Jump to content

Whats So Evil About Evolution?


willybilly30
 Share

Recommended Posts

i hear alot of bad stuff from christians on this subject oh it disproves a god oh its evil.

but if you ask me evolution is a beutiful idea. it says were not seperate from the rest of the world but a part of it. were all brothers and sisters a big family the trees the animals everything is part of each other. i dont think it disproves a god (exept the christian one maybe cause it dont say in genesis adam and eve came from chimps) i say it says god made everything then let it grow and evolve on its own. not interfering with it. or i guess you could say it was all a devine plan or something. i have no problem believing were apart of the animal kingdom. the ongly problem i have with being from chimps is i dont like bananas. but were apart of nature everything is a part of each other. i just dont see why its evil i think its beutiful. everything came from earth and earth came from the universe. so everything is from everything and is a family. its beutiful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I feel about evolution personally, but I'm just fine with the idea. Like you said, it emphasizes a known truth: we're a part of nature, not some evil force bringing sin and death and needing a savior for our worthless souls. Also, I'd much rather believe we humans developed from less sophisticated beings along a continous path of progression and natural improvement rather than we've just been sinning all this time and are becoming more and more degraded as the world nears the Apocalypse. If I'm teaching my children anything, it won't be the latter.

 

When you consider it, the evolution debate almost seems more compassionate than the Xian outlook. Humans developing and progressing versus humans sinning and degrading into animals - which would you prefer? And Xians try to equate evolution with Athiesm in order to turn more Xians off from seriously considering evolution. Lots of different religions, Xianity included, have had their sects where they agree with modern science instead of sticking their heads in the sand and acting as if everything in the Babble is true just because they believe it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i never could understand the fall of man-sin- condemed- need a savior idea

if god created us its gods fault if were not the way it wanted us to be so why are we paying for gods mistake.

i like thinking god made everything how it was meant to be. winch makes more sense to me .

why couldnt people in religions just say god made everything then let it evolve.

some people in religions think that. i guess fundy christians are the ongly ones that got a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it says were not seperate from the rest of the world but a part of it. were all brothers and sisters a big family the trees the animals everything is part of each other.

 

That's what is so "bad" about it. To xtians, humans are the center of the universe, cuz god said we are so pwecious and speshul. Just more xtian propaganda for god's war on the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I feel about evolution personally, but I'm just fine with the idea. Like you said, it emphasizes a known truth: we're a part of nature, not some evil force bringing sin and death and needing a savior for our worthless souls. Also, I'd much rather believe we humans developed from less sophisticated beings along a continous path of progression and natural improvement rather than we've just been sinning all this time and are becoming more and more degraded as the world nears the Apocalypse. If I'm teaching my children anything, it won't be the latter.

 

When you consider it, the evolution debate almost seems more compassionate than the Xian outlook. Humans developing and progressing versus humans sinning and degrading into animals - which would you prefer? (What Im mostly looking at---->)And Xians try to equate evolution with Athiesm in order to turn more Xians off from seriously considering evolution. Lots of different religions, Xianity included, have had their sects where they agree with modern science instead of sticking their heads in the sand and acting as if everything in the Babble is true just because they believe it to be.

Yup, even though evolution really is really just a theory that holds more water then having a god barf out the world in 7 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is so evil about evolution? I completely invalidates the literal creation story. Combine that with the overwhelming majority of ignorant people who don't understand evolution, the difference between evolution as fact and theory, and you get mobs of people protesting "Its a free country and if we want to praise Jesus over the intercom that is our right. Besides Christians are the majority and thats how democracy works."

 

But this really only applies to the Bible Belt. I should move out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is just a natural process; there's nothing "good" or "evil"

about it. Only the fundies think of it as evil, because they cannot

view the world outside of their artificial, black-and-white mindset,

and because it invalidates part of what they believe.

 

 

I should move out of it.

Yeah, move over there to the other extreme - fundy's are the minority. Hahaha!

