Do you believe in evolution?

[Zenos7]

Yeah, so every fossils that was found till now belong to complicated living beign not to the mutant, But evolution theory means that there should be hundreds mutants who transform in something else then just rat or lion.

no it doesnt mean that lmfao.

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2023

Humans and animals have same build matherial of living creatures. But how this proves that humanity and animals are same kind?

what is a "kind"?

 

[Konstantis]

no it doesnt mean that lmfao.

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2023

what is a "kind"?

Ok, so tell me why scientist can't create new type of animals, if evolution doesn't mean existance of hundreds thousens mutants?

Kind - type of living creature. Let's assume that Earth has it's own unique type of living beigns, that build from body cells.

Still we could assume that alien types of living creature has possibility to be different from us. Or be the same - it's depends on their and our origin.

 

[Photon]

everyone that denies evolution should maybe read a dictionary entry about "scientific theory".

I adressed this, im assuming that you think not believing in the idea of common ancestry is denying evolution. But my bad if you didnt mean that way. Tho back to what i said, there are practically no one who deny evolution entirely.

But i think i made it clear for everyone: Studies suggest that the tree of life is most likely outdated and need to be revised

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

Ok here is the thing, we have rat that became horse,monkey, human, lion, wolf, rabbit and bear. And ofcourse everything happened threw mutations accidently. But comon mutations usually have negative effect instead of positive. You can test it by yourself, stll I'm not reccomend to do that. But mutations should create existance of mutants who then turn into something else.

I know it's hard to understand, but the reason why you born as a human is in your dna. Also lions has own dna, and horses, and trees - everything that is alive have it's own dna code. This code could change a liitle bit threw mutations, and threw 100 mutations another type of living beign should appear. But where those links inbetween mutation 1 and mutation 99?

Evolution doesn't say that a rat became "horse,monkey, human, lion, wolf, rabbit and bear". You're legit portraying it like a Pokémon-esque evolution.

Beneficial mutations exist and you can find many of them in current humans (barely existed for 200 thousand years), let alone other animals throughout hundreds of millions of years of change.

"Where those links inbetween mutation 1 and mutation 99?" is only bullshit mentioned by people who don't understand how evolution works. The issue with your fallacy is that, the moment someone showed you a supposed link between species 1 and species 3 in species 2, you'd be demanding where's species 1.5; and the moment you were shown species 1.5 you'd demand species 1.25; and so on. Because, again, you think between Charmander and Charizar there was a Charmeleon once.

So in other words, only dumb people could blindly believe in evolution, which is normal things, case usually you not question your shepard, was it religion or science.

"Our shepard" has been questioned and still is. Taxonomy is constantly refined and Darwinism has long been abandoned for better models. Don't compare religion to science because science changes through improvement and better knowledge of reality while religion changes because it's too stupid and outdated for more modern people to still believe its absurdities.

It's not just some holes, it's about big holes like lack of evidence how some rat became lion, monkey, human, rabbit, wolf and bear without links between em.

And don't call other people dumb when you post this.

again that doesn't even qualify as a fallacy because of your underlying presupposition that there isnt a creator and that fact that application of the fallacy is objective . I'm sure you haven't grown senile to not realise that.

The fallacy is redundant as its a bias.

If you love fallacies that much... Explain why randomness and why not intended design.. You're the one who objected to that.. I'm sure you'll have an answer even if incorrect or lacking coherence coz of your age mr. Burdenof proof

Because every test we've done on evolution supports that it's driven by a semi-random process of some mutations happening and helping certain individuals to survive and/or breed more. The amount of stuff you have to find evidence for BEFORE even trying to defend the "intended design" position is already enough to put the burden of proof on you; for example, why you assume there's a creation to begin with, why you assume it's one creator, why you more than likely assume it's the creator you were randomly nurtured to believe in, and so on.

Ockham's razor and blah, blah, blah. You have way too much unsupported bullshit going around any religion to be given evidence of before even proposing that "intelligent design" serves for a better expalanation than what has actually been researched to success by science.

Your understanding of an incomplete and subjective version of evolution

Nah, I'm fine. Nowhere the models for evolution have ever needed your made up god to work; they're complete enough without him/her/them.

...

Nothing of what you said denies what I said.

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2023

Ok, so tell me why scientist can't create new type of animals,

"Type" isn't a valid category, by the way. Probably you can't define what a "type" is. Nor is "kind", which is another random word used by creationists and similar dimwits who never understood evolution.

 

[Photon]

Nothing of what you said denies what I said.

You were saying every text that says modern creatures are created by Gods goes against evolution

Tho i put more emphasize on the modern human, because there is no explicit statement about whether God created unique creatures other than Human in Abrahamic religions

 

[Tejas]

Simply put, difference ancestor. As i said earlier, scientists start to think that the commonly known tree of life might be outdated. They are trying to come up with better concept such as tangled tree of life and web of life. This implies there might be more than 1 ancestor. As such, this open the possibilities that human have a different and possibly a unique ancestor, which is aligned with what the religious people especially the abrahmic ones believe in.




