poster.
The one thing that people who promote and argue against evolution seem to not understand out in the lay world is that all animals existing today are equally evolved. No animal came from another, if you see it walking about today. People did not come from any monkey in any zoo. Those guys are just as adapted as we are.
I didn’t prance about from reading this article, ProgRapture, nor did I have an orgasm in my pants. That wouldn’t be “mature.”
I denounce the bible purely from reading the bible.
I understand the idea of metaphor, so, can we assume that God, Jesus, and the resurrection are also metaphor?
Wonderful list!
This is a fantastic compilation. That’s it,…all I have to say. Usually I say “great list but….” None of that here. This list is perfect. That’s not a word I like to use very often.
Hellbound Alleee, I don’t believe Jesus to be a metaphor, there is enough historical evidence to prove that he existed, and died. Personally I kinda think the whole resurrection thing is likely a metaphor, but I won’t be nasty to those who believe otherwise….lordy My uncle is a RC priest
So I’m confused about the creationists? They say they support the list, yet still argue how God created humans. How can you support both?
- An atheist liberal =]
Some of the more reasonable creationists will say that evolution is a tool of God. They admit that evolution exists and is in progress, but under the direction of The Almighty.
I’m not real sure where I stand on this idea. It’s pretty hard to prove or disprove the existence of God. But it’s pretty damn obvious that evolution does.
The ones who accept creationists who accepts evolution are hypocrites !!
Evolution is against science and no one proved it . The list is not a proof of anything !!
The list is just talk talk talk !! nothing more !!!
Search in Google about Harun Yahya he is the best one who crushed this stupid hypothesis !!
What about the role of midichlorians in all of this???
*clapclapclap* Will be sharing this with certain people when I need to
I’m sitting in my own waste products after reading Shane’s comment.
I hate to interject here, but Hellbound and ProgRapture….can we keep the argument centered on evolution? Nobody said anything about the Bible before ProgRapture read the list without bothering to read the comments and jumped to conclusions about the people who regularly read and comment on this site. That’s no excuse for Hellbound to launch into attacks against the bible and – if this conversation continues – religion in general.
ProgRapture: “I fully support this article, but I’m just disappointed that all the liberal atheists took it and used it to make fun of Christians. I hope your proud of how childish you look now. Way to be mature about it.”
Which liberal atheists are you referring to? I didn’t see anybody making fun of Christians. Maybe some of the hard-liners, but I hardly think that handful of individuals qualifies as “Christians” in general. (I don’t even think half of those people are real “Christians” anyway, and I’m sure you would agree with me.) I think, perhaps, you jumped to the predetermined conclusion that evolutionists are small-minded, petty bullies who just a kick out of haranguing religious folks for their beliefs. There are a lot of people that do this, and truth be told, most of those folks probably know less about evolution than the creationists they are “debating” against. I think you’ll find, by and large, that the people on Listverse are civil and intelligent, as long as you approach them in a civil and intelligent manner.
Hellboun Alleee: Leave the anti-bible, anti-religious propaganda at home, please.
Definitely a valid point, Shane. Understandably, the Jedi minority want answers, too.
Really great list, Jamie! And great comments from all of you! I’m going to be entertained by this for a while.
#24. Sidereus…Touche’! and thank you for that brief yet accurate reply.
Weren’t the midichlorians a construct of the matrix?
No, the Cylons created the Matrix so they could charge their batteries.
bucslim: No one really knows where midichlorians come from. Except Star Wars geeks who read too much Star Wars-related peripheral material. Perhaps those people could also venture a guess as to the nature of proton torpedoes and the inner workings of the light-speed drive.
Slick: If you really want I’ll go into proton torpedoes and FTL travel. I was gonna save it for a list I’m writing but I don’t mind spending the time now. As for the midichlorians, supposedly they are a screen adaption entirely and never made any appearance in the book but I have no citation to back this up.
I have weird beliefs when it comes to Evolution and God, I’m somewhere in the middle but leaning closer to Evolution. I believe in both, but I don’t think that God is solely responsible for Evolution, I think more along the idea that God kind of got the ball rolling and then nature took its course. That probably doesn’t make sense to anyone else but me. My brain’s way out in left field, partially why I’m not into the whole going to church thing, I can’t make my brain think the same way as other people.
And I thought I saw on that one video from You Tube that the origin of life came from a jar of Peanut Butter.
I kid, of course. I saw SlickWilly mention Abiogenicists and it made me think of that video.
sounds a lot like a lot of forms of Deism to me. the deity created the universe, set up the rules, etc then sat back and watched it unfold?
Mystern: LMAO…..word. Tell ya what, put it all in a bad-ass list (which I know it will be), post it, and then we’ll dedicate a whole comment section to discussing it. (I was joking in #54, but all that SF stuff really grabs my attention. I guess my inner geek is closer to the surface than I’d like to admit sometimes.)
Also, I could be wrong, but wasn’t there a list in the last few months where a few commenters went off on the logistics behind FTL travel? Interesting stuff.
SlickWilly, you’re right. I kind of did jump to conclusions there…I’m on pain medication right now, and I’ve been arguing with people all day. I kind of just ranted way off topic, and I don’t want to sound like a complete ass, but that may be too late. I apologize for the accusations, and I want you to know, I respect the evolutionist’s opinion, and I do know that most evolutionists aren’t petty close-minded idiots. There’s good and bad on both sides.
And Elana, as a creationist who believes in evolution, I believe that God did make us the way we are, but he didn’t do it just immediately. He worked on us slowly, making us improve over millions of years. If He wanted us in His own image right away, things would be a lot different now. When I read the Bible, I have to look at it outside the box, very metaphorically. For instance, if Heaven truly is like a mustard seed, that would really suck!
Shamelessly stolen content from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php which is copyright the University of California at Berkeley.
Let's assume that he is spreading the news, okay?
tazx: It’s a good thing Jamie listed a source then right?
Sidereus – I’d have to see that evolution does contradict the Bible … what about Adam and Eve?