National Geographic Weighs In On Darwinism [Pic]

Submitted by: Fancys_Asst 7 years ago in Science

Well, it looks like we know what side the respected National Geographic is taking. How long before a NatGeo protest?
There are 156 comments:
Male 610
i agree. Darwin was, and always will be, right. but it`s Tesla who has my heart. i <3 sexy mad scientists
0
Reply
Male 276
"Technically, Darwin WAS wrong about a few things, but evolution really is a fact, and the evidence is overwhelming."

It is NOT a fact, and while i believe in Evolution, it is still just a theory

0
Reply
Male 20
Anyone who doesn`t understand that evolution is as real as they are (but definitely not as stupid) needs to kill themselves. If you catch my genetic drift.
0
Reply
Female 1,324
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -Einstein. Whether we came from apes is questionable to me... But evolution is fact.
0
Reply
Male 388
Technically, Darwin WAS wrong about a few things, but evolution really is a fact, and the evidence is overwhelming.
0
Reply
Male 197
A strange idea; that dust would give birth to us. Do you ever stare in the mirror and think, "what the drat is going on here?"
0
Reply
Male 246
Didn`t disregard his theories - and even if he did it would be irrelevent. Its not the Church of Latter-Day Darwin, its a scientific theory. He`s just one man that happened to get the ball rolling, and since that idea the evidence has continued to support the theory, trial after trial. His ghost could come to life and say he made it all up and it wouldn`t matter, science is based on observations, not mere ideas without evidence.
0
Reply
Male 28
Sorry cman, but Darwin never disregarded his theories. What your little mind is probably referring to is the false claim that Darwin repented on his death bed. This is a false claim that was laid to rest by Darwin`s wife (who was very religious) and children who were actually there.

For those who keep saying the "theory of evolution" you need to work on your terminology. Evolution is a fact of nature. Evolution means that there is a "change in gene frequency over time". This happens each and every time an organism is born. The theoretical part is in describing the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Darwin`s theories of Natural and Sexual selection are the most rigorously tested and scientifically validated of these theories. For anyone who claims that Darwin was wrong I beg you to please stop taking modern antiviral and antibacterial meds, as without the theory of NS they would have never been invented. That will have an added effect of killing-off your stupid

0
Reply
Male 617
yuup. especially after the man who dreamed it all up disregarded it later in life. whatevs.
0
Reply
Male 430
Wow what a gimmicky way to sell magazines.
0
Reply
Female 1,264
I don`t see the problem. I support the phrase that goes something like "God is who, Evolution is how".
0
Reply
Male 95
This won`t bode well for creationist museum ticket sales.
0
Reply
Female 238
Why is this i-a-b material? This is just stating the damned obvious
0
Reply
Male 5,189
NO!

Lol.

0
Reply
Male 5,194
What do you expect National Geographic to say, "ALL DONE BY MAGIC" or something?
0
Reply
Male 264
I remember reading this article when it came out a while back. I saw the question, opened to the right page and started cracking up. It`s not like Nat Geo to be so blunt, but I suppose they wanted to be clear on this one ^__^

Also, Seastone said, "We might all be wrong." I must say that I find that notion more comforting than the idea of any one belief/religion being right.

0
Reply
Female 9
also - as the daughter of a very catholic man, who is also fair scientific about things, if you want to believe God created us, you can trace it waaaayy back, as noone knows the reason the Big Bang happend in the first place. This was the solution i was always given as a small child
0
Reply
Female 237
Darwin was right. Get over it.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Well, it depends on how you believe God was involved in life on Earth. If you believe he made everything exactly as it is, then yes, evolution clearly shows you are wrong.

On the other hand, if you believe that God seeded microbial life on earth millions of years ago, and then evolution took over, then there`s no contradiction there - although it raises interesting theological questions, like why homo sapiens would be apparently so favoured by a god who didn`t even make them.

That whole thing is more the topic of abiogenesis, the study of life arising from non-life. We don`t know exactly how life initially arose on earth, but we do know from the Miller-Urey Experiment that under certain conditions life CAN arise from non-life.