When will you ever learn it's not as simple as believing or denying evolution theory entirely lol. The two primary ideas are that they dont believe in the randomness of DNA mutation (which again is a topic being discussed as more studies suggests DNA mutation migh not be that random, if at all) and the idea that human evolved from the same ancestor as the other species. These two topics are currently controversial even among evolutionists. If you say that just because someone doesn't agree with the traditional evolution theory means they are evolution deniers which you did imply so, it means the evolutionists who cast doubts in these two controversial subtopics are also evolution deniers. What you're doing basically is generalizing a group because thay dont agree with something that is not even certain of.

Of course, there are blind religious people who deny the evolution theory entirely. But they are mostly the elders who are not uneducated enough. Most of the religious gen Z including ones that happen to work in a scientific field know that the current evolution theory is true, with the exception of the two subtopics ive mentioned. And this is for good reason, even among the leading scientists in evolutionary biologists.






It is

Facts:
- They share similar DNA
- They share similar morphological structure

Interpretation:
- They share a common ancestor

The former is not necessarily an implication of common ancestry. Did you read my post lol? A top 2% scientists currently working as a professor in China found that using the "formal" method supports the common ancestry theory of two unrelated mythocondria. This arises suspicions of the reliability of the current method.

The latter is also not necessarily mean they share a common ancestor, it can also mean they live in a similar environment that force them to do similar jobs.

It has to be understood that even though the current interpretation is not necessarily true, it is still currently the best interpretation. We have to acknowledge that i agree. However, more and more studies suggests that this might not necessarily be the case and we might have understood evolution wrong, as suggested by the studies done by evolutionists that i cited in my post earlier.

The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the human and chimp genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96 percent sequence identity

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

You were saying every text that says modern creatures are created by Gods goes against evolution

Tho i put more emphasize on the modern human, because there is no explicit statement about whether God created unique creatures other than Human in Abrahamic religions

The moment there's evolution, no matter the model we refine to explain it, the moment God didn't create every modern creature because every modern creature sustained evolutionary change at some point. Obviously I'm focusing on Abrahamic religions because we both know people here aren't praising Anu.

You put more emphasize on modern human; I couldn't care less because modern human isn't what the books put their emphasize on. And anyways, I'm pretty sure no future approach to evolution will find any strong support for humans not being primates.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

You were saying every text that says modern creatures are created by Gods goes against evolution

Tho i put more emphasize on the modern human, because there is no explicit statement about whether God created unique creatures other than Human in Abrahamic religions

Chimpanzees are god's creatures too😭 why do you hate them?

 

[Midnight Delight]

Evolution is a mystery

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

Evolution is a mystery

And God is the ad ignorantiam.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

And God is the ad ignorantiam.

MY ATLANTIS GODS ARE SUPERIOR

 

[Photon]

The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the human and chimp genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96 percent sequence identity

Are you missing the point twice in a row on purpose? Read again my post or the study conducted by Professor Hasegawa carefully.

The moment there's evolution, no matter the model we refine to explain it, the moment God didn't create every modern creature because every modern creature sustained evolutionary change at some point. Obviously I'm focusing on Abrahamic religions because we both know people here aren't praising Anu.

You put more emphasize on modern human; I couldn't care less because modern human isn't what the books put their emphasize on.

If, it is the fact that all organisms share a common ancestor, then yes Abrahmic religions goes against science as they believe that modern human dont come from a completely different prior organisms. But no, it's far from facts as i already mentioned in my post.

 

[Midnight Delight]

 

[Photon]

Chimpanzees are god's creatures too😭 why do you hate them?

Mrs Solis, i didnt hate them, i said Chimpanze might had evolved from a single cell organisms. But it's not the same for human

 

[NikaInParis]

Evolution is a mystery

Full of change that no one sees

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

So many gay dudes

@Meeyori likes💓

 

[Zenos7]

You all are still stuck on the old evolution theory. Many changes and ideas have been proposed since then.

First of all, evolution is a both a fact and a theory. Microchanges (microevolution) amongst creatures are factually observable primarily in microbes, which helps us to develop antimicrobials. What people differ on in opinion is in the region of macroevolution, mainly the reliability of the Darwinian tree of life, which is the basis of the idea of Universal Common Ancestry (UCA). So no, evolution is not a fact in this regard.

With more and more studies, there is a growing doubt among scientists (mainly biologists) about the reliability of the Darwinian tree of life. In return, alternatives such as the tangled tree of life and web of life are being more emphasized.

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. [1]

"Was it not already obvious, from the discovery and deciphering of DNA, that all life forms are descended from a single common organism—or at least a basal species? No, says Douglas Theobald, an assistant professor of biochemistry of Brandeis University and author of the new study" [2]

"The tree versus web debate remains "very controversial right now in evolutionary biology," Theobald says, reluctant to pick a side himself. " [2]

Also, the idea that shared DNA implies common ancestor is not necessarily true.

"Most people and even scientists operate under the premise that genetic similarities imply a common relation or ancestor. But as with similarities in physical appearance or structure, these assumptions "can be criticized," Theobald notes." [2]

You also have to know that the method that favors the UCA relies on the premise that the tree of life is in fact true. This inherently induces bias which can explain why many scientists still favor this pillar.

