Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Theory of Evolution....I don't buy it!!!
May I just ask, in all seriousness, if anyone has 'questioned' the 'theory of evolution'? Personally, I think that coz we have a NEED to know where we came from, we have just jumped onto the 'theory' that seems to sound 'ok' just so we DO have a theory. But have a think about it.....apes evolved into humans.......
1. If apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes?
2. If they do evolve into humans, then why do we not see apes in various stages of evolution today?
3. Did we choose 'apes' because they 'look a bit similar'?
4. If scientists had suggested we evolved from zebras or giraffes, would we be so keen to believe it, or do we accept the monkey theory coz of the similarity to humans?
Animals surely can adapt and evolve, but do they turn into completely different species? No. Do hippos turn into dolphins? Do cats turn into giraffes? Do penguins turn into elephants?
Why can't we just admit we don't know? If someone had come up with this theory in their science homework (assuming it hadn't been said before) you'd be on detention! "Yes miss, I think we evolved from hedgehogs/starfish/apes etc "
1. If apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes?
2. If they do evolve into humans, then why do we not see apes in various stages of evolution today?
3. Did we choose 'apes' because they 'look a bit similar'?
4. If scientists had suggested we evolved from zebras or giraffes, would we be so keen to believe it, or do we accept the monkey theory coz of the similarity to humans?
Animals surely can adapt and evolve, but do they turn into completely different species? No. Do hippos turn into dolphins? Do cats turn into giraffes? Do penguins turn into elephants?
Why can't we just admit we don't know? If someone had come up with this theory in their science homework (assuming it hadn't been said before) you'd be on detention! "Yes miss, I think we evolved from hedgehogs/starfish/apes etc "
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by VannaB. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Of course people question it. I'm sure many question it every day. It's what the scientific principal is all about. You should question everything around you.
Do you believe in a god? If so, why?
Your later questions can be answered simply by reading some small amounts of material on evolution. there's a huge amount of stuff over at wikipedia.
But basically, much of evolution has been agreed on by scientists all over. There are still some gaps in the theory, so small links that need to be filled. Also, a "theory" as they're called, doesn't just mean someone had an idea and said it. A theory can be much more than that.
A final thought: why do we get goosebumps? If we had fur (hint, hint), we'd get goosebumps when we're cold as we do now, and it would push all our fur closer together, warming us up a bit by trapping more air.
Do you believe in a god? If so, why?
Your later questions can be answered simply by reading some small amounts of material on evolution. there's a huge amount of stuff over at wikipedia.
But basically, much of evolution has been agreed on by scientists all over. There are still some gaps in the theory, so small links that need to be filled. Also, a "theory" as they're called, doesn't just mean someone had an idea and said it. A theory can be much more than that.
A final thought: why do we get goosebumps? If we had fur (hint, hint), we'd get goosebumps when we're cold as we do now, and it would push all our fur closer together, warming us up a bit by trapping more air.
When evidence refutes the theory than it will need to be revised.
Yes you have to disprove a theory, but you also must provide enough proof too. Evidence with lots of gaps in it isn't that solid a foundation. Sometimes it's ok to say we just don't really know. But maybe people need to know or 'believe' something rather than admit that, so grasp at anything?
As for belief in a God type figure, Voltaire had it spot on, 'If God did not exist, we would have to invent him'....humans have a very natural habit of assuming that if we cannot grasp something, then there must be something else behind it. I don't think believing in God is relevant to this discussion about humans evolving from apes. I want to know how species can change completely in this way.
As for belief in a God type figure, Voltaire had it spot on, 'If God did not exist, we would have to invent him'....humans have a very natural habit of assuming that if we cannot grasp something, then there must be something else behind it. I don't think believing in God is relevant to this discussion about humans evolving from apes. I want to know how species can change completely in this way.
*Very big sigh* Is this a wind up?
1. Apes did not "evolve into humans", they share a common ancestor - that is why we have apes and humans. Do you have cousins? Then you share the same grandparents as them. But you do one thing, your cousins do another.
2. ".... see apes in various stages of evolution today" So by your reckoning, in the analogy above, either you will become your cousins or they will become you?
3. No. Like all scientific theories, Darwin (and subsequent revisions of evolutionary theories) did not choose apes "because they look a bit similar", but because of the evidence available.
4. No, any such serious theory would not be proposed, or quickly discounted, due to the lack of any supporting evidence.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of (the many) theories of evolution, apart from your thinking that humans are "evolved from apes", you don't have a clue as to the difference between 'theory', 'evidence', and 'fact'.
