A Look at the Past and Present of Darwin's Theory
In 1800, over 99 percent of all people believed in some sort of creationism theory to explain life on this planet. In 1930, the scientific basis for Darwin's Theory began to take hold and show some support in favor of it. In 2005, A Research Center looked at American beliefs and found that 50 percent of Americans still favored Creationism as the most acceptable explanation for life, while the other roughly 50 percent, preferred some form of the evolutionary theory instead.

Thats 50% not 2%


Wrong......A British poll featuring the viewpoints of some 2,060 folks of multiple ages who were asked to express their beliefs on the subject of the evolution of the world. Once again the results were quite shocking. Only 25 percent of all participants believed Darwin's Evolutionary Theory was without a doubt the most logical explanation to life on this earth, while the other 75 percent either said they were either unsure if the theory was acceptable, outright rejected it in favor of creation or intelligent design, or had beliefs which consisted of a combination of popular/unpopular theories.



so 2% please......get a grip

Not Sorry and more and more people are debunking this theory. It is still theory James....there is no iron clad proof...and if so please show me...I would be beyond happy to look at it...

Scientist are interested in grants and keeping their bogus theories alive.

It all comes down to the mighty buck....and it started off that way also. And in order to keep it alive and keep the money rolling in they had to fool the public...bring it in to the schools......Pathetic

You insult my God.....and he is God....your precious scientist are just men...James...just mere mortal men who make mistakes.

Did I bring Religion into this at all...hmmmmmm


NO I DIDN'T

I said EVANGELICALS. This number is from 2003 4,984,925 Those were the "Loose Canons" I mentioned that take the bible literally.

Now would you like me to list all of the denominations of Christianity that do accept the Theory of Evolution like the Roman Catholics?

I don't think you know what a theory is.
I am glad it's a thoery.
The earh revolving aroud the sun is a theory.
Do you not believe that because it's a theory?
If you said it's just a theory to any scientest he would look at you like you just grew another head.
A theory is pretty damn sound.
When a scientist says theory you can take it to the bank. So when you say evoultion is a theory you are saying that it's true.
And I agree.

Common ancestry is not a mere assumption: many verifiable evidences support it. The 96 – 99% identity between the human and chimp genomes, with us then being slightly less related to gorillas, then to orangutans, then to monkeys, etc,; the presence of a postanal tail, notochord, premaxillary bone, pharyngeal slits,
and fish-like arrangement of aortic arches, in our embryos;
the fusion of 2 ancestral ape chromosomes to create human chromosome 2; derived shared characteristics (such as trichromatic vision);
phylogenetic trees based on sequences of the GULO pseudogene and other DNA sequences;
the shared 55-bp deletion that disabled the GBA gene in humans, chimps, and gorillas, whereas orangutans have a functional GBA gene without the 55-bp deletion; the presence-absence pattern of 100 SINEs;
the shared presence and matching locations of numerous retroelements (which could have inserted just about anywhere in the genome if they transposed independently in the different, allegedly genetically unrelated species) – for example, 7 Alu retroelements in and just outside of the beta globin cluster in humans and chimps, and the HERV-K’s; etc.

They're not "my scientists" Feral.

Also, if you claim that you aren't bringing religion into it, then what's you're theory of how life got started on planet earth?

If you have a workable theory that doesn't require a magical God then you should submit it to the world of science I'm sure they would be quite interested.

On the other hand, if your idea is that some particular myth might be true, then they would want to look at that myth and check if for its validity.

And let's face it, we all know precisely what your game is.

Then when we start pointing out the flaws in the myth you start screaming, "You're bashing my myth! You're bashing my myth!"

But look at you!

By your own standards you're "bashing" the entire scientific community and all their hard work and effort to uncover the truth in the most honest and sincere way possible.

This is truly beyound silly.

What is your non-religious ulternative explanation for life on Earth?

You posted this topic in the General Religion forums.

You know darn well that it would be laughed out of the Science forum.

The first question would be; "Please give us an alternative theory".

What would you do then?

Without an ulternative theory you have NOTHING.

You're only ulternative theory would be to suggest that some creation myth might be true, and then you'd point to one (we all know which one of the myriad of creation myths you'd point to).

In fact, the next question would be "Why that myth".

I personally like pantheism. It's a nice creation myth and it's in complete harmony with the scientically observed process of evolution.

So my preferred creation myth doesn't even conflict with the real world observations.

Everything's in perfect harmony just as it should be.

