Expelled - The Movie

[Squeezer]

But whats the harm of searching any other avenue, it seems if you arent discussing Darwinism they your outcasted. If you can find any other evidence to support other ideas why not look into them? Seems the science community is canning it because they rather not be wrong.

There is harm in instilling the idea "God chose this," into our schoolchildren as a viable explanation for anything. Evolution is a theory supported by evidence, not by story. You teach theory in school and leave faith to home life.

No other way

[Burnt]

When you tell me man has evolved from an ape, I look at an ape and I look at a man.

Humans didn't evolve from an ape, but men and the other great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas,orangutans) have common ancestors. Just like black people and white people have common ancestors. Just like a brother and sister have most recent common ancestors (their parents.) We know this through DNA evidence, the closer the DNA, the more recent the most recent common ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_re...ommon_ancestor.) Since chimpanzees have the most similar DNA to humans, it is logical to conclude they are human's closest living relatives.

If the theory of evolution states that unfavorable traits are discarded, why are there still apes if we are superior to them (which we are)?

The other great apes are still around mainly because there are still parts of the world that they live in that humans have not expanded to. However if current trends continue humans will continue to expand and the other great apes will more or less die off. Currently there are only about 500,000 great apes (chimpanzees (300,000 or less), gorillas (175000 to 225000) and orangutans (14000-25000) left in the wild, meaning there are already about 13600 humans for everyone 1 chimpanzee, gorilla or orangutan.

Why, then, would there be nothing in between man and ape that had survived for many generations?

Ever hear of the Neanderthal? Read up on them if you wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Neanderthals are between the other great apes and humans on the evolutionary tree. Chimps are between Gorillas and humans. Gorillas and chimps are between humans and Orangutans, etc.

PS. I'm no expert and I'm sure my answers to your questions could be clearer, but I tried. I suggest reading up on the subject on wikipedia.

[genocidal]

Awful thread; my contribution

Seems the science community is canning it because they rather not be wrong.

That's the whole point of intelligent design - it's not "wrong" or "right." You either believe there is an "intelligent designer" or you don't. That's why it has nothing to do with science. That's why scientists think it's retarded.

[HateTheFake]

But whats the harm of searching any other avenue, it seems if you arent discussing Darwinism they your outcasted. If you can find any other evidence to support other ideas why not look into them? Seems the science community is canning it because they rather not be wrong.

[Izor]

I can comprehend a lot of things...but youre still not addressing my major point which is the fact that despite all the evidence pointing to evolution, there are still things that have not been explained in it. In the other thread I mentioned dinosaurs and how until recently everyone thought they were killed off by an asteroid. In fact, thats what I learned about them in school. It was science's best guess at the time. In fact it just evolution just doesnt make much sense to me because in our lifetime weve seen many different species of the same animal (different breeds of dogs, maybe a new type of caterpillar) but with as much as mankind has changed the ecosystem youd think something would have evolved from it to survive better. I understand this process takes thousands of years but look how much the world has changed in 1000 years, and yet basic life forms are the same.

EDIT: When you tell me that the earth revolves around the sun, I can believe this because the sun is much larger than the earth and its gravity would pull us. The same with the moon revolving around us. The evidence is right in front of me and clear. When you tell me man has evolved from an ape, I look at an ape and I look at a man. Not only is the chimp inferior in brain power, but its physical characteristics are much different from that of a human as well. If the theory of evolution states that unfavorable traits are discarded, why are there still apes if we are superior to them (which we are)? Why, then, would there be nothing in between man and ape that had survived for many generations? If all the evolutions in between were unfavorable, how did we manage to survive? None of that evidence is clear. There is only speculation and some shady evidence to back up any side

[Vykromond]

How do you go from apes to humans without a very long transition process in between? There would be some half man half ape (can the racist jokes for now ) for a very long time while this mutation occurred, but its not documented anywhere. Theres nothing to prove this. You just believe in it because you want to.

lol dude im begging you (not really)

LEARN STUFF

read a book, watch educational tv, i dont care, whatever

i think youre not as stupid as your posts on the internet initially indicate, but you just dont know very many things and its setting u back

this has been a Care Post

on another note

hey louis xl

hows things

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

(See also, Expelled - The Board Game for Pre-Teens)

[Louis XV]

How do you go from apes to humans without a very long transition process in between? There would be some half man half ape (can the racist jokes for now ) for a very long time while this mutation occurred, but its not documented anywhere.

Not documented anywhere? We've been digging up fossils like this (and dating them) for a while now. Note that they aren't necessarily a direct line of ancestors from chimp-human to human; most of them are likely 'dead-ends'. (Just like many people who existed thousands of years ago have no surviving descendants).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

Theres nothing to prove this.

Also don't forget that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If that were true, one could technically 'prove' that God/tooth fairy/what have you doesn't exist. If you are trying to disprove something, you need negative evidence (evidence that contradicts), and/or a theory with more positive evidence.

You just believe in it because you want to.

I don't want to believe in anything except that which is best supported by the evidence. Though I have been thinking about getting one of those UFO "I want to believe" posters.

And I think you mean the sun rises and sets because the earth is spinning

I'm just an ape that can't think before typing, leave me alone.

