Quote :

"an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found that 63% of Americans say they believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being while only 26% say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection."

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=715

Let's see where TWW ranks -- Pick A, B, or C:

A) darwinian evolution = Plants and animals adapted to their environments through random mutations and/or natural selection.
B) divine evolution = God, or a "higher power", is the guiding force behind and/or designer of the process of evolution.
C) no evolution = God, or a "higher power", created all life, which has always existed in its present form.

darwinian evolution: (A)
----------------------
Willy Nilly


divine evolution: (B)
----------------------


no evolution: (C)
----------------------

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 8:59 AM. Reason : and/or]

2/13/2009 8:51:04 AM

A

My cousins in Kansas are actually people who believe that god shaped the way that things evolve, or that god just kind of put things as they are on earth

2/13/2009 8:51:44 AM

A

2/13/2009 8:52:33 AM

D: By product of Alien breeding experiments

2/13/2009 8:53:36 AM

F

2/13/2009 8:55:35 AM

C


but, this thread is already wrong. evolution rarely comes from "random" mutations. true, mutation is one of the recognized forms of microevolution, but you are more likely to find genetic shifts after natural disasters (also known as the bottleneck effect).

when you have your degree in zoology, you'll know how to pick apart stupid ass threads about evolution, also.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:09 AM. Reason : verbs]

2/13/2009 8:57:01 AM

A, naturally.

2/13/2009 8:57:48 AM

anybody ever seen a new species come from an already existing one?


hmmm, interesting

2/13/2009 8:58:47 AM

Quote :

"when you have your degree in zoology, you'll know how to pick apart stupid ass threads also."

2/13/2009 8:58:55 AM

Methinks there are not enough options.

2/13/2009 8:59:25 AM

Quote :

"but you are more likely to find genetic shifts after natural disasters"

thats usually only for a given population though

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:00 AM. Reason : V---ME!]

2/13/2009 8:59:49 AM

Quote :

"but, this thread is already wrong. evolution rarely comes from "random" mutations. true, mutation is one of the recognized forms of microevolution, but you are more likely to find genetic shifts after natural disasters (also known as the bottleneck effect). when you have your degree in zoology, you'll know how to pick apart stupid ass threads also."

lol the trap is set, who will take the troll bait?

2/13/2009 8:59:56 AM

Quote :

"D: By product of Alien breeding experiments"

...but where did the aliens come from? (A, B, or C)

Quote :

"evolution rarely comes from "random" mutations."

I don't want any debate, so I added an "and/or" to choice 'A'



darwinian evolution: (A)
----------------------
Willy Nilly
miska
ALkatraz
Stimwalt

divine evolution: (B)
----------------------


no evolution: (C)
----------------------
maximus

A, B, or C?   Don't be shy....

2/13/2009 9:00:27 AM

no wait

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:01 AM. Reason : egtrfd]

2/13/2009 9:01:11 AM

A with extreme prejudice. I've seen enough examples of emergent complexity in the vacuum of pure computer science to accept biological evolution without hesitation.

2/13/2009 9:01:36 AM

Don't throw all religious folk under the bus in regards to science. Catholics do accept evolution, as long as it was by God's design.

2/13/2009 9:02:34 AM

Quote :

"...but where did the aliens come from? (A, B, or C)"

Quote :

"C) no evolution = God, or a "higher power", created all life, which has always existed in its present form."

...but where did the God come from? lulz

2/13/2009 9:04:06 AM

that's called progressive evolution, also wrong

if evolution is "right," it should be easy to prove or observe

2/13/2009 9:04:21 AM

A

2/13/2009 9:05:27 AM

not in an active guidance state but in origin of

B

2/13/2009 9:06:49 AM

Quote :

"if evolution is "right," it should be easy to prove or observe"

Seeing how there are rocks (older than what the bible says is the age of the earth) that have fossilized remains them, and those remains kind of look like animals that exist today. It is pretty easy to observe.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:12 AM. Reason : -]

2/13/2009 9:09:38 AM

Quote :

"D: By product of Alien breeding experiments"

Quote :

"...but where did the aliens come from? (A, B, or C)"

Quote :

"but where did the God come from? lulz"

If you believe that aliens created all life, perhaps including their own, then they are a "high power" and your choice is either B or C.


darwinian evolution: (A)
----------------------
Willy Nilly
miska
ALkatraz
Stimwalt
stowaway

divine evolution: (B)
----------------------
Joie?????
supercalo

no evolution: (C)
----------------------
maximus

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:13 AM. Reason : perhaps]

2/13/2009 9:10:12 AM

yeah keep me at b.

its probably closer than a

2/13/2009 9:11:21 AM

no, you are observing fossil remains. please tell me what evolution is.

then, please observe it. how can seeing a fossil show you that it had genetic changes over the course of generations?

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:11 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 9:11:27 AM

why do aleins as a higher power require explanation, while God as a higher power does not?

2/13/2009 9:11:48 AM

No higher power requires an explaination assuming they have a good publisher.

