De ce sustineti unii evolutia si mintiti ca e un fact stiintific?
"Realitatea este că numeroase persoane cu un nivel ridicat de instruire - inclusiv numeroşi oameni de ştiinţă - pun la îndoială veridicitatea teoriei evoluţiei."
Evolutia nu prezinta deloc suficiente dovezi,ba chiar ar fi inexistente.
Si chiar si asa,cand ne referim la aparitia vietii,evolutia nu ofera nici un raspuns referitor la aparitia vietii, comparativ cu teoria creationista.
Ordonare:
Cronologică
"Realitatea este că numeroase persoane cu un nivel ridicat de instruire - inclusiv numeroşi oameni de ştiinţă - pun la îndoială veridicitatea teoriei evoluţiei."
dovedeste ceea ce afirmi, sunt curios, poate i explici si lui papa de la roma care afirma -evolutia este un fapt, dumnezeu nu este un magician
Răspunde
Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[18][19][20][21][22] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70, 000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32]
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The brief also stated that the term "creation science" as used by the law embodied religious dogma, and that "teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education".[33] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign a petition up to that point.[34] According to anthropologists Almquist and Cronin, the brief is the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[22]
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[35][36][37][38] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130, 000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[21] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[39][40]
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[1]
Votes, resolutions and statements of scientists before 1985
One of the earliest resolutions in support of evolution was issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1922, and readopted in 1929.[41][42]
Another early effort to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize–winning American biologist Hermann J. Muller in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May 1966:
There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.[43]
This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including George G. Simpson of Harvard University, Nobel Prize Winner Peter Agre of Duke University, Carl Sagan of Cornell, John Tyler Bonner of Princeton, Nobel Prize Winner George Beadle, President of the University of Chicago, and Donald F. Kennedy of Stanford University, formerly head of the United States Food and Drug Administration.[44]
This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories".[45] The United States National Academy of Sciences also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972.[45] A statement on evolution called "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science." was signed by Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling, Isaac Asimov, George G. Simpson, Caltech Biology Professor Norman H. Horowitz, Ernst Mayr, and others, and published in 1977.[46] The governing board of the American Geological Institute issued a statement supporting resolution in November 1981.[47] Shortly thereafter, the AAAS passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach creationism in science classes.[48]
To date, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed.[49]
Azi ce am discutat cu o emerita profesoara de biologie din Bucuresti.
Ea mi-a explicat pe scurt despre genetica, ce arata ca fiintele sunt mult prea complexe ca sa fie la voia intamplarii.
Citez "Faptul ca o specie sa fi evoluat din alta este la fel de probabil precum faptul ca o maimuta ce tasteaza litere la intamplare sa faca opera de Shakespeare."
Uite si un articol.
https://www.allaboutcreation.org/romanian/creatie-vs-evolutie-n.htm
Omule tu iei informatii de pe wikipedia?
Neil deGrasee Tyson e proclamat ca ateu pe site-ul de wikipedia desi el e agnostic, si el desi a solicitat schimbarea informatiei, aceasta a ramas.
Ti-am dat fix la momentul cand el cu gura lui spune asta si ca gaseste asta intrigant.
https://youtu.be/CzSMC5rWvos?t=99
Doar sa-ti faci o parere despre wikipedia.
In fond, ala e un site unde fiecare isi face un articol.
))))))))))))))))
super o profesoara din Bucuresti vs 97% din comunitatea stiintifica,omule un profesor nu este om de stiinta,nu este savant, nu ma intere aberatile tale, tot nu ai inteles ce e evolutia, Faptul ca o specie sa fi evoluat din alta este la fel de probabil precum faptul ca o maimuta ce tasteaza litere la intamplare sa faca opera de Shakespeare."
se vede clar ca esti absurd si total aiurea, un caine nu a devenit pisica, vezi ca gandesti aiurea, nu stii ce e evolutia
Ce rost are omule sa pui intrebare de genul daca tu stii deja raspunsul la intrebare, asta se numeste propaganda religioasa
1, habar nu ai ce inseamna evolutia
2, nu prezinti vreo dovada pentru ceea ce afirmi
3, nu accepti nimic
acum cateva zile erai cu moartea apoi cum ca biblia e manual de stiinta acum ca evolutia e gresita, dar culmea nu ai acceptat nimic din ce ti a fost prezentat, toate funditele fiind doar pentru cei care ti au dat dreptate, nu ca m-ar interesa dar asa ca fapt divers, TPU =nu este site de facut propaganda, nu este site religios de indoctrinare religioasa
Http://historel.tripod.com/orient/03mesop.htm
https://www.ancient-origins.net/......texts-0065
sunt basme copy paste din alte basme
Esti prea mic ca sa-ti dai cu parerea de probleme asa mari. Pupa niste icoane, fa niste rugaciuni, mai citeste din Biblie ca nu stii mai nimic si nu mai incerca sa convingi pe altii de ceva ce nici tu nu esti convins.