0
Reply
Male 2,307
Also, Christianity and evolution are definitely mutually exclusive. I don`t think that God is inclusive in the theory of evolution AT ALL. In fact, God is not used in one instance of the theory of evolution.
0
Reply
Male 2,307
Vanilla bear...what are you talking about? we`ve found intermediary`s between dinosaurs and birds--in fact, we are certain now they are from the same line, or pretty damn certain.
0
Reply
Male 3
"I agree with yayforme. Often, the comments are much more interesting than the posts and commenting is the main reason I come to IAB."

That`s a really good way to look at things.

And I also agree that religious people (Christians) have pitted themselves against evolution wrongly. The two aren`t mutually exclusive.

Also, I disagree with everything you--yes you, the person reading--this say. hah. My arguing skills are unmatched in this galaxy.

0
Reply
Male 305
Not to get into a debate, but I would have assumed that this would be National Geographic`s stand.
0
Reply
Female 612
Even if they succeed with the LHC, it doesn`t necessarily mean there is/was not a god of some sort in the universe. It could mean that that god created physics to suit his whims and mortals playing with it is something he doesn`t consider a threat, or it could mean scientists are incorrect. The god might have been the spark that started off the Big Bang and evolution. Who knows? We`re not going to know until "the end," whatever it is, so we might as well just get along. We might all be wrong.
0
Reply
Male 943
"we probably never will know for an irrefutable fact what happened unless we run into aliens that live mad long or we run into G/god(s)/esses"

Is that so? Then we better tell those persistent scientists to stop it with those super particle collider

0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote] I agree with yayforme. Often, the comments are much more interesting than the posts and commenting is the main reason I come to IAB. [/quote]

Me too, brother. Me too.

0
Reply
Male 135
well that did not entertain me one bit good sir! i`d kindly like my not-even-half a second back.
0
Reply
Female 365
*yawn*
0
Reply
Female 1,199
Yeah I didn`t mind it at first, but it`s just gone to the point of becoming boring and unoriginal to me. Everyday now I expect a retarded post meant to spark up "lolepic debates" on here, and I see the same kind of posts over and over. Eh, I just think this isn`t a site even meant for debating, considering that I could go to a more elaborate forum meant just for that. -_-;

Anyway... <_<; Have fun, guys. lol

0
Reply
Male 174
@ Omphaloskept

The original-language word translated “circle” at Isaiah 40:22 may also be rendered “sphere.”

@mallowman

Certain Bible translations read, “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version) and “the round earth.”—Moffatt

0
Reply
Male 1,190
I love listening to the Xian morons roll out their silly antiquated concepts ON THE INTERNET!!

I hope the Rapture is going to happen, a world without Xians would be a great one, maybe you could take the Fundie Muslims and Capitalists as well!!!

0
Reply
Female 5,222
....
0
Reply
Male 216
shopped.
0
Reply
Male 3,755
"This is in no way entertaining, it`s just posted up to have people arguing in the comments for no real purpose."

"Is arguing in the comments not a legit way of entertainment? XD"

I agree with yayforme. Often, the comments are much more interesting than the posts and commenting is the main reason I come to IAB.

0
Reply
Male 40
@ vanillabear: "circle" refers to a 2-dimensional object: if the bible was saying the earth was a globe (3-dimensional), it would have said "globe." Taking a basic geometry course may be to your advantage.
0
Reply
Male 181
...and hey! Why is a five year old NatGeo cover story just now showing up on IAB?
0
Reply
Male 485
vanilla, a circle is a flat, 2-dimensional surface. try again
0
Reply
Male 156
"This is in no way entertaining, it`s just posted up to have people arguing in the comments for no real purpose."

Is arguing in the comments not a legit way of entertainment? XD

0
Reply
Male 181
@vanillabear

Erm, circles ARE flat -- you must be thinking of a sphere. And while ancient Hebrew had a perfectly good word for sphere, it did not get used in the Bible in reference to the earth`s shape.

Furthermore, even if some fossils are forgeries, there are plenty of links between dinosaurs and birds; end of story is the appropriate sentiment, but you`ve misread the conclusion...

0
Reply
Male 174
In 1999, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found. End of story.

I really do love reading the National Geographic, I just don`t agree with everything they say. Science in the end will never have all the answers :/

0
Reply
Female 1,199
I have to say, I`m getting really tired of iab`s posts lately. =/ This is in no way entertaining, it`s just posted up to have people arguing in the comments for no real purpose. It`s annoying.