 

 

I am so glad I don't live in the bible belt. I don't think

I'd have the patience to put up with all the bullshit exchristians

have to put up with down there. Sometimes it sounds like the

whole place is in a time bubble stuck in the middle of the 12th

century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so glad I don't live in the bible belt. I don't think

I'd have the patience to put up with all the bullshit exchristians

have to put up with down there. Sometimes it sounds like the

whole place is in a time bubble stuck in the middle of the 12th

century.

 

Here's some things I've learned during my short life about the peach state:

1. If you don't hunt, you'll be considered a hippie, PETA member, or both.

2. You'll be considered christian by default as soon as you're born.

3. The civil war is not over, that's just liberal bias in the media.

4. A white guy who has a black best friend is a "weirdo" and vice-versa.

5. Beer is the official state drink and will be served at every meal.

And that's just the start, and the worst part is that its not a joke. California to me sounds like some planet from Star Trek, with gay people actually WALKING DOWN THE STREET and DRIVING CARS, without fear of being killed! I can hardly imagine it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some things I've learned during my short life about the peach state:

1. If you don't hunt, you'll be considered a hippie, PETA member, or both.

2. You'll be considered christian by default as soon as you're born.

3. The civil war is not over, that's just liberal bias in the media.

4. A white guy who has a black best friend is a "weirdo" and vice-versa.

5. Beer is the official state drink and will be served at every meal.

And that's just the start, and the worst part is that its not a joke. California to me sounds like some planet from Star Trek, with gay people actually WALKING DOWN THE STREET and DRIVING CARS, without fear of being killed! I can hardly imagine it.

 

 

Hi SBeeland,

 

You've got me cracking up.....but I know it's a pain for you

to deal with these things, and I really sympathize. When I

was much younger, I lived across the border from you in

Jacksonville, FL. Granted, that's a Navy town so it was a

bit different from the Deep South, but there was enough

of the Deep South there for me to get a pretty good idea

about what it was like. What you've described seems

pretty dead-on accurate to me.

 

I'd love to get all the non-christians in the Bible Belt to

move out, so we could saw the Bible Belt off the continental

US and tow it to Saudi Arabia. Then the world's worst sets

of fundies could have a knock-down, drag-out brawl about

what version of the 12th century they should all be living in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is so evil about evolution? It completely invalidates the literal creation story.
That's pretty much it. I used to not really understand the objection to evolution either. I thought surely it was just a huge misunderstanding and that a little education is all that's needed.

 

But no. It's all because the Bible says that Eve bit into an apple and therefore, Jesus had to die on the cross. Imagine my surprise. I didn't even realize that in the (then) 20th Century that people actually believed that Adam and Eve were real people. Heck, it's now the 21st Century, and I still have a hard time grasping that notion.

 

They try to pretend that there are problems with evolution, and they have their special websites for that, but prod at them long enough, and you find that there contempt extends from their refusal to dismiss "The Fall" as mere fantasy.

 

Combine that with the overwhelming majority of ignorant people who don't understand evolution, the difference between evolution as fact and theory, and you get mobs of people protesting "Its a free country and if we want to praise Jesus over the intercom that is our right. Besides Christians are the majority and thats how democracy works."
That's a bunch of bullshit that they try to push around. They're always like "It's my tax dollars that go toward education" and they'll play the Democracy "majority rules" card.

 

First the latter. They need to read the Bill of Rights. That sort of attitude is easily squelched in a court of law. Even in a country that is predominantly Christian, it's fairly easy to demonstrate (and win) a case in which civil rights are being violated. So it's not as simple as "majority rules". Even a majority vote has to follow rules, or else it gets thrown out.