We have theories in other sciences - biology, chemistry, astro-physics.
Even Newtonian physics is not "proven" in your sense of the word - it is based on observable effects, that match the proposed theory.
Try reading about Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, the faults with his theory, about Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Theories.
Then come back and post a sensible question.
You do not offer an alternative, but do you not think it�s a bit more believable than a Big Book of old Stories?
Don't even get me started on fossils........
1. Apes did not "evolve into humans", they share a common ancestor - that is why we have apes and humans. Do you have cousins? Then you share the same grandparents as them. But you do one thing, your cousins do another.
2. ".... see apes in various stages of evolution today" So by your reckoning, in the analogy above, either you will become your cousins or they will become you?
3. No. Like all scientific theories, Darwin (and subsequent revisions of evolutionary theories) did not choose apes "because they look a bit similar", but because of the evidence available.
4. No, any such serious theory would not be proposed, or quickly discounted, due to the lack of any supporting evidence.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of (the many) theories of evolution, apart from your thinking that humans are "evolved from apes", you don't have a clue as to the difference between 'theory', 'evidence', and 'fact'.
We have theories in other sciences - biology, chemistry, astro-physics.
Even Newtonian physics is not "proven" in your sense of the word - it is based on observable effects, that match the proposed theory.
Try reading about Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, the faults with his theory, about Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Theories.
Then come back and post a sensible question.
You do not offer an alternative, but do you not think it�s a bit more believable than a Big Book of old Stories?
Don't even get me started on fossils........
Consider what it is that distinguishes one species from another and you will find many more characteristics that unite them that those which separate them from each other. The differences between many species are profoundly fewer than the similarities. Why is this?
In the case of the human species there is a difference that gives us a uniqueness that is difficult to equal between two related species. The potential ability to reason that overwhelmingly defines the human species has led us down an evolutionary branch that requires the use of that ability to reach the only conclusion that available evidence can justify, that we are here because the nature of reality can not be altered by wishful thinking alone. Before we can alter reality to serve our best interest we must first understand the laws by which it operates. These laws that are revealed through observation and verified through the application of logic are the high ground that science seeks to plant us on for the sake of the benefits that knowledge and understanding provide.
If you desire to see the missing link than take a look at those who have abandoned that which distinguishes us as a species, reason. The evidence is both overwhelming and abounding if you take a discriminating look at those who have and the mischief they wreak upon those of us who appreciate where this evolutionary road has taken us in our most recent past. Without an appreciation for the value than reason has and can continue to provide for us we are destined to leave the world to a species that leaves much to be desired when compared to our simian cousins.
In the case of the human species there is a difference that gives us a uniqueness that is difficult to equal between two related species. The potential ability to reason that overwhelmingly defines the human species has led us down an evolutionary branch that requires the use of that ability to reach the only conclusion that available evidence can justify, that we are here because the nature of reality can not be altered by wishful thinking alone. Before we can alter reality to serve our best interest we must first understand the laws by which it operates. These laws that are revealed through observation and verified through the application of logic are the high ground that science seeks to plant us on for the sake of the benefits that knowledge and understanding provide.
If you desire to see the missing link than take a look at those who have abandoned that which distinguishes us as a species, reason. The evidence is both overwhelming and abounding if you take a discriminating look at those who have and the mischief they wreak upon those of us who appreciate where this evolutionary road has taken us in our most recent past. Without an appreciation for the value than reason has and can continue to provide for us we are destined to leave the world to a species that leaves much to be desired when compared to our simian cousins.
Try this for examples of theory development:
The nature of matter:
Greek: a mixture of air, fire, water and earth. Fits for very rough observations.
Mid 17C: People begin discovering that materials have various componenets that are no the above (A,F,E,W) and are 'indivisable'. Elements and the periodic table come to life - still used today, although we nolonger think of the elements as 'indivisable'
late 19C Begin to discover the electron, etc - proposition of the plub pudding modle of the atom as hard sphear.
Some months/years later - gamma scattering shows that materials are mainly 'fresh air', empty. enter the proposition of the orbiting electron.
Some time later - quantum mechanic enters and solved a few technical problems with the idea of orbiting electrons ....
not so long ago - relativity solves some problems QM has with really large atoms and their electrons......
So we have gone from a A,F,W,E theory to a relativistic quantum mechanical modle of the atom. Most of the stuff along the way was essencially wrong - and perhaps what we have now is not right - it expalins the observations and does not have any serious problems with observations wich cannot be explained.