Bleh... And yet I don`t think I will be able to find anything like iab. -_-; I wish I was more internet savvy.

0
Reply
Male 174
@ SarahofBorg

"the bible still says the world is flat."

to the contrary actually, nearly 2,700 years ago, at a time when the so-called learned men were speculating about the earth’s being flat Isaiah wrote “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isa. 40:22)

0
Reply
Male 46
Evolution is like the big bang theory. A lot of it makes sense, everything`s moving apart and it`s slowing down etc etc. Only problem is the formation of galaxies relies on a matter that is not only invisible but is undetectable by any means other than it simply HAS to be there. So either this matter exists because it has to for science to be right or there`s more powerful forces then just us at work. Fact is we weren`t there at the beginning and we probably never will know for an irrefutable fact what happened unless we run into aliens that live mad long or we run into G/god(s)/esses
0
Reply
Female 3,562
"But I`m going to attempt it... here goes... science doesn`t make you believe you are going to suffer eternally in a firey pit if you don`t believe it."
But it does say you`re probably going to die in some form or another if you completely ignore it. Heck, if you don`t believe in science, than how the heck do you explain the internet your posting on? Everyone on the internet believes in science to some degree because their lives depend on believing empirical evidence.

And eKarnage, the bible still says the world is flat. You find me the edge of the earth and I`ll believe your silly little book of fairy tales. The bible is just a collection of metaphoric stories meant to guide people through inspiration, not direct and literal rules.

0
Reply
Male 32
@LazShissou

It`s a little harder to understand on the internet... but we do still use sarcasm....

0
Reply
Male 29
Keep your poo in LazShissou
0
Reply
Female 29
Are you serious, eKarnage? I`m asking before I rant like poo here.
0
Reply
Male 3,755
Science is not biased, but scientists are. Not in this case though.
0
Reply
Female 414
LOL
0
Reply
Female 3,828
lol the "religion of science"
0
Reply
Male 21
Anyone that believes in evolution is dumb. A book that has been translated and modified over thousands of years is definitely more trustworthy than a theory based on an overwhelming amount of data...
0
Reply
Male 2,579
"AHH the RELIGION of science."

That kind of ignorance is amazing to me. Explaining the difference between science and religion to an idiot is impossible.

But I`m going to attempt it... here goes... science doesn`t make you believe you are going to suffer eternally in a firey pit if you don`t believe it.

0
Reply
Male 2,579
Hahaha. Who knew National Geographic had such a dry sense of humor?
0
Reply
Male 256
AHH the RELIGION of science. THey should change the name to contradiction not science or what ever suits your feelings not science. Just change it to match your hypothesis. Science is as much of a religion as any religion out there.
0
Reply
Male 674
Um, Nat Geo taking sides with science... this is surprising, how?
0
Reply
Male 58
@FlameofUdun: Um, by the very definition of science, actually, yes you can. Especially since, right now, in labs, scientists have been watching the effects of evolution happen in real time for years now (see http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/scientis... for just one example). That sounds like conclusive, positive results of a tested hypothesis to me. Case closed.
0
Reply
Male 162
@duffytoler: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Careful there, someone might take offense.
0
Reply
Male 92
Now I concur with every one here that Arkansas is a funny state but this debate is tired and long ago needed to be put to rest. I think every one should show more humility in their life and always seek knowledge.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]that`s a separate field called abiogenesis[/quote]
Aaaa! I see. Learn something new every day, eh? Here at IAB, lolz!
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Religious people, lol! Now they will be placing IED`s at Nat Geo and shooting people like they shot that abortion doctor and... ugh. Not that funny. Religion seems to mainly be so that "believers" don`t feel so bad about murdering other people. They tell themselves everyone has an immortal soul, so when they kill you they think your soul sprouts magic fairy wings and just flies away.
0
Reply
Female 519
I assume by this you mean that nothing is ever said to be 100% correct, because there is always the possibility that new evidence may emerge the next day which disproves something.

Technically you are correct, but the Theory of Evolution has reached the point where there are so many nines after the 99.99999999999% certainty that for practical purposes we can say it is true, in the same way that we would say it`s true that gravity makes things fall towards the centre of the earth.