 

For the former, that's a load of crap, too. I love when Christians whine about their tax dollars being spent on education that they don't fundamentally agree with. As if paying taxes means that you have direct control over how its spent. Especially when it comes to classroom curriculum. Tax dollars are spent on providing the best education possible; not selecting the content of the curriculum. American citizens have no more right to tell a biology teacher that evolution is false than they do of telling a math teacher that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

 

The fact that so many Christians want to apply the democratic system to the subject matter of a science class should immediately reveal their anti-scientific motives, for science is the antithesis of democratic. Scientific theories are not subject to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to get all the non-christians in the Bible Belt to

move out, so we could saw the Bible Belt off the continental

US and tow it to Saudi Arabia. Then the world's worst sets

of fundies could have a knock-down, drag-out brawl about

what version of the 12th century they should all be living in!

 

Ha! I'd love to see that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to get all the non-christians in the Bible Belt to

move out, so we could saw the Bible Belt off the continental

US and tow it to Saudi Arabia. Then the world's worst sets

of fundies could have a knock-down, drag-out brawl about

what version of the 12th century they should all be living in!

 

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are not descended from the apes that exist today. We are a type of ape (apes don't have tails, monkeys do) and we share a common anscestor with the apes that exist today. (It's a pet peeve of mine when I hear Christains say evolutionists want us to believe we are descended from monkeys.)

 

Taph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are not descended from the apes that exist today. We are a type of ape (apes don't have tails, monkeys do) and we share a common anscestor with the apes that exist today. (It's a pet peeve of mine when I hear Christains say evolutionists want us to believe we are descended from monkeys.)
What drives me nuts is that they apparently don't know the difference between a highly advanced species and a modern species. A derivative of the misinformed notion of the evolution always produces higher specificity, this misunderstanding leads to such ignorant questions as "If we evolved from the apes, then why are there still apes?"

 

The answer is simple. As you pointed out, we didn't evolve from any of today's primates. Today's primates are modern. That's not to say that all modern species are highly advanced. Some species have sacrificed some of the things we would think of as advanced, such as higher intelligence, size, strength, and similar features. And it goes without saying that today's primates are not as advanced as we are. But they're still every bit as modern as we are, because they are adapted to today's Earth environment. That's all evolved really means. It means that the adaption to the environment is highly specified. It does not mean bigger, stronger, stronger, and faster, contrary to what nincompoops like Kent Hovind like to say.

 

I was watching TBN a while back, as I do whenever I need a good laugh, and I saw the infamous T.D. Jakes asking the "If we evolved from apes" question. Interestingly enough, T.D. Jakes was also recently dubbed the single most influential Christian in the country.

 

That's right, folks! The greatest Christian in America is still an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this the other day. The snakes are evolving to become a predator of the poison toads in a mere 70 years.

 

Snakes bite back at poison toads

 

Cane toads were introduced to Australia in 1935

Snakes in Australia have evolved to counter the threat of invasive, poisonous cane toads, scientists have found.

The toads (Bufo marinus) were only introduced in the 1930s but have already overwhelmed the local wildlife in Queensland with their rapid reproduction and toxic flesh, which kills many predators foolish enough to make them a meal.

 

But for two species of snake, at least, natural selection has produced a defence: the snakes have developed relatively smaller heads and longer bodies.

 

In essence, the reduced gape of the animals limits their ability to eat the toads likely to do them the most damage.

 

"It's nice to see that Nature's looking after itself." Dr Ben Phillips, University of Sydney.

 

"We've got large lizards, such as monitor lizards, that seem to die after eating cane toads; a lot of our snakes after eating them will die," explained Dr Ben Phillips, of the University of Sydney.

 

"All the native frog-eating creatures in Australia, and the native cat that we have, are disappearing quite dramatically from areas where cane toads are turning up," he told the BBC World Service's Science In Action programme.

 

"Basically, large predators that would normally eat frogs are succumbing to cane toads quite dramatically."

 

Quick adaptation

 

The cane toad was introduced in 1935 to help control a crop pest, but has since become a nuisance itself.

 

Its range in Queensland has steadily expanded and the toad is now moving into New South Wales and the Northern Territory.

 

The way the two species of snake have adapted to cope with this challenge has been described as a classic example of "contemporary evolution".