So E? A theory to explain where we came from? very poor as there are plenty of observables wich it cannot deal with. A theory of how life develops and adapts to its environment? less problems here perhaps.
I maintain that belief is a key aspect of science, though we prefer to use the word 'asumptions'. Generally we make fairly reasonable asumptions, some times we do not. One prob with E is that we will never know, even if we produce a theory that expalins all the observable and has no contradictory observables, wether it really did happen that way....... In my book it still lies in the philosophy cataloge.
The nature of matter:
Greek: a mixture of air, fire, water and earth. Fits for very rough observations.
Mid 17C: People begin discovering that materials have various componenets that are no the above (A,F,E,W) and are 'indivisable'. Elements and the periodic table come to life - still used today, although we nolonger think of the elements as 'indivisable'
late 19C Begin to discover the electron, etc - proposition of the plub pudding modle of the atom as hard sphear.
Some months/years later - gamma scattering shows that materials are mainly 'fresh air', empty. enter the proposition of the orbiting electron.
Some time later - quantum mechanic enters and solved a few technical problems with the idea of orbiting electrons ....
not so long ago - relativity solves some problems QM has with really large atoms and their electrons......
So we have gone from a A,F,W,E theory to a relativistic quantum mechanical modle of the atom. Most of the stuff along the way was essencially wrong - and perhaps what we have now is not right - it expalins the observations and does not have any serious problems with observations wich cannot be explained.
So E? A theory to explain where we came from? very poor as there are plenty of observables wich it cannot deal with. A theory of how life develops and adapts to its environment? less problems here perhaps.
I maintain that belief is a key aspect of science, though we prefer to use the word 'asumptions'. Generally we make fairly reasonable asumptions, some times we do not. One prob with E is that we will never know, even if we produce a theory that expalins all the observable and has no contradictory observables, wether it really did happen that way....... In my book it still lies in the philosophy cataloge.
Have a look at a recent, all be it slightly illiterate, version of this question:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Questio n298153.html
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Questio n298153.html
Hamish
We could spend days discussing the speculation and fudging that abounds in cosmology and quantum physics. Relativity breaks down into a singularity just after the big bang, no explanation, lets chuck out cosmology. Many worlds interpretation of QP predicts perpendicular universes and through its nature it excludes accurate prediction as particles occupy superstates prior to observation so lets get rid of Quantum Mechanics as fanciful new age rubbish. Evolution theory is as robust as any scientific theory, more so than most. Please explain what the "contradictory observables" are that "cause such a problem to evolution theory".
No, we can't be certain of anything. The floor in the next room to you may not exist until you open the door. You may be experiencing the whole of life in a virtual reality machine and in-fact be the only sentient person alive. Certainty means nothing when it is reduced to such absurd levels of proof. I'll leave you with an analogy:
Evidence is the key. Like the popular moon landings question on this site. How do we know they landed? We don't. We were not there. Evidence leads most people to conclude that it happened but it doesn't convince everyone. Who is right? Well, we can't be 100% certain so lets make NASA employees give equal time to the equally valid idea that that the moon landings never happened. My question is: Wont that disrupt NASA's progress in the future?
Vannab why do you think Whales love the water so much? Hint, think about Hippos.
D
We could spend days discussing the speculation and fudging that abounds in cosmology and quantum physics. Relativity breaks down into a singularity just after the big bang, no explanation, lets chuck out cosmology. Many worlds interpretation of QP predicts perpendicular universes and through its nature it excludes accurate prediction as particles occupy superstates prior to observation so lets get rid of Quantum Mechanics as fanciful new age rubbish. Evolution theory is as robust as any scientific theory, more so than most. Please explain what the "contradictory observables" are that "cause such a problem to evolution theory".
No, we can't be certain of anything. The floor in the next room to you may not exist until you open the door. You may be experiencing the whole of life in a virtual reality machine and in-fact be the only sentient person alive. Certainty means nothing when it is reduced to such absurd levels of proof. I'll leave you with an analogy:
Evidence is the key. Like the popular moon landings question on this site. How do we know they landed? We don't. We were not there. Evidence leads most people to conclude that it happened but it doesn't convince everyone. Who is right? Well, we can't be 100% certain so lets make NASA employees give equal time to the equally valid idea that that the moon landings never happened. My question is: Wont that disrupt NASA's progress in the future?
Vannab why do you think Whales love the water so much? Hint, think about Hippos.
D
I think Hamish your philosophy gets a bit shaky where you say "most of the stuff along the way was essentially wrong"
Most of the stuff you mention (after the greeks) was actually essentially right! it was just incomplete.
