Okay, so there's a misconception here that "evolution" is just new species spontaneously being created overnight. In reality, evolution doesn't happen within one organism. Animals' necks don't stretch because they need to reach higher plants; rather, the animals with naturally longer necks can reach those plants, while the animals with naturally shorter necks can't and thus starve. So basically, evolution happens in a species, not in any specific organism/animal. We say things like "and humans evolved to have hips because it made carrying stuff like food or babies easier," but our ancestors didn't really "choose" to have hips. Rather, humans who had hips had an easier time gathering food and taking care of offspring, so they had more kids with hips, who then had more kids with hips, etc. etc.
The way evolution works is basically that in a community of a certain species, those with the genes and traits that are best suited to survival are more likely to survive and thus reproduce/further pass down those specific genes. So over a long period of time, like thousands or even millions of years, certain unfavorable traits die out simply because the animals with those traits don't survive long enough to have kids and pass those down. And the animals with traits that are more favorable to survival, like longer necks for giraffes who need to eat from tall trees, or sharp beaks for birds who need to eat seeds from small crevices, tend to survive long enough to have more kids with those traits (longer neck, sharper beak, etc.). Those kids then have more kids, while the animals with shorter necks or wider beaks might not get enough food and thus starve to death. Does that make sense? Basically, natural selection is just when animals that are more likely to survive do survive and pass down their traits. And since DNA, which codes for traits like beak width and neck length and a lot of other things, is passed down from parent to kid, the more favorable alleles (the genes that code for certain traits) will go on to make up a larger percentage of the population.
I don't know how good I am at explaining, so I hope that made sense... a common example is the peppered moths; some moths are lighter-colored, while others are darker-colored. Before the Industrial Revolution, most trees were covered with lichen, which mean their bark was a very ligh white-ish color. This meant that lighter-colored moths blended in/camouflaged with the trees, while the darker-colored moths stood out and were easier for birds to see, peck off, and thus eat and kill. Over time, more lighter-colored moths survived and got a chance to reproduce, so we saw the moth population become predominantly light-colored. When the Industrial Revolution happened, however, a lot of smoke and ash covered the trees near big cities, making the bark darker-colored. This meant that the lighter-colored moths now stood out, while the few darker-colored moths that had survived the years of evolution were camouflaged. The birds now were more likely to eat the lighter-colored moths, which meant the moth population near cities became more skewed towards the dark-colored population. Does that make sense...?
And also, there is plenty of evidence and fossil records of in-between species, species that existed while certain animals were evolving, like dinosaurs to birds or monkeys to humans. The cavemen from millennia ago were considerably more ape-like, with more hair all over their bodies and curved backs/protruding jawbones. It was only through thousands of years of evolution that more favorable traits grew more frequent/prominent. And the reason that monkeys, chimps, apes, etc. still exist is called divergent evolution, which is when two groups in the same species follow different paths of evolution because of different environmental, social, etc. pressures. For example, one group of a species might migrate across a mountain range, or to an island off the mainland; this would isolate the two groups, and since the definition of a species is a group that can reproduce fertile and viable offspring (basically that the offspring that can grow up and have more kids of its own), a geographic factor preventing two groups from having offspring together would prevent their alleles from mixing. Also, something else: today's monkeys/apes/chimps/etc. aren't our ancestors; they're more like our cousins. All of these species originated from a common ancestor species that lived approximately 14 million years ago, just like both you and your cousins originated from your grandparents, who lived two generations ago. Asking why chimps still exist, or asking why they don't just evolve into humans, is like asking why your cousins don't look exactly like you/look more like your grandparents than you do, or asking why your cousins' children don't look like you.
So wow, haha, that was a lot... I hope that all makes sense? There are a LOT of examples of evolution online, as well as articles that explain it a lot better than I do, so you can just look it upmand read some real-life examples of evolution in action. Hope that helped?
Those are all great points and I'm glad you brought them up!
First, I think by "random chance" refers to the origin. Where did this all come from in the first place? Was it always here, or did it just appear out of nothingness? Did things collide to make it happen, and if so, where did those things come from? From that perspective, I think the word "random" is appropriate. To say that there was a purpose to it would beg the question of "Who's purpose?".
I'd also like to point out that I feel the Bible is the most reliable/historically accurate historic text, even by secular standards. Something I learned in my science class is that "science can't 'prove' anything, it can only disprove". You can find so much evidence for something, but clear evidence against it can sometimes tells you much more. So, in my opinion, the most reliable theory is not necessarily the one with the most evidence for it, but the one with the least evidence against it. Or, pretty much none at all, preferably.