 

The red-bellied black snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus) and the green tree snake (Dendrelaphis punctulatus) are highly susceptible to toad toxins.

 

And the presence of Bufo marinus has imposed an immense selection pressure on their populations.

 

"One of the ways the snakes seem to be fighting back is by changing their body shape. Basically, their heads have got smaller relative to their bodies (or their bodies have got bigger relative to their heads; whichever way you want to think about it)," said Dr Phillips.

 

"If a snake's got a small head, it's going to be able to eat a much smaller prey item."

 

"What that means is that because snakes eat their prey whole and the size of meal is entirely dependent on the size of its head; if a snake's got a small head, it's only going to be able to eat a small prey item.

 

"Thus, it's going to be able to poison itself a lot less effectively on a cane toad - which is probably a good thing, given that they seem to be a little bit silly about eating things that taste bad."

 

Natural selection ensures these are the snakes that prosper and reproduce; their head-body traits come to dominate populations.

 

Alien response

 

What seems remarkable is that this adaptation has occurred in just 70 years. But Dr Phillips says it should not be too surprising since snakes breed comparatively quickly.

 

"We need to remember that snakes have a generation time of two or three years; so basically that means a time of 20 to 25 generations has passed since the cane toads arrived in some areas," he said.

 

"That's a reasonable amount of time, evolutionarily speaking."

 

The University of Sydney researcher commented that it was encouraging to see that ecosystems could respond to problems imposed by invasive species.

 

"I think it's a bad idea to leave species around the place - it's almost impossible to know what kind of impact they will have," he said.

 

"But the upside of what we have found is that while it's all doom and gloom about the environment - we hear a lot of bad news - it's nice to see that Nature's looking after itself."

 

Dr Phillips and his colleague Dr Richard Shine published their work in a recent edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im still new on evolution i watch the discovery channel alot its really interesting.

i noticed apes in the zoo eat like humans, and some nearly walk like humans are they just copying what they see people at the zoo do or do they do that anyway? either way it proves it too me.

if their just copying what they see people watching them do thats intelligent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are not descended from the apes that exist today. We are a type of ape (apes don't have tails, monkeys do) and we share a common anscestor with the apes that exist today. (It's a pet peeve of mine when I hear Christains say evolutionists want us to believe we are descended from monkeys.)

 

Taph

 

That's the way I always understood it too. Its the ancestor we have in common, but the apologists make it sound like we literally evolved from a chimpanzee, and I get the urge to punch someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In the old days, there was this idea that the universe was static and unchanging - because God created everything the way it is now, according to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

There was also "The Great Chain of Being" which constructed the natural order of everything on the Earth, i.e. God --> angels --> kings --> nobles --> warriors --> merchants --> peasants --> animals --> plants --> minerals. This was also unchanging. And of course, it was male over female at each level.

 

Then people like James Hutton (late 1700s) and Charles Lyell (mid 1800s) came up with the idea of uniformitarianism which suggested that the earth was millions of years old (they didn't know quite how old yet) instead of thousands. This meant that the Earth was constantly being worn down and built up through processes like deposition, erosion, volcanism, etc. This meant CHANGE (oh, god, no!!)

 

Then people started taking it further than rocks and fossils. Naturalists like Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin started suggesting that this changing nature of the world might apply to living organisms as well.

 

The notion that we are derived from a common ancestor challenged The Great Chain of Being and humanity as the centre/purpose of the universe - and of course, it messes up the idea of humans as the image of God.

 

Also, the notion of evolution suggests that things weren't created perfectly (which they must have been, if a perfect and benevolent god created them). Instead, organisms must adapt and evolve. This is linked to why Galileo got busted for observing sunspots on the sun (meaning that there are imperfections on the sun, something which generally represents light/godliness) as well as suggesting that the Earth (and consequently, humanity) isn't the centre of the universe.

