Ask a Question Answer a question Read/Write Articles Rate Members articles | sign up










Home > Other Questions > What is your opinion on...
Annie2879

What is your opinion on evolution?

Average Rating:
Your Rating: 
MiserableBoringEnjoyableInterestingFascinating
 
Annie2879 (Age:25 to 29)     When: 25 days ago
Views: 228     Category: Other
What is your opinion about this topic? Is it true or full of crap?
Answer Question
Report Question  Report Question Email Question  Email Friend Widgets Note This

  Hide Comments What Guys Said
12
What Girls Said
7
 

What Guys Said

Just-A-Random-Guy
784  
Just-A-Random-Guy (Age:18 to 24)      When: 4 days ago
I believe that we evolved from something else. I don't have that big of an imagination where I can picture God snapping his fingers, and six days later, here we are.
Do you agree?
Agree   0 Disagree   0
Report Answer  Report

ilovelegs
452  
ilovelegs (Age:18 to 24)      When: 5 days ago
Well one thing we know for absolutely certainly is that God is creator of all. How he went about it and let it evolve is His business and the moment we die I think we'll quickly see the answer to that. I watched a program on TV recently that made reference to a huge group of scientist from all around the world that concluded that for our universe and all that's in it to have evolved from nothing all by itself to where it is today would be a chance of one (1) in 10 to the 40,000th power. A chance of 1 in 10 to the 50th power is no chance at all! 10 to the power of 40,000 is the number 10 followed by 40,000 zeros. Big chance, huh? So to your question, the theory of evolution is full of crap!!
Do you agree?
Agree   0 Disagree   0
Report Answer  Report

 
Anonymous User
N/A  
Anonymous User (Age:25 to 29)      When: 12 days ago
If I come from a monkey then that explains why my family likes to throw their crap at people.
Do you agree?
Agree   0 Disagree   1
Report Answer  Report

The-Nash
2388  
The-Nash (Age:18 to 24)      When: 18 days ago
I just saw in the news about scientist finding a lung-less frog. That's right, the frog had no lungs, look it up. The frog evolved like this to be able to sink to the bottom of the rivers in Africa, because the currents were too strong at times for the frogs to find habitable (the lungs were like flotation devices, because of the air in the body it gave natural buoyancy to the frog, and carried them to where the river feeds into a bigger body of water, usually salt water which was uninhabitable for the frog). So over time the frogs adapted to their surroundings; adaptation = evolution. And the frog starts it's life as a tadpole, and evolves into a frog.

Now look at this animal called the Aye-Aye: it has long skinny middle fingers compared to the rest. Their middle fingers have adapted to become skinny and long by the way their diet is developed. The knock on tree limbs looking for insects and when they find an area they think has insects in it(which is what they eat) they gnaw a hole in the tree and stick their middle finger in the hole and use it like a hook(because that's what the finger has evolved into), to collect insects/food. And when scientists look at other Lemurs(thats what the Aye-Aye is) and the ancestors of the Aye-Aye, they have regular middle fingers.

Now as for evolution in general, only the strong survive, and you have to be able to adapt (sometimes leading to a change) to survive, and over time it's an evolutionary process.

Now as for humans, there evidence up to a certain point and then it becomes so broad and branches into so many what if's. Now why is that? Where does evolution leave off, and religion, or something else step in? Does evolution leave off somewhere, or have we just not looked in the right places?

I say this because if you find remains of a frog, you most likely found them on land, even though they primarily live & are born in the water. (And you can find remains of frogs in the water too, this is just hypothetical) but what would happen to the theory of people being so closely related to primates along the lines of evolution, if at sometime they found remains of humans who were water bound in some way like the lung-less frog. But that's just hypothetical. (And we are born in an amniotic fluid, and don't use our lungs due to an umbilical chord. ) Or what would happen if they found the missing link out in a desert, then all other evidence wouldn't support it as much as if they found the missing link in the rain forest.

And then you got to think about what makes us different from primates, in a perspective of going back thousands and thousands of years. Monkeys groom themselves in their free time. And sleep. And at some point, humans started to develop speech in their free time, and their vocal chords evolved. And since they were grouping in some way, now they had a way to communicate. Which once you start to communicate, your understanding increases. Leading to a faster pace in adapting to your surroundings.
Do you agree?
Agree   0 Disagree   0
Report Answer  Report
 
Answerer Even if we were tree, or cave dwelling in the beginning, we would have totally different characteristics of the remains found. But they would still look hunched over, and more hairy, and shorter as evidence shows. But I believe humans evolved from humans, we just haven't found the missing link. But were we always daytime beings or were we nocturnal once before? Because I think that will tell us a lot about where to look to find what we are looking for. Different characteristics=new places to look - 18 days ago
Vassar Those things you see with hunch backs carrying clubs are a different kind of human.We did not evolve from those things. They were an experiment gone wrong. - 17 days ago
Answerer Thats why I wrote that humans evolved from humans, and we haven't found what likens us to anything. There are many possibilities, but we also don't know the characteristics of ancient humans. But we did get taller and straighten our posture as some evidence shows. We weren't hunch backs but as we developed tools, the labor was less of a strain on a humans back and their posture straightened out. Now what characteristics did we evolve from before we started to talk and make stuff like ancient tools? - 17 days ago