Yeah.. what he said...

0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]By the very definition of science, you can`t point at evolution and say it`s true.[/quote]

I assume by this you mean that nothing is ever said to be 100% correct, because there is always the possibility that new evidence may emerge the next day which disproves something.

Technically you are correct, but the Theory of Evolution has reached the point where there are so many nines after the 99.99999999999% certainty that for practical purposes we can say it is true, in the same way that we would say it`s true that gravity makes things fall towards the centre of the earth.

0
Reply
Male 1,219
By the very definition of science, you can`t point at evolution and say it`s true.
0
Reply
Male 56
@SPrinkZ:
I get ya. I was using the term in the context of anti-evolutionists, i.e. that a certain structure is so intricate that it could not have evolved by intermediate steps.
Didn`t know that the term was originally coined by the non-crazies to mean something very different. Learn something new everyday.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Oh and also Darwin was wrong on a few details, but mostly for lack of information attainable at the time. Much of what he didn`t understand has been corrected. So yeah, to answer the question, Darwin was wrong sometimes.
0
Reply
Male 2,307
C0CKroaches.
0
Reply
Male 2,307
What is the least evolved? lol if we go by straight up genetic material the amoeba beats us hands down a couple fold. I recently learned that simple trout have 102 chromosomes I believe. We have only 46.

Evolution is not a contest of how much material something has. It is about success if you want to talk about it in the strictest of terms. What survives and what doesn`t. The end. If we nuke ourselves and roosterroaches survive, what would a sentient being assume once it comes to this planet after we`ve irradiated it?

Cockroaches appear to be extremely well adapted to that particular set of circumstances, and thus survived [they may not, who knows?].

Evolution is not teleological, or hierarchical like others have illuminated.

0
Reply
Female 3,562
Really now, nobody would respect NatGeo if they didn`t support evolution. Is this supposed to be a surprise?
0
Reply
Male 86
Have you noticed... how people who believe in creationism tend to look the least evolved?...
0
Reply
Male 2,307
@ MacCanuck

You`re almost entirely correct, but irreducibly complex systems DO exist. They are predicted by evolution. It`s just that there are intermediary forms before it becomes such a delicate, yet intricate system.

For instance, your body is an irreducibly complex system. Take out nearly any organ like your heart, or stomach, or colon, and you will die.

But, that`s not really a fantastic example because one can argue about the appendix, or if you lose an arm--but still. The body is a system that is interdependent, and even the mind is an interdependent system.

Anyway, you`re pretty much spot on, but the term irreducible complexity came from people from the evolution camp, and they twisted it into meaning something entirely different in the creationist camp.

Don`t reject it...

0
Reply
Male 987
"Only fools deny science for a fairy tale."
I don`t think "fool" is a strong enough or precise enough word to display their promotion of idiocracy.
0
Reply
Male 56
(continued)
man was a hoax, sure, but we found out about it. It in no way disproves the existence of the dozens of other fossil homonids, some of which eventually led to humans (eg. Homo habilis, Homo heidleburgensis, Homo erectus).
0
Reply
Male 56
@ukelelemike:
1. The lack of intermediate forms would be a huge problem...if such a lack existed. Your argument indicates a straight-up lack of information that seems to be prevalent in anti-evolution arguments. Look up Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus. Heads up: they`re transitional forms between terrestrial mammals and whales.
2. The assertion of irreducible complexity has never been proven. Take liposomes: not alive, just selectively permeable lipid membranes that have a very basic form of metabolism. And viruses: not really alive either, simple protein shell around RNA. Complex cells have evolved via endosymbiosis.
3. They eye is also not irreducibly complex. It started out as collections of photosensitive cells and has evolved independently several times (a squid`s eye is kick-ass, but very distinct from ours. Same with reptiles).
Finally, archaeological errors (by which you seem to mean fraudulent finds) are not as common as you seem to think. Piltdown
0
Reply
Male 4,290
...which has a lovely illustration of how the eye could have evolved.

Also note that in nature, eyes of all those degrees of complexity can be found, as well as eyes more advanced than our own. You can follow the evolution of the eye through some types of fish as it progresses just like in that diagram.