 

So science as we know it already had a bad name according to religion, from its very beginnings. The crusade against evolution by Intelligent Design is just the contemporary manifestation of an age-old battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this the other day. The snakes are evolving to become a predator of the poison toads in a mere 70 years.

 

Snakes bite back at poison toads

 

Cane toads were introduced to Australia in 1935

Snakes in Australia have evolved to counter the threat of invasive, poisonous cane toads, scientists have found.

The toads (Bufo marinus) were only introduced in the 1930s but have already overwhelmed the local wildlife in Queensland with their rapid reproduction and toxic flesh, which kills many predators foolish enough to make them a meal.

 

But for two species of snake, at least, natural selection has produced a defence: the snakes have developed relatively smaller heads and longer bodies.

 

In essence, the reduced gape of the animals limits their ability to eat the toads likely to do them the most damage.

 

"It's nice to see that Nature's looking after itself." Dr Ben Phillips, University of Sydney.

 

"We've got large lizards, such as monitor lizards, that seem to die after eating cane toads; a lot of our snakes after eating them will die," explained Dr Ben Phillips, of the University of Sydney.

 

"All the native frog-eating creatures in Australia, and the native cat that we have, are disappearing quite dramatically from areas where cane toads are turning up," he told the BBC World Service's Science In Action programme.

 

"Basically, large predators that would normally eat frogs are succumbing to cane toads quite dramatically."

 

Quick adaptation

 

The cane toad was introduced in 1935 to help control a crop pest, but has since become a nuisance itself.

 

Its range in Queensland has steadily expanded and the toad is now moving into New South Wales and the Northern Territory.

 

The way the two species of snake have adapted to cope with this challenge has been described as a classic example of "contemporary evolution".

 

The red-bellied black snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus) and the green tree snake (Dendrelaphis punctulatus) are highly susceptible to toad toxins.

 

And the presence of Bufo marinus has imposed an immense selection pressure on their populations.

 

"One of the ways the snakes seem to be fighting back is by changing their body shape. Basically, their heads have got smaller relative to their bodies (or their bodies have got bigger relative to their heads; whichever way you want to think about it)," said Dr Phillips.

 

"If a snake's got a small head, it's going to be able to eat a much smaller prey item."

 

"What that means is that because snakes eat their prey whole and the size of meal is entirely dependent on the size of its head; if a snake's got a small head, it's only going to be able to eat a small prey item.

 

"Thus, it's going to be able to poison itself a lot less effectively on a cane toad - which is probably a good thing, given that they seem to be a little bit silly about eating things that taste bad."

 

Natural selection ensures these are the snakes that prosper and reproduce; their head-body traits come to dominate populations.

 

Alien response

 

What seems remarkable is that this adaptation has occurred in just 70 years. But Dr Phillips says it should not be too surprising since snakes breed comparatively quickly.

 

"We need to remember that snakes have a generation time of two or three years; so basically that means a time of 20 to 25 generations has passed since the cane toads arrived in some areas," he said.

 

"That's a reasonable amount of time, evolutionarily speaking."

 

The University of Sydney researcher commented that it was encouraging to see that ecosystems could respond to problems imposed by invasive species.

 

"I think it's a bad idea to leave species around the place - it's almost impossible to know what kind of impact they will have," he said.

 

"But the upside of what we have found is that while it's all doom and gloom about the environment - we hear a lot of bad news - it's nice to see that Nature's looking after itself."

 

Dr Phillips and his colleague Dr Richard Shine published their work in a recent edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

 

Hi Taph,

 

I live in Australia and have some experience in this.The change in snake head size is not really adaptation, and is certainly not evolution. Adaptation is the built in ability of organisms to

cope with changes in their environment. However, when a snake's head has

grown big enough to eat a large poisonous cane toad, it is too late to adapt

once it has eaten one.

 

What has really happened over the last 70 years in cane toad infested regions of Australia is that snakes that already had large heads have been killed by eating cane toads, leaving only snakes that already had small heads to reproduce. ScienceNOW (the online news service

associated with the journal Science) called it "survival of the pinheads".