Stii ce inseamna si o singura dovada stiintifica, fie ea oricat de mica?
Inseamna o dovada in plus pentru teoria evolutiei fata de teoria creationista care nu are absolut nicio dovada
Sunt destul de multi oameni care au curajul sa conteste evolutionismul, probabil sunt si mai multi care se indoiesc de acesta dar le e frica sa nu fie exclusi din mediul academic.
Exista chiar o petitie impotriva darwinismului semnata de sute de de oameni de stiinta:
https://dissentfromdarwin.org
Uite cum îți demontez eu tâmpeniile acum:
1. Care-s instituțiile științifice care neagă evoluția, dă-le nume. A stai nu există.
2. Evoluția nu nu studiază cum a apărut viața ci cum s-au dezvoltat viețuitoarele pe Terra.
Și asta ne duce la punctul 3?
De unde știi că creaționismul e o variantă mai bună? Și care creaționism? Islamic, iudaic, shintoist, khemetic, hindus, animist, sumerian? De ce doar miturile evreiești sunt reale? Creaționismul nici măcar teorie ci basm.
4. Evoluția nu neagă Divinitatea. Nu există vreo dihotomie evoluție vs Dumnezeu.
Cunosc un specialist in genetică. Mi-a spus de faptul că avem 90 şi nu mai ştiu cât(am uitat cât a spus)% ADN-ul asemanator cu al unei primate nu înseamnă nimic, zero.
Mi-a spus "chiar dacă am avea ADN-ul asemănător în proporție de 99, 9% tot nu ar însemna ceva."
Daca afirmi ca dovezile pentru teoria evolutiei sunt inexistente avem doar doua posibilitati:
a.) Te-ai documentat si cu toate astea ai ajuns la o concluzie asa eronata. Ceea ce, in opinia mea, te face idiot.
b.) Nu te-ai documentat dar cu toate astea vorbesti despre subiect cu un aplomb remarcabil. Ceea ce, in opinia mea, te face sa fii destul de prostovan.
Oricare ar fi varianta corecta nu cred ca ar sens sa imi bat capul explicand diferenta ditre "evolutie", "abiogeneza" si "teoria evolutiei".
Acum 55 minute | 6684464 a răspuns:
Cunosc un specialist in genetică. Mi-a spus de faptul că avem 90 şi nu mai ştiu cât(am uitat cât a spus)% ADN-ul asemanator cu al unei primate nu înseamnă nimic, zero.
Mi-a spus "chiar dacă am avea ADN-ul asemănător în proporție de 99, 9% tot nu ar însemna ceva."
ce raspuns poate da acest om, noi suntem primate desi asemanarea cu care primata, trist ca suntem de rusinea UE
Sunt destul de multi oameni care au curajul sa conteste evolutionismul, probabil sunt si mai multi care se indoiesc de acesta dar le e frica sa nu fie exclusi din mediul academic.
Exista chiar o petitie impotriva darwinismului semnata de sute de de oameni de stiinta:
https://dissentfromdarwin.org
97% din savanti de toate religie le e frica,saraci de ei, le e frica de cine? de ce naiba sa le fie frica daca stiinta inseamna a testa, a experimenta, orice savant se poate convinge de evolutie, cei care nu cred in evolutie sunt fanatici, dogmatici religiosi atat
Daca te referi la simplul fapt stiintific ca animalele evolueaza atunci simpla variabilitate a organismelor vii in decursul timpul este o dovada suficienta. Este prea evident.
Daca te referi la faptul ca animalele evolueaza cinform Teoriei evolutiei atunci problema e mai complexa. De 120 de ani oamenii de stiinta au supus aceasta teorie la toate testele posibile si cu toate acestea teoria se mentine consistenta. Iar dovezile sunt covarsitoare.
In momentul de fata nici nu se mai cauta dovezi in sprijinul ei, lucrurile sunt deja clare.
Răspunsul este publicat...
Te rugăm să aştepţi ca răspunsul tău să fie trimis spre publicare.