0
Reply
Female 2,220
Haha, that`s brilliant.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
ukulelemike, that post is so full of fail I feel like you should get an award or something.
Anyway, a point-by-point rebuttal:

1. Here is a long, but incomplete, list of transitional fossils. There are thousands and thousands. Your claim here is simply ignorance.

2. Irreducible complexity has been debunked so many times, I`m just going to give you this standard response.

3. See above, but since the eye is such a creationist quote mine (no doubt you`re thinking of the line "absurd in the highest degree" from Origin of Species, right?), I`ll direct you to this Wikipedia article which

0
Reply
Male 1,141
There are people who try to argue against Darwin`s theory of evolution by saying that "OMG see the word THEORY is in it". But, news flash, theory to the common person means something much more different in comparison to how a scientist uses theory. We say theory when explaining a "conspiracy theory", something which simply hasn`t been proven. But in truth a scientific theory is something that has been backed by immense data and experimentation. Theories are considered as something more close to confirmed, and not merely an idea.
0
Reply
Female 89
lmao. this made me laugh.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Only fools deny science for a fairy tale.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]@almightybob1 I was mostly refering to the initial source of life, which all evolution comes from, waaaaay back. Also the `directions` evolution takes along the way. I know there are may factors which determine survival of the "most fit" (for their environment) not simple chance.
Also it reamians to be seen if being smart helps your species survive or not. If we go extinct in 1000 years then the answer would be "nope!" lolz![/quote]

Ah right, that`s a separate field called abiogenesis. It doesn`t really fall under the theory of evolution. Just thought I`d mention that, and yeah I agree with your last point - it could be our intelligence that ends up ruining us!

0
Reply
Male 236
I liek to think that god got things moving, evolution-wise, and science took over from there.
0
Reply
Male 129
Darwin himself admitted that certain things would disprove his theory:
1: lack of any intermediate species fossils. There should be millions, yet none have been found.
2: The cell disproves Darwin, supposing, as he did, that it was simple in structure, yet has proven to be not only impossibly complex, but irreducibly complex, as well
3: the eye is also irreducibly complex. The cell, the eye, and some animals specifically defy a slow, progressive evolution.
Also, you can`t count out the archaeological errors, and say they have nothing to do with evolution, as it is the fossils that, in most ways, supposedly prove evolution. That so many have been wrong, or falsified, even hidden away, is a serious chink in the evolutionary armor.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@almightybob1 I was mostly refering to the initial source of life, which all evolution comes from, waaaaay back. Also the `directions` evolution takes along the way. I know there are may factors which determine survival of the "most fit" (for their environment) not simple chance.
Also it reamians to be seen if being smart helps your species survive or not. If we go extinct in 1000 years then the answer would be "nope!" lolz!
0
Reply
Male 2,591
everyone knows gawd did it, along with his sidekick, jeebus.
0
Reply
Male 1,081
I`m still surprised when I hear about someone who doesn`t think the theory of evolution is true.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
rook187 - that link relates to Piltdown Man, it has nothing to do with climate change.

And incidentally, Piltdown Man was a hoax which lasted for 40 years, was a single piece of falsified evidence, and was almost exclusively contained within the field of archaeology. The theory of evolution has lasted over 150 years, covers countless thousands of pieces of evidence, and accurately predicts elements of biology, paeleontology, biochemistry, anthropology, chemistry, archaeology etc etc etc. They are orders of magnitude apart.

5Cats - any atheists who say "Random chance!" as you put it do not understand evolution. Evolution is not a random process. It is non-random selection of random mutations.

Crakr - that`s a ridiculous accusation. Darwin was not advocating that we become involved in genocide. He is no more responsible for eugenics than Newton is for ballistic missiles.

0
Reply
Male 695
this is a news flash???
0
Reply
Male 3,425
>CrakrJak

1. Darwinism and the theory of natural selection, and eugenics are barely related, I fail to see what that has to do with anything, let alone disproving his theory.