Vassar
762  
Vassar (Age:25 to 29)      When: 19 days ago
Its just a theory, the Darwinian theory. Its not a fact, do you think that we really evolved from monkeys? Mentally we evolve, the soul evolves but physically we are what we always have been. Our DNA has been manipulated hundreds of thousands of times to create a species
worthy of enlightenment.
Do you agree?
Agree   0 Disagree   1
Report Answer  Report

fishingguy21
96  
fishingguy21 (Age:18 to 24)      When: 20 days ago
It's one of the biggest loads of crap that's ever been so widely accepted...now I could go on, but I think you got the point.
Do you agree?
Agree   1 Disagree   2
Report Answer  Report

Thought-i-had-a-clue
77  
Thought-i-had-a-clue (Age:25 to 29)      When: 21 days ago
It is 100% true. We have evolved from monkeys. One reply asks then why are there still monkeys, well that's a little thing called natural selection, survival of the fittest. If you are really interested in this you should read Darwin's theory, very interesting.
Do you agree?
Agree   0 Disagree   1
Report Answer  Report
 
f15x28 Lol, I think you should read Darwin's theory. He never said we evolved from monkeys. - 18 days ago

f15x28
602  
f15x28 (Age:18 to 24)      When: 21 days ago
We evolve as individuals: our beliefs change, our opinions change, our attitude towards life changes. I think this is the only evolution that matters.
Do you agree?
Agree   2 Disagree   0
Report Answer  Report

RFRFRF
1145  
RFRFRF (Age:25 to 29)      When: 24 days ago
Not to be rude but I personally don't care. It doesn't matter to me and doesn't seem to affect me and doesn't change on if I'm human or not.
Do you agree?
Agree   0 Disagree   0
Report Answer  Report

Selected as Best Answer
Leon-Skylark
329  
Leon-Skylark (Age:18 to 24)      When: 24 days ago
I believe in micro-evolution. I believe that years ago, perhaps people needed more hair on their body because they spent more time outside with less clothes than needed. Natural senses in the body made up for what people didn't have. They grew more hair

However, I do no believe in evolution as it is implied on here. Why would monkeys still be here if we evolved from them? Micro evolution proves that when an animal develops something new. . or different, the whole species in that demographic area would undoubtedly gather the same traits. Thus, if a monkey and a human colony grew up together, essentially, the monkeys would get smarter, less hairy, grow taller, develop vocal skill to speak English and higher brain capacity to actually understand more. I find this all entirely too far fetched. Yes, we do have similar genes. . . however, margarine and plastic are one molecule away from each other. . . does that mean one evolved from the other? I don't think so.
Do you agree?
Agree   1 Disagree   2
Report Answer  Report
 
AJtogo If you believe in micro evolution then you also believe in macro evolution; the only difference is that one takes place over a few generations rather than thousands of years. Your drivel about monkey and human colonies is hebetodinous. - 18 days ago
Answerer Incorrect. I do not believe in macro evolution. The difference is not just time and scale. The difference I would be arguing is specie. I do not believe that one animal can evolve into another(macro), more directly, I don't believe that humans evolved from apes, chimps, or gorillas.

My analogy served it's purpose. Prove it incorrect.

- 18 days ago
AJtogo Stating that you do not believe in macro evolution is fallacious. You obviously do not understand the mechanisms of either if you can accept one but not the other. Your statement about humans evolving from apes, etc proves your lack of understanding of the concept. Chimps and gorillas are classified as apes, then there's monkeys, a different group, and then humans. We all descended from a common ancestor and evolved along different branches of the same tree. No room to prove you wrong! - 16 days ago
Answerer Why would there be two different words for a belief or system that was the very same thing? That would be like saying, "because you like rock music, you must also like rap"

Why would two species evolve differently in the same environment? Does this mean if I choose to live in a forest I would grow fur and a tail? Not a chance. . .

You're making a great deal of assumptions. - 16 days ago
AJtogo Your understanding of grammar is equal to your understanding of evolution.

Questioning the validity of a theory is perfectly acceptable, but you are obviously in possession of an organ that you are incapable of using.

All theories are based upon assumptions, hence the hypothesis in the experimental process. In the case of evolution, there is more evidence to support the hypothesis than there is to disprove it.

You're arguing against a theory that you don't even understand. - 15 days ago
Answerer 1. ) I am not arguing, I am explaining my faith. You were the one that kindly decided to challange my belief. You have also made it a point to attempt to insult me every single time.