My preferred creation myth (since we are on the topic) is that the first living thing was P'an Ku. He evolved inside a gigantic cosmic egg, which contained all the elements of the universe totally intermixed together. P'an Ku grew by about 10 feet each day. As he grew he separated the earth and the Sky within the egg. At the same time he gradually separated the many opposites in nature male and female, wet and dry, light and dark, Yin and Yang. These were all originally totally commingled in the egg. While he grew he also created the first humans. After 18,000 years the egg hatched and P'an Ku died from the effort of creation. From his eyes the sun and moon appeared, from his sweat, rain and dew, from his voice, thunder, and from his body all the natural features of the earth arose.

This one is Chinese and dates back around the 6th Century CE.

Abracadabra, long time no see. Do you know anything about the theory of evolution originating from Helena Patrovna Blavatsky?

The '... they ...' ('how long have they been denouncing') you are referring to 'feral', are neither competent nor credible.

It is almost entirely poeple like you 'feral', US christian fundamentalists, whom represent 0,00262% of the WORLD'S CHRISTIAN POPULATION have been denouncing the Theory of Evolution with fanatical fervor since the late 1800's, coinciding with the emergence of Industrial age MODERNITY, and contradicting the verbatim of the bible.

As for the misleading comment about '... even taking back teaching it in schools...', you need to update your 'important information bank'.

Again, mostly bible inerrancy fundamentalists (0,00262%) have been running campaigns of disinformation in many school boards of several states, with the intent of forcing the teaching of creationism according to 'genesis' in science classes.

Over the last decade, all attempts from creationists have met unfavourable States Court rulings, declaring the intent unconstitutionnal, and thus prohibiting the teaching of creationism in schools.

It was followed with a recent unfavourable ruling from the Supreme Court, as all efforts deployed by the bible-inerrancy fundamentalists were found to be unconstitutional on several counts (google it and add it all to your already impressive bank of information).

So again, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted worldwide, and even 99,97% of world christians accept Darwin's legacy.

Only 0,00262%, an insignificant trace, persist in vain and unfounded evolution and science bashing.



You'll have to support this claim a bit better 'feral'. But heck, with this impressive bank of information you're sitting on, it should be a walk in the park for you.

The questions from most of those polls, are very tricky and deceptive. If you don't show the polls you are referring to, I'm afraid this comment amounts to 'pool room gossip'!!!



Not me 'feral', I can read right through you 'doll'!!! (I 'like' it so much when you call me doll, I figured you wouldn't mind I reciprocated).

You are misleading the people for whom you are performing your 'Effective Outreach Ministering', or better known as proselytizing.

Misinforming the good people whom are seeking objective and factual information, is dishonest.

My mother and father taught me from early on, to always give the fullest information, in the most honest manner possible, and trust those I pass the information onto, to come to the right decision, ... on their own term.

No proselytizing (big manipulative 'sales-job') required.




If you came to that conlusion, I would tell you that this was a very hasty conclusion worth your revisiting.
Lamarck deserves a whole lot better than '... full of it...', coming from you. Should you leave 1/1000th of the contribution Lamarck made to humanity, I'll make sure personnally, that nobody ever suggests you were '... full of it ...'!!! Until such a time though, you will need to work on your basic research skills.



I would make the same observation to you concerning Darwin, as I made to you concerning Lamarck.

As for both your comment '... both people don't hold water with me...', you just simply have no clue what you're talking about.

Concerning Darwin and the Giraffe, he was proven wrong alright.
But this had nothing to do with his theory of evolution, nor did it have anything to do with questionning whether or not the Giraffe had indeed evolved, but rather, it focused on the specific hypothesis Darwin made about the premise under which the giraffe's neck had evolved.

Darwin had originally speculated on the idea that natural selection chooses animals that are best able to feed on the highest treetops, where food is most abundant and competition minimal, to explain the evolution of the giraffe's neck.

But, low and behold, a novel alternative proposed by Simmons and Scheepers (1996) suggests that the increased neck length has a sexually selected origin.
Giraffe males fight for dominance over females by clubbing opponents with their massive heads and necks. This intrasexual combat is called “necking” through which larger-necked males gain the greatest access to estrous females and thus, have a greater contribution to the genetic makeup of the next generation.
The most recent explanation is most plausible since it provides better evidence for evolution.

That's what your research, from your extraordinary banks of formidable information, should have yielded.

Can hardly conclude with the '... full of it...', and '... don't hold water...' epithets you have misappropriated to Lamarck and Darwin.

As for applying those comments to EVOLUTION itself, not only does it not apply,
it is the complete opposite: discussing the exact hypothesis and premise under wich the neck of the giraffe evolved, implicitely CONFIRMS the evolution of the giraffe.