Another thing, which I think the admins (sort of) mentioned, is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God with science. Science is the study of the natural, while God is supernatural. He created science. (of course, if that's what you believe)
For example, I could find all sorts of data that backs up the Bible or supposedly suggests the existence of God using science, but I cannot conclusively prove it. In the same way, you could present all the evidence for evolution there ever was and it would not at all disprove His existence.
This is my personal belief and my thoughts on this issue. This in no way is intended to represent the belief of all Christians, and I acknowledge that I could be and probably am wrong on many counts. This is for the purpose of debate and not at all to bash or judge anyone.
Long story short, I think evidence against instead of for is more informative and conclusive in such a debate, as long as it remains harmless and respectful as it should on here.
Again, this is all my opinion and anyone can debate however they like, voicing theirs as well. No judgement from me. :)
0
submitted by Jwyn, age 15 (August 5, 2020 - 2:04 pm)
Believe in evolution or not! It's your choice! Zahava is right. There isn't a reason you can't believe in both. And there isn't a reason you can't believe in a specific one. Personally, I believe that there is both.
I am not Christian, nor have I read the Bible. That doesn't mean I don't respect your beliefs. I identifiy as agnostic- I don't know if there's a God/Goddess or if there are multiple gods/goddesses, and I personally don't think either claim can be proven.
I do believe in evolution. Alice, Coulson, and DoodleGirl summed up my beliefs nearly perfectly.
I am not going to waste my time trying to prove that to anyone who has conflicting beliefs because I think that everyone has the right to believe whatever they'd like to and also I don't necessarily think they are wrong.
If you feel open to understanding evolution or maybe changing your mind about it or whatever, do your own research! If you want book recommendations explaining the theory, than cool! I'd be glad to give you them.
The other thing is that there is a reason it's called the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution. As humans haven't invented time travel yet, we have no idea what actually happened- all we can do is speculate. I choose to believe in that theory because the evidence supporting it makes sense to me.
Fine if you don't agree, I'm not going to spend time trying to convince you otherwise. So sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intent. Sorry if you don't agree, but like I stated earlier, believe what you want to believe!
Thank you for your time.
0
submitted by Luminescence, age XI, California (August 6, 2020 - 6:06 pm)
There are several people on here who have already made most of the points that I was going to make (namely, Coulson, Doodlegirl, Alice, and Luminescence), so I won't bother repeating them. I am not a religious person, and I'm not going to try and debate anyone on if there's a god or not because that would be pointless and hurtful and I don't think it would change anyone's mind.
I will say, however, that I've never understood why believing in evolution is up for debate? You have the right to believe what you want to, I guess, but I think not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity, or believing that the earth is flat. There's just so much overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution exists and is an active process still happening today, and I don't see how anyone could so easily dismiss the sheer quantity of research that proves it. People try and dismiss the theory of evolution because it's just a "theory", but in science, "theory" means something that has already been proven, not just a guess for what might have happened. The only reason evolution can't be a law is because scientific laws must be backed up by mathematical formulas and there's no way to calculate evolution.
Sure, there's the slightest bit of doubt about evolution (and I mean slight), but that's just how science operates. If we believed everything we saw with 100% certainty, we'd never question it and think to learn more about it. People think that science aims to know everything conclusively, but in reality it's the opposite - scientists know that we don't and can't know everything, which is why we're always testing the bounds of what we know and learning more. Science can't explain everything, but it doesn't claim to either. One of the greatest things about humans is how we've figured out so much about how the world works. Maybe you don't believe me, but I think that's pretty cool.
0
submitted by Gecko, Here (August 7, 2020 - 10:37 am)
Yes, exactly! I've heard a lot of people saying that logic and science are "cold" and "hard," but in reality, really understanding the way things work is pretty breathtaking in and of itself!
Also, to those people who really don't believe in evolution... what alternate theory does the Bible present to explain speciation, extinction, and the fossil records of the "in-between species"? There's nothing about evolution that says God doesn't exist, and science hasn't conclusively proved or disproved that, so you can definitely believe anything you want with regards to that... I just think, that with regards to the unknown and the things we can't prove, faith can fill in those gaps, and there's no reason anyone could tell you to not believe that because, well, they can't prove anything otherwise. But when you get to the elements of faith that contradict science or well established facts... I just feel like, objectively, the side with a lot more evidence and logic is more likely to be true.
Sorry if I offended anyone; I definitely didn't mean to!
Okay, so there's a misconception here that "evolution" is just new species spontaneously being created overnight. In reality, evolution doesn't happen within one organism. Animals' necks don't stretch because they need to reach higher plants; rather, the animals with naturally longer necks can reach those plants, while the animals with naturally shorter necks can't and thus starve. So basically, evolution happens in a species, not in any specific organism/animal. We say things like "and humans evolved to have hips because it made carrying stuff like food or babies easier," but our ancestors didn't really "choose" to have hips. Rather, humans who had hips had an easier time gathering food and taking care of offspring, so they had more kids with hips, who then had more kids with hips, etc. etc.
The way evolution works is basically that in a community of a certain species, those with the genes and traits that are best suited to survival are more likely to survive and thus reproduce/further pass down those specific genes. So over a long period of time, like thousands or even millions of years, certain unfavorable traits die out simply because the animals with those traits don't survive long enough to have kids and pass those down. And the animals with traits that are more favorable to survival, like longer necks for giraffes who need to eat from tall trees, or sharp beaks for birds who need to eat seeds from small crevices, tend to survive long enough to have more kids with those traits (longer neck, sharper beak, etc.). Those kids then have more kids, while the animals with shorter necks or wider beaks might not get enough food and thus starve to death. Does that make sense? Basically, natural selection is just when animals that are more likely to survive do survive and pass down their traits. And since DNA, which codes for traits like beak width and neck length and a lot of other things, is passed down from parent to kid, the more favorable alleles (the genes that code for certain traits) will go on to make up a larger percentage of the population.
I don't know how good I am at explaining, so I hope that made sense... a common example is the peppered moths; some moths are lighter-colored, while others are darker-colored. Before the Industrial Revolution, most trees were covered with lichen, which mean their bark was a very ligh white-ish color. This meant that lighter-colored moths blended in/camouflaged with the trees, while the darker-colored moths stood out and were easier for birds to see, peck off, and thus eat and kill. Over time, more lighter-colored moths survived and got a chance to reproduce, so we saw the moth population become predominantly light-colored. When the Industrial Revolution happened, however, a lot of smoke and ash covered the trees near big cities, making the bark darker-colored. This meant that the lighter-colored moths now stood out, while the few darker-colored moths that had survived the years of evolution were camouflaged. The birds now were more likely to eat the lighter-colored moths, which meant the moth population near cities became more skewed towards the dark-colored population. Does that make sense...?
And also, there is plenty of evidence and fossil records of in-between species, species that existed while certain animals were evolving, like dinosaurs to birds or monkeys to humans. The cavemen from millennia ago were considerably more ape-like, with more hair all over their bodies and curved backs/protruding jawbones. It was only through thousands of years of evolution that more favorable traits grew more frequent/prominent. And the reason that monkeys, chimps, apes, etc. still exist is called divergent evolution, which is when two groups in the same species follow different paths of evolution because of different environmental, social, etc. pressures. For example, one group of a species might migrate across a mountain range, or to an island off the mainland; this would isolate the two groups, and since the definition of a species is a group that can reproduce fertile and viable offspring (basically that the offspring that can grow up and have more kids of its own), a geographic factor preventing two groups from having offspring together would prevent their alleles from mixing. Also, something else: today's monkeys/apes/chimps/etc. aren't our ancestors; they're more like our cousins. All of these species originated from a common ancestor species that lived approximately 14 million years ago, just like both you and your cousins originated from your grandparents, who lived two generations ago. Asking why chimps still exist, or asking why they don't just evolve into humans, is like asking why your cousins don't look exactly like you/look more like your grandparents than you do, or asking why your cousins' children don't look like you.
So wow, haha, that was a lot... I hope that all makes sense? There are a LOT of examples of evolution online, as well as articles that explain it a lot better than I do, so you can just look it upmand read some real-life examples of evolution in action. Hope that helped?
(August 5, 2020 - 12:30 pm)
In response to Coulson, DoodleGirl, and Alice:
Those are all great points and I'm glad you brought them up!
First, I think by "random chance" refers to the origin. Where did this all come from in the first place? Was it always here, or did it just appear out of nothingness? Did things collide to make it happen, and if so, where did those things come from? From that perspective, I think the word "random" is appropriate. To say that there was a purpose to it would beg the question of "Who's purpose?".
I'd also like to point out that I feel the Bible is the most reliable/historically accurate historic text, even by secular standards. Something I learned in my science class is that "science can't 'prove' anything, it can only disprove". You can find so much evidence for something, but clear evidence against it can sometimes tells you much more. So, in my opinion, the most reliable theory is not necessarily the one with the most evidence for it, but the one with the least evidence against it. Or, pretty much none at all, preferably.
Another thing, which I think the admins (sort of) mentioned, is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God with science. Science is the study of the natural, while God is supernatural. He created science. (of course, if that's what you believe)
For example, I could find all sorts of data that backs up the Bible or supposedly suggests the existence of God using science, but I cannot conclusively prove it. In the same way, you could present all the evidence for evolution there ever was and it would not at all disprove His existence.
This is my personal belief and my thoughts on this issue. This in no way is intended to represent the belief of all Christians, and I acknowledge that I could be and probably am wrong on many counts. This is for the purpose of debate and not at all to bash or judge anyone.
Long story short, I think evidence against instead of for is more informative and conclusive in such a debate, as long as it remains harmless and respectful as it should on here.
Again, this is all my opinion and anyone can debate however they like, voicing theirs as well. No judgement from me. :)
(August 5, 2020 - 2:04 pm)
Believe in evolution or not! It's your choice! Zahava is right. There isn't a reason you can't believe in both. And there isn't a reason you can't believe in a specific one. Personally, I believe that there is both.
I am not Christian, nor have I read the Bible. That doesn't mean I don't respect your beliefs. I identifiy as agnostic- I don't know if there's a God/Goddess or if there are multiple gods/goddesses, and I personally don't think either claim can be proven.
I do believe in evolution. Alice, Coulson, and DoodleGirl summed up my beliefs nearly perfectly.
I am not going to waste my time trying to prove that to anyone who has conflicting beliefs because I think that everyone has the right to believe whatever they'd like to and also I don't necessarily think they are wrong.
If you feel open to understanding evolution or maybe changing your mind about it or whatever, do your own research! If you want book recommendations explaining the theory, than cool! I'd be glad to give you them.
The other thing is that there is a reason it's called the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution. As humans haven't invented time travel yet, we have no idea what actually happened- all we can do is speculate. I choose to believe in that theory because the evidence supporting it makes sense to me.
Fine if you don't agree, I'm not going to spend time trying to convince you otherwise. So sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intent. Sorry if you don't agree, but like I stated earlier, believe what you want to believe!
Thank you for your time.
(August 6, 2020 - 6:06 pm)
There are several people on here who have already made most of the points that I was going to make (namely, Coulson, Doodlegirl, Alice, and Luminescence), so I won't bother repeating them. I am not a religious person, and I'm not going to try and debate anyone on if there's a god or not because that would be pointless and hurtful and I don't think it would change anyone's mind.
I will say, however, that I've never understood why believing in evolution is up for debate? You have the right to believe what you want to, I guess, but I think not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity, or believing that the earth is flat. There's just so much overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution exists and is an active process still happening today, and I don't see how anyone could so easily dismiss the sheer quantity of research that proves it. People try and dismiss the theory of evolution because it's just a "theory", but in science, "theory" means something that has already been proven, not just a guess for what might have happened. The only reason evolution can't be a law is because scientific laws must be backed up by mathematical formulas and there's no way to calculate evolution.
Sure, there's the slightest bit of doubt about evolution (and I mean slight), but that's just how science operates. If we believed everything we saw with 100% certainty, we'd never question it and think to learn more about it. People think that science aims to know everything conclusively, but in reality it's the opposite - scientists know that we don't and can't know everything, which is why we're always testing the bounds of what we know and learning more. Science can't explain everything, but it doesn't claim to either. One of the greatest things about humans is how we've figured out so much about how the world works. Maybe you don't believe me, but I think that's pretty cool.
(August 7, 2020 - 10:37 am)
Yes, exactly! I've heard a lot of people saying that logic and science are "cold" and "hard," but in reality, really understanding the way things work is pretty breathtaking in and of itself!
Also, to those people who really don't believe in evolution... what alternate theory does the Bible present to explain speciation, extinction, and the fossil records of the "in-between species"? There's nothing about evolution that says God doesn't exist, and science hasn't conclusively proved or disproved that, so you can definitely believe anything you want with regards to that... I just think, that with regards to the unknown and the things we can't prove, faith can fill in those gaps, and there's no reason anyone could tell you to not believe that because, well, they can't prove anything otherwise. But when you get to the elements of faith that contradict science or well established facts... I just feel like, objectively, the side with a lot more evidence and logic is more likely to be true.
Sorry if I offended anyone; I definitely didn't mean to!
(August 7, 2020 - 4:05 pm)