2. Regardless of the relationship between Darwinism and eugenics, it doesn`t disprove his theory anyway.

3. You can`t cite a YouTube link as a source.

4. You certainly can`t cite a broken YouTube link as a source.

0
Reply
Male 10,440
I used to respect National Geographic! I used to think they had meaningful content! DAMN YOU IAB!! DAMN YOU TO GRE`THOR!
0
Reply
Male 56
@CrakrJak:
The creation of eugenics based on an interpretation of Darwin`s ideas fueled by impure motives does not make the theory of evolution invalid. Saying Darwin was morally wrong (if that`s what you meant) because eugenics was a terrible idea is like saying that the field of virology is wrong because the knowledge gained thereby can be used to make dirty bombs. If you were saying that Darwin was wrong in the sense that evolution is not the mechanism for producing life`s great diversity because it spawned eugenics, that`s apples and oranges, my friend. Evolution is not a philosophy, eugenics is, and the latter has no bearing on the validity of the former.
0
Reply
Male 590
I must be overlooking something stupid here, but for a long time half of the planet was covered in ice. It seems to me like there`s been a lot of warming and a lot of ice melting on this planet for a long time.
0
Reply
Female 364
Hah. This is why National Geographic is awesome.
0
Reply
Male 256
mystery when you live in a place that is going through noticeable climate change you will believe--i used to live in nyc which id say has an average climate--i moved to buffalo a few years back.
in the past starting late december/early january it snows everyday, no sunlight, grey skies, etc for months straight
this year my area has had maybe 3 days of snow since december, sunny days, and its 40 degrees as opposed to the usual 20 something--this was supposed to be an unusually cold winter according to the farmers almanac
theres no real science behind what im saying but i wuld say that there is a climate change (even if its not related to industry/human activity)
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]If you likewise think that Climate Change is not real, you are an idiot.[/quote]
StarDagger`s at it again! It`s called "the weather" SD and it changes all the time. Long & short trends that cause warming & cooling periods that have NOTHING to do with human activity. AGW is fake, myth, scam.
Evolution`s a fact, what drives it is the matter of debate. Random chance! Says the Atheists. God`s Plan! Says the Intelligent Design folks.
Creationists are the ones who hold on to the "created in 6 days" idea. Not 7 days StarDagger, wrong again, eh? *rolleyes*
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Yes Darwin was wrong. His ideas were turned into the Eugenics movement that has killed millions of people. And it still continues to kill thousands of unborn children everyday.

"If you can`t justify your existence, if you`re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you`re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can`t be of very much use to yourself." - George Bernard Shaw

Don`t believe it ? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgpaKkrZe...

0
Reply
Female 423
@MacCanuck

exactly!

0
Reply
Male 3,755
Do people really not believe in evolution? The whole debate seems to be a construct to create debate and, in this case, sell magazines. I know there are stats that show people don`t believe in evolution, but as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." I`ve just never met anyone who really doesn`t believe in evolution.
0
Reply
Male 999
tahts how they get ya
0
Reply
Male 3,425
Lol, I love it. Very anti-climactic. Seriously though, in this age, you can`t deny evolution, and the sooner religion and it`s old fashioned radical ideas die out, the better. I`m not going to mince words, if you don`t believe in evolution, you`re wrong. I don`t understand how people can accept theories like gravity and atomic theory to be correct, but not evolution *only* because an ancient "magical" book says differently.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
educational! ummm...
0
Reply
Male 107
I believe in evolution....so now what?
0
Reply
Male 56
@SilverThread:
You`re thinking of evolution in a very anthropocentric way. Evolution is not a progression towards an ideal, advanced form (us, according to the anthropocentric mindset). It takes you as far as you need to go in order to reproduce (there are trade-offs, but that`s a bit too involved for a comment section). Lizards don`t need to invent language and build cities because they`re doing just fine. Hell, amoebas have been around forever and they`re still single-celled. Simple is not the same thing as unevolved. The same can be said of non-sentience.
0
Reply
Male 15
great, let`s show something from november 2004, cause we don`t have anything better in 2010
0
Reply
Male 160
StarDagger-
I don`t believe in climate change. They say co2 is causing global warming but in the Precambrian period co2 levels were 12-14 times higher than now. We are worried about a 4% increase.
0
Reply
Male 160
The principles of evolution have been directly observed in the laboratory setting. We can make new species of bacteria and do it fairly regularly.
I have meet people who believe in god with scientific degrees, but never in my life have i meet someone that didn`t believe in evolution with a scientific degree. The evidence is truly overwhelming.
0
Reply
Male 1,190
If you likewise think that Climate Change is not real, you are an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 353
"Don`t forget, those Global Warming Scientist proved the Earth was warming too...Oh wait. That data was falsified. "

There is also a political agenda behind this.

