On what grounds does Aristotle reject the concept of evolution?
111774
we evolved from one specific species of apes. evolution is a constant, dynamic process, that cen be seen even now as you look around. you have to be intelligent and have common sense and pay attention, and not beleive everything that is written. for proof, just look at the weather forecasters - almost everything they say is wrong, or they just flat out lie. I think they lie - nobody could screw up that much and keep a job.
684403
As a scientist, I try not to "believe" in something because it is appealing, but rather to consider the available evidence and use that information to reach a flexable conclusion that will change as additional information becomes available. Based on the available scientific evidence, I think it extremely likely that the principles underlying the theory of evolution are accurate. I therefore "believe" the theory of evolution, but not in the sense that one believes in God, but rather in the sense that I can assume it's true as necessary but I'm prepared to accept an alternate version of the theory or even to reject it if there is scientific evidence that is sufficient to warrent this change. \n\nHere's some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution:\n\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the
357551
i guess so euthanasia was a practise common at that time and aristotle being a philospher of that time wud have supportetd the fact bcoz there was no state of the art med facilitis over there and it wud be better for someone to die than to cringe on to life which is non existent \n\n\ni am  talkin of that time at this time 2006 he wud probably b against euthanasia
151991
Darwin's ideas are essentially the same ones accepted today. You could be referring to the fact that at the time of the publication of "The origin...", Mendel's genetic work was largely unknown (it had passed unnoticed), therefore Darwin did not have a good explanatory mechanism for the inheritance of characters. The predominant idea at the time was something called "blending inheritance" that assumed that the parental traits got "blended" in the offspring. This made it very difficult to support the idea that "good" characteristics would be conserved down the generations (they should blend and eventually disappear). Darwin could never provide a satisfactory explanation, and in subsequent editions of the book he even accepted Lamarckian inheritance again.\nWhen Mendel's work was rediscovered (1900), his model provided a strong support for Darwin's theory. Later other discoveries and developments led to the "New Synthesis" or neodarwinism.
803709
Why should they be mutually exclusive?  The concept of God is in many religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones.  He/She/It is believed in in Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, by the ancient Hermetics and by Hindus just to name a few.  So, if there is a God, it's certainly possible that He/She/It DID indeed cause evolution to take place.  In fact, there are many Christians, Jews and probably a large number of Muslims who believe that.\n\nBelief in God is separate from the literal belief in a holy book.  First of all, a holy book can be interpretted metaphorically.  I think the concept that the six "days" of creation in Genesis may be longer than days now is a perfectly good one.\n\nAlso, many believe that God is ineffable and mysterious and therefore that no words and no book can accurately express who He/She/It is, but only provide us with metaphors that approach but never really get to that understanding.  If that's true, than it's meaningless to say that some holy book rules out evolution.  Science has proven evolution (the only reason we say "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is that Darwin explained the fact of evolution by the notion of natural selection and it's only that explanation, not the fact of evolution itself, that scientists ever dispute - and even then they only point out that mutation plays a role AS WELL AS natural selection - but I digress).  So, it seems to me that it makes more sense for anyone who believes in God to believe that God caused evolution to take place.\n\nMoreover, there are other ways to look at God besides purely literal ones.  The mythologist Joseph Cambell believed that all myth is metaphor and saw God as a metaphor for whatever is best for humanity.  One can look at God in terms of gnosis, too, rather than knowledge.  Knowledge is the objective truth of science.  Gnosis is how we experience our universe, which is different from objective truth, because of psychology and also because of our own perspectives as living beings trying to make the most out of life.  Many people of many religions have had experiences of the Divine (some of various Deities or and others of a One God).  That doesn't mean that the Divine is literally true, only that they had powerful experiences.  But, if those experiences make us better people, maybe this gnosis of the Divine is still worthwhile even if it's NOT literal truth.\n\nSo, in summary, I think you need to figure out what you mean by "God" and what exactly you believe about God before you can know whether or not evolution is mutually exclusive with that concept.
1016992
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
1154023
That response from gimpalomg was kinda disrespectful. Evolution is a waste of time. It tries to disprove something that cannot be disproved. Evolution is baseless, unfounded and a big scientific hoax to sway believers into thinking that science answers such questions. Evolution is circular reason. You say the earth couldn't possibly be 10000 years old max, I ask why, u'd probably bring up some evolution based theory that attemot to explain away the truth, which is the bible, but for now, I won't be forcing those doctrines down ur throat =D. \n\nThibnk about the bible for a second. The flood would explain so many things that science fails to answer such as the extinction of dinasuars, they're too big to fit on an arc.  Bare in mind that dinasuars are simply reptiles we see tody except that everything had the ability to live longer, if you want to explore that theory look it up because I promised not to use circular reasoning. the flood would explain why fish remains are ound on every mountain peak. It would explain why there was a "nomadic" time period in that time. And sooo obvious to us, it would explain what the heck a huuuge arc is doing on mount Ararat, which by the way was picke dup by NASA satellites. It should be noted that the bible states that Noah's arc rested atop mount Ararat. \n\nLastly, Evolution should not be in text books. The theory is warped an d blown aout of proprtion. I believe there are six major theories that compose the entire science of evolution. Only 1 uno theory hasbeen proved. That theory is microevolution which states that some organisms have the power to make themselves evolve MINOR CHANGES i.e Darwin's discovery of natural selection (longer beaks vs. shorter beaks etc.). This is GREAT, sure, except that the other theories cannot be proven but some have been disproven, there's something they don't always include in text