The discovery of relativity did not affect the moon landings which were all computed with Newtonian physics.
Our knowledge is and always will be incomplete but it's amazingly rare for a new piece of scientific knowledge to completely rewrite a subject.
You also do a bit of a disservice to earlier physicists by implying that plumb pudding models and orbiting electron theories were believed "correct". The physicists who put them forward at the time knew there were serious obvious flaws with them at the time and used them as working assumptions. They still serve their purpose in GCSE unless some bright spark asks why don't the orbiting electrons crash into the nucleus?
If you don't believe in evolution you'll need a better working asumption - Preferably one that explains why we share genes with fish but not as many as we share with apes.
If your theory involves the creation of man in his entirity it also needs to explain where the creator came from otherwise as they say "It's turtles all the way down"
Most of the stuff you mention (after the greeks) was actually essentially right! it was just incomplete.
The discovery of relativity did not affect the moon landings which were all computed with Newtonian physics.
Our knowledge is and always will be incomplete but it's amazingly rare for a new piece of scientific knowledge to completely rewrite a subject.
You also do a bit of a disservice to earlier physicists by implying that plumb pudding models and orbiting electron theories were believed "correct". The physicists who put them forward at the time knew there were serious obvious flaws with them at the time and used them as working assumptions. They still serve their purpose in GCSE unless some bright spark asks why don't the orbiting electrons crash into the nucleus?
If you don't believe in evolution you'll need a better working asumption - Preferably one that explains why we share genes with fish but not as many as we share with apes.
If your theory involves the creation of man in his entirity it also needs to explain where the creator came from otherwise as they say "It's turtles all the way down"
VannaB, just one question: do you believe in the "theory" of gravity?
I'm going to just attempt the first question. The theory of evolution is pretty much the most questioned theory of all time. You're not the first and you won't be last. So lighten up and live a little. Leave this to the scientists. Even they are debating against each other already. Sit back and watch the show.
I'm going to just attempt the first question. The theory of evolution is pretty much the most questioned theory of all time. You're not the first and you won't be last. So lighten up and live a little. Leave this to the scientists. Even they are debating against each other already. Sit back and watch the show.
Evolution in particular and reality in general are not for sell. Neither demand nor care whether we accept their existence. To earn whatever value they have the potential to provide requires that you give them no more and no less respect than they deserve. In the end its all about finding meaning and value in existence, the only place where such can be found.
Evolution is unquestionably a large pill to swallow so don't hesitate to break it down into palatable quantities. That the Earth is round, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that the Sun is but one star among many in one of many galaxies; these are also big pills still today and there are still those who refuse to accept them as reality. Yet some find a way to survive in it will denying its existence.
I have found that those who insist that we swallow their version of reality are demonstrating an insecurity in their own beliefs. They seek to palliate their insecurity by feeding on the insecurity of others. Believe as you wish because you alone derive the benefits and suffer the consequences of that which you hold to be true. It is not what you believe but the consequences of the actions you take in response to those beliefs for which you should and will be held accountable by those who suffer from those consequences when you are wrong and should be rewarded by those who derive benefit from your wisdom provided they understand the benefits when you are right. Ultimately you are the beneficiary of that which you have learned and what knowledge you possess.
Don�t be to quick to discount the value of that which demands the greatest price in learning to understand it. The computer you are now looking at did not simply come into existence with the snap of a finger, it evolved slowly but surely over time from its great great granddaddy, the humble but ingenious abacus.
Evolution is unquestionably a large pill to swallow so don't hesitate to break it down into palatable quantities. That the Earth is round, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that the Sun is but one star among many in one of many galaxies; these are also big pills still today and there are still those who refuse to accept them as reality. Yet some find a way to survive in it will denying its existence.
I have found that those who insist that we swallow their version of reality are demonstrating an insecurity in their own beliefs. They seek to palliate their insecurity by feeding on the insecurity of others. Believe as you wish because you alone derive the benefits and suffer the consequences of that which you hold to be true. It is not what you believe but the consequences of the actions you take in response to those beliefs for which you should and will be held accountable by those who suffer from those consequences when you are wrong and should be rewarded by those who derive benefit from your wisdom provided they understand the benefits when you are right. Ultimately you are the beneficiary of that which you have learned and what knowledge you possess.
Don�t be to quick to discount the value of that which demands the greatest price in learning to understand it. The computer you are now looking at did not simply come into existence with the snap of a finger, it evolved slowly but surely over time from its great great granddaddy, the humble but ingenious abacus.
