Do you believe Human Evolution By Sir Charles Darwin or we're God's creation?

[jekko]

---

so imong pasabot ang theory ni charles darwin kay we are not create by god?

yes. mao ma ni ang theory ni charles darwin na gkan ta sa Ape...

[Jhared]

yes. mao ma ni ang theory ni charles darwin na gkan ta sa Ape...

Perhaps this is the most common mistake people make when referring to Darwin's Theory and Evolution itself., at which some theists would gladly jump at disputing, sometimes in the most hilarious and sarcastic manner..

but such assumptions are erroneous to begin with, Charles Darwin himself never really drew this sort of conclusion, in one of his books he clearly expressed that man descended from an ancient group of specie that also gave birth to monkeys as we know of them today.. in other words dili ta gikan sa apes..

[yhokz101]

yes. mao ma ni ang theory ni charles darwin na gkan ta sa Ape...

on which still cannot be proven true.. hence a theory.

[jekko]

this would be contrary from the general mis concept about Sir Charles

Charles Darwin said humans evolved from monkeys.
It was a struggle for Darwin to decide whether or not to include his thoughts on human evolution in his publications. He knew they would be controversial and while he had some superficial evidence and a great deal of intuition about the subject, he at first shied away from explaining how humans had evolved. Eventually, he did write The Descent of Man and explained his hypothesis of how humans evolved. However, he never said that humans evolved from monkeys and this statement shows an overall misunderstanding of the concept of evolution. Humans are related to primates, like apes, on the tree of life. Humans are not direct descendants of apes or monkeys, however, and belong to a different branch of the family tree. It would be more accurate to say that humans and apes are cousins to put it in familiar terms.

therefore Charles didn't conclude na gkan ta sa ape.. they are jsut our cousins

- - - Updated - - -

yes still theory,, still not a fact

[yhokz101]

every life forms in this planets should be considered our cousins... even the maggots and worms, those slimy little bugs. just saying

we live in one planet..

- - - Updated - - -

every life forms in this planets should be considered our cousins... even the maggots and worms, those slimy little bugs. just saying

we live in one planet..

[rics zalved]

Exactly, mutation is an evolutionary process so is adaptation.. it's not a misconception, but is actually evolution in it's microbiological level, the true face of evolution itself.. which if summed up results to, well, human adaptation, mutation, etc..

whether nakuhaan, naswap, ni adapt,.. that's all part of the evolutionary process.. studies have shown, by examining the Moken children's pupils, that they have sensibly better vision underwater than everybody else., which goes to show that they have adapted well enough that this genetic specialty have been passed on to their children.. which also goes to show that in fact their genetic structure or DNA have been altered, and that my friend is evolution.. the same is also true with the Tibetans..

pero still ang kana nga mga process dili na makapahimo nato into another specie kay same genetic codes ra ang gigamit

ceremony? or some sort of cleansing as what the bible literally said.. if so, then it still, is part of the healing process, some sort of indispensable final touches..

nagsymbolize na siya ang blood sa Blood ni Christ though di pa klaro sa panahon nila kay si Christ sa New Testament pa man nagpakita

[makal34]

wala pa diay ni nag human na topic..pila nman ka thread ang na close..

[libido]

==read mode==..kay wala pa sila mag daog gyd anang evolution thingy.

[Jhared]

pero still ang kana nga mga process dili na makapahimo nato into another specie kay same genetic codes ra ang gigamit

you're not seeing the whole picture.. like i said, evolutionary change is very minute in large species such as humans, significant change can occur in like milleniums, given that the external stimulus and environment directly affecting it does not change.. it takes a lot of time before we transition into what we may consider as a different specie.. you cannot expect science to show us an evidence that shows dogs growing wings or something in one lifetime, it does not work that way.. and we cannot surely make this incapacity to observe evolution to support biblical claims., that's fallacious hypothesis..

and one thing you should know about our working genetic code is that it is only 2% of our whole genome, meaning that only 2% of our genes are actually activated, 20% of our genes serves as regulatory, and the remaining %, well, just waiting to be regulated, which goes to show that our body can take any form depending on necessity,.. so there you go..

nagsymbolize na siya ang blood sa Blood ni Christ though di pa klaro sa panahon nila kay si Christ sa New Testament pa man nagpakita

i dunno about that, the bible did not say that..

[Jhared]

this would be contrary from the general mis concept about Sir Charles

Charles Darwin said humans evolved from monkeys.
It was a struggle for Darwin to decide whether or not to include his thoughts on human evolution in his publications. He knew they would be controversial and while he had some superficial evidence and a great deal of intuition about the subject, he at first shied away from explaining how humans had evolved. Eventually, he did write The Descent of Man and explained his hypothesis of how humans evolved. However, he never said that humans evolved from monkeys and this statement shows an overall misunderstanding of the concept of evolution. Humans are related to primates, like apes, on the tree of life. Humans are not direct descendants of apes or monkeys, however, and belong to a different branch of the family tree. It would be more accurate to say that humans and apes are cousins to put it in familiar terms.

therefore Charles didn't conclude na gkan ta sa ape.. they are jsut our cousins

- - - Updated - - -

yes still theory,, still not a fact

on which still cannot be proven true.. hence a theory.

This is an issue which actually confuses a lot of people.. just because a certain proposition is called a theory it doesn't really mean we should dismiss it., and just because something is considered a law, that does not mean it is better than a theory..

Newton's Law on gravity, is called a law because it can be expressed in a mathematical equation accurately, but is it better than Einstein's theory on Relativity? no it is not, because while Newton's law calculates the falling of an apple, Einstein's theory explains why and how it falls., Newton's theory is only good enough to allow us to fly planes, and fly to the moon and back, but beyond that it is completely worthless., Einstein's theory extends that understanding..

It is just a theory that electrons under the copper elements in your cellphone are excited so as to produce the display in the screen when you text,. but we rely on that theory to invent things that makes our lives easier, and we have done so effectively..