0
Reply
Female 265
"Darwin`s theory isn`t wrong but it also hasn`t been conclusively proven."

You`ve got to be drating kidding me, right? I guess tectonic plates haven`t been proven either, seeing as they`re "just a theory". Take a god damned science course.

0
Reply
Male 353
"I never understood how people could not believe in evolution when we have factually documented cases of it happening like drug resistant bacteria. Where do you think those came from if evolution wasn`t real?"

Gawd did it. Didn`t you see the Family Guy episode that had Carl Sagan for rednecks? It explains everything.

0
Reply
Male 1,190
If you think the Earth is 6000 years old and created by a White Guy with a Beard in 7 days you are an idiot, and that is provable!
0
Reply
Male 210
Don`t forget, those Global Warming Scientist proved the Earth was warming too...Oh wait. That data was falsified.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/

0
Reply
Male 712
Darwin`s theory isn`t wrong but it also hasn`t been conclusively proven.
0
Reply
Male 44
I AM EVOLUTION!
0
Reply
Male 2,690
Definitely not going to bother getting into this...
0
Reply
Male 111
I never understood how people could not believe in evolution when we have factually documented cases of it happening like drug resistant bacteria. Where do you think those came from if evolution wasn`t real?
0
Reply
Male 22
This article is from a couple years ago. Where was I-A-B when it came out?
0
Reply
Male 291
this was just a hook to get more readers
0
Reply
Male 1,013
@zero: the value of 2+2 aproaches 6 for large values of 2. does that make the equation incorrect, no. So the bible teaches us that god is an insecure megolomaniac. (he repeatedly says to not follow other gods: insecure, megolomaniac.) So what other gods does he refer to. In a sense, he admits that there are other gods to follow. DOH! Either way, this has no scientific validity over the evidence of evolution.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
I don`t know the extent of the truth, but other creatures have been in the process of evolution far longer than Prime Mates, why then haven`t we seen sign of reptiles that have evolved sophisticated civilizations and complex social hierarchies? Have they reached an evolutionary plateau?

In light of the relatively short time that human beings have been technologically savvy enough to use tools, there have been many other creatures that have been in existence for a far longer period. Why then aren`t they more evolved than we?

I believe in Evolution Theory, but I also believe it is only one facet of the whole truth of our existence. Certainly it discredits many of the creation myths but if those are taken in the context of metaphor the exact nature of our origin remains uncertain.

If self awareness and intelligence are valuable evolutionary traits, why aren`t they as common as fur, teeth, and claws?

0
Reply
Male 3,255
@opiebreath

True, opie, but you don`t have to believe in true, "capital K" knowledge to live realistically. You can be a universal skeptic and still function. Look at Hume, he was an extreme universal skeptic, as in, he wasn`t even fully convinced that when he rolled out of bed in the morning that his feet wouldn`t just go straight though the floor, but he was 99.99999999999999% sure that they wouldn`t.

I`m a universal skeptic, I don`t believe in full-on truth at all. 2+2 might not equal 4 for all I know, but I accept that to live in the modern world, the best thing to do is to follow the lines of logic that best fit in this modern world. I.E. yea, 2+2 is almost assuredly 4, and I will treat it as such, but I wont be so foolish as to claim that I absolutely, unequivocally, 100% know for sure.

0
Reply
Male 363
Lols. Well put, opie. Well put.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
It is so strange that some Americans think upon evolution as something contested.
0
Reply
Male 203
I`m sure I`m not the first person to say this in this thread. But let`s just get one thing clear.

Evolution is real. If you don`t believe so, you are wrong.

I`m not making any judgments on religion, faith, scientific method, or anything like that. The sky is blue, 1+2=3, babies come from sex, and humans share a common ancestor with apes.