books. Macroevolution which is the level above Microevolution comprises of the theory that species make huge changes over time such as extra limbs, DNA changes etc, again, not proven, even disproven by "vestigial" organs... aren't we supposed to evolve by GAINING other parts, not losing them. Buut scioentiest insist on using vestigial organs as the tailbone... guess WHAT ppl, it's not vestigial; you try walking around without it then try calling ir vestigial ,it serves a purpose. &#92;\n\non to the whole age thing. The earth is more likely to be 10000 years max than millions. According to the evolutionary theory, dinasuars became extinct MILLIONS of years ago. How much time does it take for flesh to decompose? I'm thinking FAR less than a million years. Why then are red blood cells still being found in dinasuar remains? The best answer is that the earth could NEVER be nearly as old as we think it is. I also want to point out thaT the earth is usually dated by ratioactive dating, which, in itself, is VERY unreliable. Research Radioactive dating accuracy and find the fact. The dates are beyond the level of being off, scientists know this. All they do is find a formula which is closest to the actual date even if it is millions of years inaccurate. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. \n\nEvolution is something that has been put in textbooks to simply explain away religious doctrines they feel are impossible. If you do your research like I did, you will easly see that evolution is no more true than Roman mythology\n\nAnd one dangerous thing we seem to be doing. The bible is NOT all symbolic.  That is REALLY dangerous. If i told u that the wings of the eagle stretched far beyond my reach then went on to recap yesterdays events, would you beleive that all of what I said was symbolic. How symbolic can anything be. The bible is literal at times. If you want to read the prophecies in the bible about the establishment of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, the aliance os powers against Israel and it literally being sur
112917
Nice effort and beneficial.\nThey want to trace back the details of human generations which are vague.\nWell, they "search" for Adam, right?\nThey must believe in creationism rather than evolution.\n\nHopefully people will realise that we humans are all the same. We came from the same root. No more racist solicitation.\nThe theory of evolution is focused mostly on physiques. They do not care to think that men have minds and spirit.\nIt is clearly wrong to define us physically just like the animals. We are better than animals. \nMoreover, we are the best creations. \n\nI do not really get the picture with the female ancestor to date earlier than the common male ancestor. Could you explain to me about that?\n\nIt is weird for woman and man to live not in the same time. How could they reproduce?\n\nMaybe I will come back later. By the way, I think "boffin" means buffoons.\n\n\n\nThank you Kurdiatcha for explaining to me.\nI was not expecting you but the questioner herself but thank you.\n\nI would like to edit some more but have no time.\nHere's a little correction:\n\nWhat I meant by define us physically just like the animals is to take ONLY physique into acount.\n\nThe brain differs from the mind. Animals have brains but not minds. They have life but not soul.\n\nBrain is physique. Mind is defined as the ability to learn and understand things by self, not gifted.\nOf course, we need the help of God to understand about something.\nMind is also the sign of rationality of humans.\n\nI will continue later.\n\n\n\nSorry for keeping you waiting so long, Nelly. I had to take time to make a structure of my next explainations which are:\nThis is going to be quite a LONG lecture.\n\n\nHuman = (Physique) (Mind) (Life) (Soul)\nAnimal = (Physique) (Life)\n\nPhysique = Physique?\nIt is most probably. If to follow the law of balance; equation and relation, Human seems to have more advantages such as Mind and Soul, therefore their Physique must be less advantageous than that of Animal.\n\nLife = Life\n\nSoul = Mind (Feelings) (Life)\nMind = Soul (Life) (Physique)\nFeelings = (Physique) (Soul)\nMind ≠ Brain\nBrain = Mind (Physique) (Life) = Brain\nIn this context, Mind means the controller. Brain of Human and Brain of Animal are similar but not the same.\n\nMind = Soul\nMind + Soul (Animal) = Human\nMind and Soul are similar yet they are not one. Plus, they are parallel. Physique capsulizes Brain where in the Brain lies Mind. Life capsulizes Soul. The parallelism of both must be broken and should be met in order to achieve the same goal; finding God. \nOnce they have combined, the journey of finding God will be clearer.\n\nPhysique (Mind) + Life (Soul) = Human\nSoul + Mind ≠ Human\nPhysique + Life ≠ Human\n\nTherefore, Physique and Life make up Animal’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life and Life enlivens Physique. It is mutual symbiosis.\n\nPhysique, Mind, Life and Soul make up Human’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life, Soul and Mind, Life and Soul enlivens Physique, Mind controls Physique and Life, so does Soul. Soul controls Mind but Mind decides initially.\n\nConsider Human like a box (Physique) powered by Life externally. Inside the box, there is a ball of Soul and Mind; Mind takes up only the core while Soul is the ball inside out. With the ball, the box is generated internally.\n\nThe three parts: Physique, Life and Soul must be available in order for a Human to love but irrationally minded. Therefore, Mind is the only part of rationality. It is the only part of intelligence.\n\n\nThe above equations show the difference between Human and Animal. I know it is quizzical to you, so it is to me.\nThe sign with the small "l" is actually a small number 1, indicates Human.\n\nWell, if we to trace the generations of human, we must primarily try to understand human. If you do not understand anything, tell me. I will try to make you understand the equation. Even I do n
158486
hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:\n\n    In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."\n\n    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.\n\n    Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.\n\n    Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.\n\n    - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981\n\nGould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:\n\n    Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignora
907265
1) People ignored Democritus because Aristotle said Democritus was wrong, and most people favored Aristotle over Democritus.\n\n2) False.  They combine in DEFINITE proportions.\n\n3) . . . cannot be subdivided in chemical reactions.
459342
Because it is scientific fact. But, i still think god set off evolution. Adam, as we call him, was the first reliogus human.
40386
In 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote an encyclical addressing the Catholic teachings about the origins of human life, and what parts of "evolutionary theory" can be compatible with Catholic Faith.  You can find the english version here:\n\nhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html\n\nBasically, