What is your opinion on evolution?

[nygreenguy]

Im curious as to what everyones specific beliefs/opinions are on this topic. However, a belief w/o justification is useless, so please throw your $.02 in!


I know this has been discussed ad nauseam here, but Im now and wanna get a better feel of CURRENT feelings, not old ones!

[FinalEnigma]

I voted option one, abiogenesis and natural selection. however, I claim no certainty that abiogenesis was the mechanism for the origins of life. I'm not certain that i even provisionall accept it, because I don't think we can possibly know how life started here on earth. there are too many possible different ways. someday we may discover how it occurred, but I don't see how we could.

[RockerunderGod]

Evolution is something that refers more to the evolution of our consciousnesses whereas Natural Selection is the physical aftermath of the evolution of consciousnesses and the improvement of bodies. This is all divine intervention--Adam and Eve were the first two people, but it goes far more back than what people think. And this includes the Physical World; it wasn't always as dense as it is. Matter, in fact, only became locked in density in 11,457 BC. If you have questions, tell me. This is esoteric knowledge.

[McCulloch]

Evolution is something that refers more to the evolution of our consciousnesses whereas Natural Selection is the physical aftermath of the evolution of consciousnesses and the improvement of bodies. This is all divine intervention--Adam and Eve were the first two people, but it goes far more back than what people think. And this includes the Physical World; it wasn't always as dense as it is. Matter, in fact, only became locked in density in 11,457 BC. If you have questions, tell me. This is esoteric knowledge.

I have a feeling that I will regret this but how do you know these things?

[JoeyKnothead]

Evolution is something that refers more to the evolution of our consciousnesses whereas Natural Selection is the physical aftermath of the evolution of consciousnesses and the improvement of bodies. This is all divine intervention--Adam and Eve were the first two people, but it goes far more back than what people think. And this includes the Physical World; it wasn't always as dense as it is. Matter, in fact, only became locked in density in 11,457 BC. If you have questions, tell me. This is esoteric knowledge.

I have a feeling that I will regret this but how do you know these things?

Hang on, lemme get my coffee...Ok rocker, rock on.

[nygreenguy]

Evolution is something that refers more to the evolution of our consciousnesses

Bacteria evolve and they do not have consciousness. Heck, we still undergo mutation to many parts of our body outside of our brains.

whereas Natural Selection is the physical aftermath of the evolution of consciousnesses and the improvement of bodies.

Ummm proof?

[nygreenguy]

I voted option one, abiogenesis and natural selection. however, I claim no certainty that abiogenesis was the mechanism for the origins of life. I'm not certain that i even provisionall accept it, because I don't think we can possibly know how life started here on earth. there are too many possible different ways. someday we may discover how it occurred, but I don't see how we could.

At first I was going to say there is no other way THAN abiogenesis, but I forgot there are many valid ideas that think it was extra-terrestrial.

Do you think it was at least natural, or was the supernatural involved?

[McCulloch]

At first I was going to say there is no other way THAN abiogenesis, but I forgot there are many valid ideas that think it was extra-terrestrial.

But that just pushes the problem to a different location. Did life arise from a natural process, wherever it developed (abiogenesis) or did it need a supernatural agent (creationism)?

[nygreenguy]

At first I was going to say there is no other way THAN abiogenesis, but I forgot there are many valid ideas that think it was extra-terrestrial.

But that just pushes the problem to a different location. Did life arise from a natural process, wherever it developed (abiogenesis) or did it need a supernatural agent (creationism)?

While I dont think we can scientifically "prove" where it came from, we can/have shown that it can come naturally.

Also, logically we must assume a natural origin (oocam's razor) and because we have no evidence that it came from, or could come from a supernatural source.

[FinalEnigma]

I voted option one, abiogenesis and natural selection. however, I claim no certainty that abiogenesis was the mechanism for the origins of life. I'm not certain that i even provisionall accept it, because I don't think we can possibly know how life started here on earth. there are too many possible different ways. someday we may discover how it occurred, but I don't see how we could.

At first I was going to say there is no other way THAN abiogenesis, but I forgot there are many valid ideas that think it was extra-terrestrial.

Do you think it was at least natural, or was the supernatural involved?

Oh natural of course, else I would have voted differently on the poll.

[realthinker]

I think there's enough evidence of biologically compatible compounds occurring beyond Earth to suggest that they could combine naturally to produce life. I don't think it's a strong case yet, but it's more of a case than anything else I've heard. I think we know that the early Earth saw a great number of extreme conditions, many of which we cannot fully understand enough to replicate in a lab. The variations of temperature, atmospheric and terrestrial chemical makeup, plus electrical, solar energy input make for some extraordinary situations that could lead to any number of strange developments. In my mind, it's enough for me to accept abiogenesis as the source of life on Earth. I don't go beating that drum, but if pressed, that's what I'd admit to.

Evolution, however, I do not doubt in the least.

Even should abiogenesis never be proven I don't think I could accept any of the religious stories. It may be a similar story, but the extra consequences that come with religion are something I think are truly fictitious. It's religion I have the most trouble with, more than the idea of a creator.