So you see what I mean 'feral', if you're not carefull nor rigorous with the research and the manner in which you understand or misunderstand the information you treat, you can easily become an accessory in misinforming and misleading trusting and unsuspecting people.

I trust you'll make every effort to put in the correction.

I never heard of her before, but I just did some research on her. It appears that she's basically a pantheist. She believes that all is one.

However, at the same time she preaches that all religions have some elements of truth. From that point of view she supports all religions has having some value. However, at the same time she seems to be denouncing their details as the demagogurey of men.

I couldn't find much on her views of evolution other than she seems to feel that there is an 'intelligent design' driving the evolution simply because it appears to be driving toward 'higher life forums', or at least more complex lifeforms.

From what I've read her conclusions would basically be inline with science and while she embraces a fundamental truth in all religions she seems to also denounce dogmatic details.

Personally I've always felt that such a stance toward religions amounts to nothing more than social politeness.

It's like saying, "I recognize the validity of your religion as long as you don't expect me to believe in the details."

I'll go along with that.

As far as evolution I couldn't find anything specific regarding any 'theories of evolution'. All I could find was a brief statement that she feels that there must be an intellence at work to drive evolution toward more complex life forms.

I think this is an intuitive feeling that most people have. I'm not sure if intuition qualifies as 'Theory'.

Physics has offered an explanation for for the complexity of evolution via the law of entropy. Entropy actually supports evolution in the universe. It drives evolution contrary to popular belief. Many people think that Entropy states that things will aways tend to disorder, but that's not true. They only tend to disorder in a closed system. Because our universe is both expanding and has the property of gravity, this allows for complexity to develop natural. This is the driving force of complexity.

However, having said that, this only explains the temporal unfolding of evolution, it doesn't explain the design of the atoms, which is a far more interesting issue as far as I'm concerned.

However, it's pretty clear from what I've read just now that Blavatsky accepts evolution.

That's all I can see from a brief search.

The only thing that is quite clear is that Blavatsky is a pantheist who strives to be 'politically correct' by embracing all religions at least on some superficial level.

I couldn't find any specific information on evolution other than she seems to be convinced that there is some driving intelligence behind it.

But I think even atheist scientists would agree with that, and then the discussions turn to what we mean by 'intelligence'?

Does intelligence require consciouness?

I think many mathematicians and phiolosophers would say no, it doesn't.

In other words, an ability to percieve is not required for 'intelligence'.

Evolution doesn't need to answer questions. All it needs to do is create them. And that doesn't require consciouness.

Elena Petrovna Gan, Russian Empire London), better known as Helena Blavatsky or Madame Blavatsky, born Helena von Hahn, was a founder of Theosophy and the Theosophical Society.

Theosophy is a doctrine of religious philosophy and metaphysics originating with Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891). In this context, theosophy holds that all religions are attempts by the "Spiritual Hierarchy" to help humanity in evolving to greater perfection, and that each religion therefore has a portion of the truth. Together with Henry Steel Olcott, William Quan Judge, and others, Blavatsky founded the Theosophical Society in 1875.

I think you are confused sir.

When you say that "Evolutiob is cientific fact" - are you refering to Macro, micro, or both?

Religions do not believe in evolution - individuals do. Just because someone who is a Catholic believes that Evoluiton exists - does not mean it represets christendom. Your premise also presumes that Catholicism is equated with christainity. This is only so on an individualistic level - not the group as a whole.

I did not say "believe". You did.

Krimsa said:



Catholics do "believe" in Jesus, the virgin Mary and the same god that you do.

You cant state that micro evolution exists and then reject macro entirely. If I told you to walk across the street could you do that? What about if I asked you to walk to the next town over? Is that impossible?

yay for FWB!!!



Sorry wrong thred

I thought I would jump in on this one since it appears that you have caught the post I wrote, addressing that 'intreresting' apologetic comeback line.

There is only evolution 'eljay'. And it covers the ('Good-God') Micro just as much as the ('Evil-Satan') Macro!!!

Go back a few, and read my post on tht point.

Its the same process! Just add water and a million years shake well and serve. Evolution does not continue or move forward at a gradual or steady rate. It can slow down or speed up. The punctuated, or rapid change periods, were presumably the result of major environmental changes in such things as predation pressure, food supply and climate. During these times, natural selection can favor varieties that were previously at a comparative disadvantage. That is why some animals evolved very little because they did not require a substantial adaptation beyond what they had already achieved. The shark is an excellent example. Sharks adapted to where they were and the conditions but for no other reason. They swim, they eat, and they make more little sharks. It worked out fine for them in the long run.