0
Reply
Male 51
Oh, ValeX... I never said which side of the argument I took, now did I? I voiced an opinion (which didn`t necessarily apply to you), and you insulted me for it.
Well, somebody is a little oversensitive, it seems.
And you, opie. Let me first thank you for taking the more mature route in an argument. I apologize: I should have been more specific. While there are some things that people can definitely be certain about, I was stating that this is not one of them.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
opiebreath: Stop writing what I`m trying to write better than I could write it!

Jeez!

0
Reply
Male 321
youve just now found this? i read this article almost a year ago, they make a bunch of points that really can be argued
0
Reply
Male 4,290
For those who would like to read it, here is the article. I`ve not read it myself but from a quick skim-through it seems really interesting, a good breakdown of the Theory of Evolution.
0
Reply
Male 181
Evolution and Darwin`s evolution are two different things. A lot of Darwin`s theories are not accepted among modern scientists from what I`ve heard.
0
Reply
Male 14
wow
0
Reply
Female 696
whoa... I like that
0
Reply
Female 15,763
"People can voice their opinions as much as they want, but there`s not really any way to be sure."

Then there`s no way to be sure about anything and everythign is speculation. But if we lived under those philosophical concepts then everything would need to be prefaced with, "In my opinion" and "if" and "according to," and nothing would ever get done.

So yes. We assume some things to be true. We hold the idea that facts are real, and for practicality`s sake, we try and determine what they are.

Welcome to science. It can be fun if you let it.

0
Reply
Male 49
I love how the religion of Atheism jumps on the evolutionary bandwagon to try to prove they are so smart!
0
Reply
Male 27
lelio, you`re an idiot.

No way to be sure? Is there a way to be sure about anything?

Passionate about beliefs? It`s not a `belief`, it`s SCIENCE. I`ll take sounding like a prick over sounding like an idiot.

0
Reply
Male 1,297
btw brimstone, its "amok"
0
Reply
Male 1,297
lol this is silly
0
Reply
Male 2,229
religion is `myth making` run a muck
0
Reply
Male 51
Wow. Bold.
I respect their opinion, though they shouldn`t state it as a fact.
People can voice their opinions as much as they want, but there`s not really any way to be sure.

Also: It`s fine to be passionate about your beliefs, IABers, but realize that there is a point where you stop sounding intelligent and start sounding like a prick.

0
Reply
Male 211
banditwing, Do you only tend to read the headlines? Usually the headline is a sneak peak and the actual information follows. :)
0
Reply
Female 277
The words are really big so it has to be right :)
0
Reply
Male 1,013
There are no sides. Evidence of evolution is all around us. Uhm why can`t we accurately guess the appropriate flu shot each year? Duh, cuz it changes... Why do humans have the same number of hair folicles to our simian friends? (though greek women should bleach). C`mon, evolution (for the intellectual) is quite evident. Stop smearing your faces up a murderous insecure deity`s arse! Evolution doesn`t mean your god doesn`t exist. Stop ignoring science.
0
Reply
Male 1,407
This issue came out in November 2004...and it surprised no one. When it comes to scientific opinion, there really only is one side to this matter.
0
Reply
Male 50
anything written in 98pt font must be true
0
Reply
Male 1,793
religion is funny cause it`s not true....
0
Reply
Male 19
Stoic face salamander for the win.
0
Reply
Male 606
I laugh at religious people and their "Opinions" on evolution. It doesn`t matter what you "believe", because evolution isn`t as low on the scale of knowledge as beliefs are.
0
Reply
Female 129
this is misleading, the article was actually all about how evolution is not wrong at all but people continue to disbelieve due to religion.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
I lol`d.
0
Reply
Female 668
awwww SNAP!
0
Reply
Male 1,764
Well, that was straightforward.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
I actually have this issue lol
0
Reply
Male 548
considering this is 6 years old.. there was no `natgeo protest`
0
Reply
Male 59
im pretty sure this article is article is pretty old maybe 3 or 4 years
0
Reply
Female 386
lol, so many hardcore Christians are going to see the cover and buy the mag....

then they will be so disappointed...

0
Reply
Male 4,014
Um, right.
0
Reply
Male 292
Hahaha thats awesome. Good for them. Standing up for science.
0
Reply
Female 1,780
Link: National Geographic Weighs In On Darwinism [Pic] [Rate Link] - Well, it looks like we know what side the respected National Geographic is taking. How long before a NatGeo protest?
0
Reply