[Izor]

The sun rises and sets because the earth goes around the sun

And I think you mean the sun rises and sets because the earth is spinning

Dont try to act smart in the future.

[Izor]

The only reason those other "truths" aren't debated as much is because people have trouble accepting the idea that they are just physically weak, really smart apes.

How do you go from apes to humans without a very long transition process in between? There would be some half man half ape (can the racist jokes for now ) for a very long time while this mutation occurred, but its not documented anywhere. Theres nothing to prove this. You just believe in it because you want to.

[Louis XV]

Like I said in the other thread, theres not enough evidence to prove it is true. It's the scientific community's best guess.

What amount of evidence is required for 'proof'? Is there any? By such a standard nothing can be considered true. Such a view doesn't really help us with everyday life. Might as well be a nihilist and not believe in anything, since nothing can be proved.

But even if we ignore that for the moment and accept that there are differing degrees of 'truth'... Truth is defined as conformity to reality. Evolution is the 'truest' explanation for the diversity of life - 150 years worth of experiments/observations, along with millions of years of deposited fossils, do not refute it.

For someone like me who sciences it up every day, it's amazing that anyone could, in the face of all we know today, deny it. Given that we've sequenced various genomes, it's a very simple matter (based on very simple mathematical models) to build trees that show chimps and humans descending from one ancestor, rhesus monkeys descending from that ancestor as well, gorillas, up through mice/rats, dogs, reptiles, sea squirts, jellyfish, etc. It's really quite beautiful how every living thing on earth is related.

Let me sum up the theory of evolution as we know it today (note: this is NOT "Darwinism" as DNA was not known to exist in Darwin's time)

1) DNA replication is not perfect. An organism's descendants will have mutations. <-- variation
2) Some of those variations make them more successful at producing offspring <-- selection

As a result, certain mutations die out, others persist. Species change. That's all you really need. That's it. It's very simple. 1 + 1 = 2. Is a creature exactly the same as its parents? Nope. Continue that process for millions of years. The creatures will change, especially if their selection pressures change. This has been observed in microbes and in fruit flies, among other organisms. A few decades ago someone noticed that one strain of fruit flies could no longer breed with another; speciation in action.

Creationism - the belief that everything was created all at once in one specific way, and hasn't changed since, is riiiidiculous. Might as well say the sun goes around the earth. Furthermore, the concept of a creator is unfalsifiable - we cannot prove or disprove its existence using science; therefore, it is a waste of time for scientists to entertain the idea.

Ultimately, yes, you are right, it's the scientific community's best interpretation of the facts:

The sun rises and sets because the earth goes around the sun
Things fall because matter attracts matter.
Different species exist because organisms' descendants adapt to different environments better than others.

Damn that post was long, but I just wanted to throw out there the reasons why "whether evolution happens" is no longer being debated (among sane people). Its level of truth is on par with heliocentrism and gravity.

Addendum:
The only reason those other "truths" aren't debated as much is because people have trouble accepting the idea that they are just physically weak, really smart apes.

[Izor]

Whereas the theory of evolution not only helps us solve real biological problems and answer real biological questions, it has been continuously supported by evidence from day one.

Like I said in the other thread, theres not enough evidence to prove it is true. It's the scientific community's best guess.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

There is no adequate explanation for penguins in the Bible, therefore they do not exist.

[Louis XV]

[*] There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

Evolution does not address the origin of life. The theory you are attempting to refute is abiogenesis.

[*] The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. [/LIST]But does anyone not agree that science shouldnt have put barriers on themselves. Let say they open up the discussion to intelligent design and have been given the chance to research it with todays technology. It certainly has to be better than research from 150 years ago. And if it isnt and it is a complete fail, then evolutionist get what they want in the end. I think the movie was very clear in explaining this.

The fossil record is incomplete; it takes very special conditions for a living thing to become mineralized. Most life forms that have ever existed on this planet have not been preserved for our benefit. You have cited the "god of the gaps" fallacy. There will always be gaps in the fossil record because by definition there must be a transitional organism between any two organisms. Therefore you can always say 'oh there's a missing transitional form'.

I don't understand your claims about fossils of hominids being hoaxes; please cite examples.

Intelligent design is worthless. Its answer to every question is 'god did it'.

"How are we going to find a vaccine for AIDS?" "god did it"
"Let's cure cancer" "god did it"
"Why does X animal have Y feature" "god wanted it that way"
"Why do microbes develop resistances to drugs" "god is punishing us for allowing homosexuals to exist"

Whereas the theory of evolution not only helps us solve real biological problems and answer real biological questions, it has been continuously supported by evidence from day one.

And to anyone who might say that ID is not the same thing as Creationism, think again. Omnipotent/omniscient designer = "God." Evolution is central to modern day biology, especially molecular biology. You might as well tell chemists that atoms don't exist - everything is really made up of tiny angels that God put there. So shut up and stop asking questions about the way the world is, the world is the way God made it.

[HateTheFake]

vyk-

Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
2. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

But does anyone not agree that science shouldnt have put barriers on themselves. Let say they open up the discussion to intelligent design and have been given the chance to research it with todays technology. It certainly has to be better than research from 150 years ago. And if it isnt and it is a complete fail, then evolutionist get what they want in the end. I think the movie was very clear in explaining this.