This is the process of natural selection, and selection, natural or

otherwise, is not evolution. To select something is to choose it from an already

existing group of alternatives. It does not explain how the alternatives

came into existence, and it certainly does not make them change into other

alternatives. All it does is eliminate some alternatives, which is the

opposite of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the process of natural selection, and selection, natural or otherwise, is not evolution.

Then you're an ignorant moron who just proved lacks any understanding of what evolution and the theory of evolution is. Congratulations! You've proven yourself to be an apologists to the "T". :58:

 

:jesus: loves you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the process of natural selection, and selection, natural or otherwise, is not evolution.

Then you're an ignorant moron who just proved lacks any understanding of what evolution and the theory of evolution is. Congratulations! You've proven yourself to be an apologists to the "T". :58:

 

:jesus: loves you.

No shit. My God man, I learned in 7th grade that Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Please, before you say anything else, go learn something about evolution otherwise you are going to continue to look like an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi Taph,

 

I live in Australia and have some experience in this.The change in snake head size is not really adaptation, and is certainly not evolution. Adaptation is the built in ability of organisms to

cope with changes in their environment. However, when a snake's head has

grown big enough to eat a large poisonous cane toad, it is too late to adapt

once it has eaten one.

 

What has really happened over the last 70 years in cane toad infested regions of Australia is that snakes that already had large heads have been killed by eating cane toads, leaving only snakes that already had small heads to reproduce. ScienceNOW (the online news service

associated with the journal Science) called it "survival of the pinheads".

This is the process of natural selection, and selection, natural or

otherwise, is not evolution. To select something is to choose it from an already

existing group of alternatives. It does not explain how the alternatives

came into existence, and it certainly does not make them change into other

alternatives. All it does is eliminate some alternatives, which is the

opposite of evolution.

 

you admit there is something called natrual selection....all you need for evolution to happen is natural selection, and mutation. We know both of these things exist, therefore you are an idiot.

 

If there was no mutation only natural selection, then the number of species would be continually dropping until there was only one left and finally none, because everytime the environment changed something would get wiped out and nothing would replace it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Australia and have some experience in this.The change in snake head size is not really adaptation, and is certainly not evolution. Adaptation is the built in ability of organisms to cope with changes in their environment. However, when a snake's head has grown big enough to eat a large poisonous cane toad, it is too late to adapt once it has eaten one.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

Evolution isn't about survival of the individual. It's about the change in allele frequences that lead to the survival of the species as a whole. The whole point in evolution is that those individuals who are not well adapted for the environment are weeded out by their unadaptiveness before they can reproduce, leaving the more adaptive individuals from which the species can benefit as a whole.

 

And so we see that your last setence doesn't even make any sense in the context of the subject.

The fact that the large-headed snake is unadaptive and can fall victim to eating poisonous frogs is entirely the point. The allele freqencies in the species is changing as a result.

 

You should really try reading up on the subject before you start posting about it. You're just going to make yourself look foolish.

 

What has really happened over the last 70 years in cane toad infested regions of Australia is that snakes that already had large heads have been killed by eating cane toads, leaving only snakes that already had small heads to reproduce. ScienceNOW (the online news service associated with the journal Science) called it "survival of the pinheads". This is the process of natural selection, and selection, natural or otherwise, is not evolution. To select something is to choose it from an already existing group of alternatives. It does not explain how the alternatives came into existence, and it certainly does not make them change into other alternatives. All it does is eliminate some alternatives, which is the opposite of evolution.
WHAT?!

 

Considering that I've already explained to you that evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population, I hope you realize how silly your statement is. What you've just described is evolution, because it results in change in genetic diversity. I find it comical that you apparently didn't know this.

 

Sure, evolution warrants that the selected adaptations already exist in advance, but surely you're not suggesting that positive adaptations cannot arise from mutation. If you do, you'll be laughed right off this forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.