Do you believe in evolution?

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Darknes
We actually still use the phrase "the four corners of the earth" to mean all-encompassing. It's a weak attack on the Bible.
A better quote: Isaiah 40:22 says "he sitteth upon the circle of the Earth".
ty i was just looking for that

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
its not a metaphor at all its people trying to deny the exsistance of God that take the bible out of context
So if 'the four corners of the earth' is not a metaphor could you show us the four corners of the earth?
It sure sounds like symbolism, and if God will use symbolism in one place why can you not believe he would use it in another place?

 

[reefreak29]

i would still like to know where this commen ansestor came from.and how he was created or um evolved

 

[jonfletch01]

hey GeriDoc... I would still like to know how fire was traded in for slavery..?
Just curious on how you came to that..?!

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
well that was week , im asking for proof but you deny to give me any why should i take anything you say seriously
You can't have proof. It's a "theory", just as creation is a "theory". If there was proof of either, there would be no debate. You cannot provide any proof to support creation, either.
It's about evidence to support the theory.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
So if 'the four corners of the earth' is not a metaphor could you show us the four corners of the earth?
It sure sounds like symbolism, and if God will use symbolism in one place why can you not believe he would use it in another place?
yes the four corners are north ,south,east and west

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Darknes
You can't have proof. It's a "theory", just as creation is a "theory". If there was proof of either, there would be no debate. You cannot provide any proof to support creation, either.
It's about evidence to support the theory.
well hes so sure on evolution he must have proof, im just curiose

 

[geridoc]

A better quote: Isaiah 40:22 says "he sitteth upon the circle of the Earth".
This is not an improvement since a circle is a two dimensional figure - i.e. flat.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
This is not an improvement since a circle is a two dimensional figure - i.e. flat.
lol now thats funny. now its a flat circle

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
well hes so sure on evolution he must have proof, im just curiose
Which species would you like to know about? Or, better yet - get educated. Other members of this discussion have gotten Zimmer's book, "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea". It is available on Amazon for $3.00 used, and is a thorough and easy to read book, with proof.

 

[royal gang]

58.51% said yes??? I am ashamed of being a human, knowing that 58 1/2% don't know......... where they even come from, I know I do!

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Which species would you like to know about?
are common ansestor from wich man and ape evolved from. i want to know how the common ancestor came to be

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Which species would you like to know about?
Yes, lets get back on the subject here.

GeriDoc, do you have any reasonable explanations for the Cambrian Explosion that fits in the evolution theory? (this is of interest to me)

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
are common ansestor from wich man and ape evolved from. i want to know how the common ancestor came to be
Read Darwin's "Origin of Species" to know that, or get Zimmer's book if Darwin is too heavy going (it isn't easy, I admit). If you are asking about the origin of life, evolutionary theory has no position on that, as Darwin specifically stated.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Read Darwin's "Origin of Species" to know that, or get Zimmer's book if Darwin is too heavy going (it isn't easy, I admit). If you are asking about the origin of life, evolutionary theory has no position on that, as Darwin specifically stated.
ok so you cant explain it thats all i wanted to know ty

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Darknes
Yes, lets get back on the subject here.

GeriDoc, do you have any reasonable explanations for the Cambrian Explosion that fits in the evolution theory? (this is of interest to me)
If I did, I wouldn't be here, I would be in Sweden picking up my Nobel Prize

Seriously, the so-called Cambrian Explosion is one of the major discussion points in evolutionary theory. First, it is becoming clear that the "explosion" may have been more of a prolonged "fizzle" that lasted far longer than anyone previously thought. One relatively new theory about the increased diversity of this time relates to the new field of evo-devo, and the role of gene position and dose. This means that it may be much easier to produce new forms since low-probability beneficial mutations are not needed, only movement or dose-amplification of already existing genes. Or, Gould's view that evolution goes not by gradual changes, but by sudden jumps (punctate equilibrium) might be right. Right now, the book remains open on this one. If I am being vague here, it is because the answers aren't known - that is what is fun about biology (and science in general). What a sad world this would be if all the answers were already known.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
ok so you cant explain it thats all i wanted to know ty
I'm still not sure what "it" is that you want explained. It almost seems as if you want me to explain (in the words of Adams) "life, the universe, and everything else".

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
that is what is fun about biology (and science in general). What a sad world this would be if all the answers were already known.
Touche!
Do you know of any good books concerning the Cambrian Explosion?

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
If I did, I wouldn't be here, I would be in Sweden picking up my Nobel Prize

Seriously, the so-called Cambrian Explosion is one of the major discussion points in evolutionary theory. First, it is becoming clear that the "explosion" may have been more of a prolonged "fizzle" that lasted far longer than anyone previously thought. One relatively new theory about the increased diversity of this time relates to the new field of evo-devo, and the role of gene position and dose. This means that it may be much easier to produce new forms since low-probability beneficial mutations are not needed, only movement or dose-amplification of already existing genes. Or, Gould's view that evolution goes not by gradual changes, but by sudden jumps (punctate equilibrium) might be right. Right now, the book remains open on this one. If I am being vague here, it is because the answers aren't known - that is what is fun about biology (and science in general). What a sad world this would be if all the answers were already known.
so the fact that knowone can prove evolution says that you need just as much faith to believe in evolution then God

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
so the fact that knowone cant proove evolution says that you need just as much faith to believe in evolution then God
You keep missing the point - which is that evolution cannot be proven, nor can any scientific theory. All that I (and pretty much all other biologists) say is that evolution is the best fit to the body of observations that come from biology, geology, physics, chemistry and paleoarcheology, to name a few. The only other explanation to fit requires multiple "and then a miracle happened" in order to fit the data points. Theories get disproved, never proved. It is a logical impossibility.