2/13/2009 9:12:58 AM

Tiberius=Scientologist???

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:13 AM. Reason : i]

2/13/2009 9:13:05 AM

Oh okay, so you want me and you to live for a couple hundred thousand years and document changes as I see them. I got it.

2/13/2009 9:13:43 AM

HAIL XENU~

2/13/2009 9:14:13 AM

lawl

2/13/2009 9:14:25 AM

that's too bad. please observe or show me one example

2/13/2009 9:15:21 AM

(A) but I do, "have religion" so that being said I do reconcile the 2 extremes (B). I don't see any major issues with doing that as long as they understand evolution and are able to use it properly.

My issue comes with (C) level fundies that just can't understand that man and dinosaur didn't exist at the same time, among other 'interesting' ideas that they have.


troll bait:

Quote :

"evolution rarely comes from "random" mutations.""

sexual reproduction introduces, by it's function, "random mutations". To make this easier for you, since you apparently don't really understand what "random mutations" entails, think of it as reshuffling a card deck until you get a few very specific patterns in a very specific order. Not all the cards are like this mind you but most are. Now those other cards that don't have to be in order or in a pattern can change pretty freely and thus impact the organism depending on what and where they are in the order of the deck. Thus you get what you are trying to get as "random mutations" is in reality a form of sexual genetic drift that natural selection favors some variants over others, thus the 'slow' form of evolution over time. Most of the "random mutations" that you are thinking of are the result of comparatively great changes in the deck and the vast majority of the time result in nothing that can survive at all much less something better adapted to a certain environment.

now that I've said entirely too much, you may commence with the regularly scheduled idiocy.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:23 AM. Reason : now back to your regularly scheduled programming]

2/13/2009 9:15:52 AM

Quote :

"how can seeing a fossil show you that it had genetic changes over the course of generations?"

The same type of animal found in one layer of soil/rock but looking different in layers above and below it.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:16 AM. Reason : -]

2/13/2009 9:16:06 AM

A

with the smallest slice of B that has no relevance to this thread

just put me down for A

2/13/2009 9:17:36 AM

um, in order to qualify as natural selection, the animal has to have come from another species based upon genetic qualities that make it more ept to survive in a certain environment.

fruit flies of generation1 with white eyes are no more fit to survive than those of generation3 with red eyes.

next

2/13/2009 9:18:33 AM

you cant technically observe evolution in the first person since it happens over 1000s and even 1000000s of years. no body ive ever heard of lived that long. but you can observe fossils from different time periods and that gives an idea about how things evolved.

2/13/2009 9:19:29 AM

^^Where did that come from?

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ^Good first post.]

2/13/2009 9:20:28 AM

what came first?

the Velociraptor or the egg

2/13/2009 9:21:18 AM

i believe in creation which i neither witnessed or can proove. how does that theory hold any less water than evolution, which can neither be witnessed or prooved.

2/13/2009 9:21:34 AM

i read this the other day and thought it was interesting. not incredibly pertinent, but along the same lines

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/we-are-becoming-a-new-species-we-are-becoming-homo-evolutis.ars

2/13/2009 9:21:41 AM

Given only those three options I am stuck in a quandary. If you are familiar with Shinto you know that there is a divine aspect to nature. The role of humans is to look after and protect nature while the role of these nature deities (kami) is to look after and protect humans. But at the same time kami aren't somehow "higher" than humans, they are just revered. So, I guess (A) with a dash of (B).

2/13/2009 9:22:47 AM

A

Quote :

"when you have your degree in zoology, you'll know how to pick apart stupid ass threads about evolution, also."

You have a degree in zoology and you reject evolution? Wtf? Did you not pay attention at all in biology class?

You can see evolution in a petri dish. If you accept microevolution, you get macroevolution for free; otherwise, it's like saying inches can add up to feet but add up to a mile.

2/13/2009 9:22:56 AM

Quote :

"i believe in creation which i neither witnessed or can proove. how does that theory hold any less water than evolution, which can neither be witnessed or prooved."

In essence you're saying that you believe that something came from nothing.

2/13/2009 9:23:26 AM

B

2/13/2009 9:24:02 AM

PROOVED

2/13/2009 9:24:31 AM

Quote :

"Given only those three options I am stuck in a quandary. If you are familiar with Shinto you know that there is a divine aspect to nature. The role of humans is to look after and protect nature while the role of these nature deities (kami) is to look after and protect humans. But at the same time kami aren't somehow "higher" than humans, they are just revered. So, I guess (A) with a dash of (B). "

There are a lot of solutions that give this kind of mixture.

Mine has to do with extra-universal intelligences.

2/13/2009 9:24:31 AM

hahahaha

spirituality

2/13/2009 9:25:40 AM

this looks like a Soap Box thread from back in 2000

2/13/2009 9:25:47 AM

yes, and it is rather logical to believe the entire universe and all life came from all the mass of everything compressed into an infinately small space?

2/13/2009 9:25:50 AM

^^^

you're not better than us, slacker

stop feeling like you are

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 9:26 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 9:26:04 AM