-- answer removed --
Here are some problems .....
Chyrality, probability, inability to demonstrate conversion of one living species into another, instability of protiens to the condition nessicary in the early soup, abilty to create life in the lab .........
Evolution is not robust, you cannot check it.
You do not need an alternative theory - just to accept the one proposed has several flaws.
Re : disservice to the past - This is exactly my point - many of them knew it was wrong and would admit it .......
Re evedence the key - The moon landings are not an observable explained by a scientific theory. If they where several independent groups would be on their way to take a few photos. Its another one that is down to belief until someone goes to have a look.
Chyrality, probability, inability to demonstrate conversion of one living species into another, instability of protiens to the condition nessicary in the early soup, abilty to create life in the lab .........
Evolution is not robust, you cannot check it.
You do not need an alternative theory - just to accept the one proposed has several flaws.
Re : disservice to the past - This is exactly my point - many of them knew it was wrong and would admit it .......
Re evedence the key - The moon landings are not an observable explained by a scientific theory. If they where several independent groups would be on their way to take a few photos. Its another one that is down to belief until someone goes to have a look.
RE: here are some problems..
"Chyrality"? Do you mean chirality as in symmetry? What do you mean?
"Probability". Again, what do you mean?
"inability to demonstrate conversion of one living species into another" Countless examples in the fossil record of intermediary species. Speciation observed and documented on mice flies vegetables and countless others. See here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sectio n5.html
Lets cut to the chase on this one: Go back to the oldest rocks on earth circa 4bya and no fossils exist. Move forward in stages and we start to get traces of bacteria around 3.4 bya; then the burgess shale gives up the first signs of multicellular life around 580mya; forward 20 million years, first molluscs and worms; 15 million years later, first vertebras; around 400 mya we find the first insects but no land reptiles, birds or mammals; Around 250 mya the dinosaurs. Overlapping with the dinosaurs we have early mammals from 190 mya; Hardwood forests first arrive 65mya. Any variation in this order would be sufficient to falsify the fossil record, none has been found.
"Instability of proteins to the conditions necessary in the ... soup"!! what do you mean?
"Evolution is not robust, you cannot check it". What evidence do you have to back up this statement?
"Chyrality"? Do you mean chirality as in symmetry? What do you mean?
"Probability". Again, what do you mean?
"inability to demonstrate conversion of one living species into another" Countless examples in the fossil record of intermediary species. Speciation observed and documented on mice flies vegetables and countless others. See here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sectio n5.html
Lets cut to the chase on this one: Go back to the oldest rocks on earth circa 4bya and no fossils exist. Move forward in stages and we start to get traces of bacteria around 3.4 bya; then the burgess shale gives up the first signs of multicellular life around 580mya; forward 20 million years, first molluscs and worms; 15 million years later, first vertebras; around 400 mya we find the first insects but no land reptiles, birds or mammals; Around 250 mya the dinosaurs. Overlapping with the dinosaurs we have early mammals from 190 mya; Hardwood forests first arrive 65mya. Any variation in this order would be sufficient to falsify the fossil record, none has been found.
"Instability of proteins to the conditions necessary in the ... soup"!! what do you mean?
"Evolution is not robust, you cannot check it". What evidence do you have to back up this statement?
DNA, the fossil record, morphology. All of this is falsifiable at any time. When DNA was discovered research started to see if its processes and information agreed with the theory of evolution. What creatures would you expect us to share the most DNA with: A giraffe or a chimp?
"You do not need an alternative theory - just to accept the one proposed has several flaws". There are not several flaws to evolution theory, you couldn't name one flaw. An alternative solution would, at the very least, have to explain everything that evolution explains and to the same standard of evidence but in some way improve on the theory of evolution.
Re the moon landings: They are explainable by direct evidence. An alternative theory such as "they were faked" could be considered but through checking the evidence and relying on parsimony one can conclude that faking the moon landings would have been a bigger challenge than landing on the moon. Belief does not enter into it.
"You do not need an alternative theory - just to accept the one proposed has several flaws". There are not several flaws to evolution theory, you couldn't name one flaw. An alternative solution would, at the very least, have to explain everything that evolution explains and to the same standard of evidence but in some way improve on the theory of evolution.
Re the moon landings: They are explainable by direct evidence. An alternative theory such as "they were faked" could be considered but through checking the evidence and relying on parsimony one can conclude that faking the moon landings would have been a bigger challenge than landing on the moon. Belief does not enter into it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.