"We show that the alignment gives a strong bias for the common ancestor hypothesis, and we provide an example that Theobald's method supports a common ancestor hypothesis for two apparently unrelated families of protein-encoding sequences (cytb and nd2 of mitochondria). This arouses suspicion about the effectiveness of the “formal” test. " [3] says Masami Hasegawa, a well-known biologists in China, in his study titled "Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth".

One of the leading evolutionist in this 20th Century, Masatoshi Nei, has proven in his study that the reliability of the tree of life is not universal as can be seen in the Phylogenetic tree of MHC class II b chain genes in mammals.

"We then show that if the tree is to be reliable, both Pb and Ps must be high... Figure 4 represents the opposite case, where Pb is low for most interior branches of the tree" [4]

These studies open more possibilities that human might have an independent ancestor to those of other animals.

so i was curious and looked at the actual paper (not the article about the paper you posted). and well, this research was about the relation between eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea, and whether they share common ancestry or not.

So sorry to burst your bubble, humans are still animals, mammals, primates, great apes and so on.

And while i was at it i took a look at masami hasegawas research. the guy was researching when the human-ape splitting happened. doesnt sound like he is suggesting that humans arent animals, mammals, primates, great apes, etc. either. and skimming through his publications other than the one i referenced, i dont find a single tite even remotely coming close to your claims here.

seems like you are either being dishonest or you seriously dont put any effort into looking at any of this research before making conclusions.

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2023

I'm pretty sure no future approach to evolution will find any strong support for humans not being primates.

this. and the science he cited didnt suggest anything of the sort either.

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2023

Tho back to what i said, there are practically no one who deny evolution entirely.

But i think i made it clear for everyone: Studies suggest that the tree of life is most likely outdated and need to be revised

yes, because evolution is true.

and well no, what you posted doesnt suggest that. it suggest that its possible that eukaryotes dont share an ancestor with archaea and/or bacteria. though im happy to look at more research you can bring up that you are going to utterly misrepresent

 

[Charlotte Horchata]

If, it is the fact that all organisms share a common ancestor, then yes Abrahmic religions goes against science as they believe that modern human dont come from a completely different prior organisms. But no, it's far from facts as i already mentioned in my post.

I can assure you the theory of evolution won't be refined to the point most of the currently believed connections between modern creatures will be disproved. The connection between humans and other primates, or between perissodactyls, or between any other strongly established taxon will hardly be rebutted; just too much ground for it and nothing of what you posted even supports the contrary.

 

[Photon]

so i was curious and looked at the actual paper (not the article about the paper you posted). and well, this research was about the relation between eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea, and whether they share common ancestry or not.

So sorry to burst your bubble, humans are still animals, mammals, primates, great apes and so on.

And while i was at it i took a look at masami hasegawas research. the guy was researching when the human-ape splitting happened. doesnt sound like he is suggesting that humans arent animals, mammals, primates, great apes, etc. either. and skimming through his publications other than the one i referenced, i dont find a single tite even remotely coming close to your claims here.

seems like you are either being dishonest or you seriously dont put any effort into looking at any of this research before making conclusions.

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2023

this. and the science he cited didnt suggest anything of the sort either.

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2023

yes, because evolution is true.

and well no, what you posted doesnt suggest that. it suggest that its possible that eukaryotes dont share an ancestor with archaea and/or bacteria. though im happy to look at more research you can bring up that you are going to utterly misrepresent

Lmao, you missed the point slightly again, but is critical.

Yes, the studies were to confirm if bacteria, eukaryotes, and archea share a common ancestor. It turns out it might not necessarily be the case.

Why would they explicitly state that human and apes share different ancestor if even the most basic lives are still being studied on. Things take process, but one thing for sure: If the UCA turns out to be wrong in the future, then there will be no certainty that human and chimp share common ancestry. There will also be no certainty that the ancestor is a single cell organisms.

You are no different than the blind evangelicals lmao, like to prejudice and not read the point carefully

Post automatically merged: Mar 17, 2023

I can assure you the theory of evolution won't be refined to the point most of the currently believed connections between modern creatures will be disproved. The connection between humans and other primates, or between perissodactyls, or between any other strongly established taxon will hardly be rebutted; just too much ground for it and nothing of what you posted even supports the contrary.

Im not the one disagreeing with you, i just cited the reference. If you put your bias aside and read carefully, it doesnt directly supports the contrary, but it open possibilities

 

[Tejas]

Are you missing the point twice in a row on purpose? Read again my post or the study conducted by Professor Hasegawa carefully.




If, it is the fact that all organisms share a common ancestor, then yes Abrahmic religions goes against science as they believe that modern human dont come from a completely different prior organisms. But no, it's far from facts as i already mentioned in my post.

Read this
https://scholarworks.brandeis.edu/e...ommon-ancestry-provedTheobald/992410358980192

"Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered a compelling list of circumstantial evidence, as given in ref. 2, there has been no attempt to test statistically the UCA hypothesis among the three domains of life (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes) by using molecular sequences."

This is authored by
Masami Hasegawa

They dont deny evolution at all or UCA but just debating methods