2. ) I wasn't questioning a theory, what I say is my belief of fact.

3. ) You have disproved your effectiveness in truth. You aren't seeking, you're just throwing other ideas away. I've given reasons why I believe, and you turn them down. What are you trying to prove?

- 13 days ago

 
Anonymous User
N/A  
Anonymous User (Age:25 to 29)      When: 24 days ago
I can never understand why people don't just believe both things at the same time.

If you believe a deity created everything, maybe science is a way that you are able to witness first hand how he/she got it done. Maybe all of prior evolution was just a way to test out new creations. Most likely after humans die out, the deity will have fun creating new species.

Personally I don't put any stock in "holy scripts. " They were written by people needing answers, or needing a set of rules to rule over other people with. You already have the answers you need in life. We all came from a common direction, we all end up heading the same direction in the end. No one really knows the reason why or how of life. Just go out and live it.
Do you agree?
Agree   1 Disagree   0
Report Answer  Report
 
AJtogo You cannot believe in both opposing positions at the same time. One is true and one is not. To do so is hypocritical. You are even stating your belief by not putting stock in scripture. As well, there's no scientific evidence to explain or support creationism. - 24 days ago
Answerer You didn't understand what I meant then. If a deity created everything, said deity created science as well, to allow his creations to better understand the process. Evolution is nothing more than the deity created different versions of life. My added thought to this all was that people are being arrogant and thinking humans are superior to all of the other things in life. Created, or not. Obviously neither side of this debate can come up with a final answer, so why beat a dead horse? - 24 days ago
AJtogo Uhmm. NO, man created science to satisfy his curiosity about his environment. And man is superior to all other known forms of life. And there will be a final answer. Evolutionists have been discovering more evidence to support the evolution theory since its first publication. The creationists have been using the same rhetoric since the debate began. Nothing new, same crap, it's in the bible. - 24 days ago
Answerer There are those that think life is just mathematically explained away as well. So if the capacity for science already existed in life; mankind, or something else, would eventually discover how to use science anyways. Science exists, even without an entity practicing it. I agree that the "superior" statement is a whole different argument. - 24 days ago

AJtogo
1391  
AJtogo (Age:Over 45)      When: 25 days ago
Of course it's true. Is this some kind of Scopes Monkey Trial question? There is too much scientific evidence to ignore.

Science vs. The bible. Because the bible is based on faith it will lose this argument every time. Anyone who chooses faith over fact is delusional. This is not knocking a belief in God or a higher power because this does have a place in people's lives. But to ignore fact because it doesn't follow the teachings of the church is nonsense.
Do you agree?
Agree   0 Disagree   1
Report Answer  Report
 
Question Asker Personally I think its a lie. I don't believe that I came from a monkey I believe that god created me. - 25 days ago
Answerer And it's your ignorance about evolution that is allowing you to say that. Evolution does not state that we descended from monkeys. It states that apes, monkeys and humans took different evolutionary paths but descended from a common ancestor. In that evolution, monkeys split and evolved from that line long before apes did. Hence our closest evolutionary ancestors are the apes. I can provide scientific facts to these statements. All you can do is point to a line in the bible. Wake up! - 25 days ago
Question Asker Just because scientist said we evolved from whatever and came up with "scientific Evidence" then people take it as fact. If we evolved then how did the evolving cells now what to become if someone or something did not tell them, If you believe in that then why is so dang hard to believe in a God, And it was not ignorance it was a mistake I did not mean to say monkeys I had meant to correct but computer freaked out and would not let me change it> - 25 days ago
LessthanLisa Have you ever looked at some humans? Lol, I don't know about anyone else, but I've seen some that look a hell of a lot like a monkey. Not that far fetched of an idea, if ya ask me. - 25 days ago
Answerer There's your ignorance again. Evolution begins at the cellular level with a mutation of the genetic code. The mutation is either good and allows the organism to better adapt to its environment or its bad and the organism dies out without passing that trait on to the next generation. You're right about one thing, the scientific evidence is fact supporting an unproven theory but it still is fact. What evidence can you produce to support the biblical story of creation? - 25 days ago
Question Asker If its fact then why is it every web site I look up evolution on it says the "Theory of evolution" if its fact a theory is not a fact its an idea. - 24 days ago
Superstrength79 Because millions of religious people won't allow it to be called anything but a theory. It would upset the delicately balanced belief structure. - 24 days ago
Answerer It's called a theory because it is unproven. Theories can change over time as new evidence is discovered that supports or disproves it in part or in whole. For example, when Darwin first published his theory of evolution he did not know by what means change occurred, he only observed the changes. Since then we have discovered that it is at the genetic level that change happens and this evidence further supports the theory. Your belief in creationism has no evidence to support it. - 24 days ago
Question Asker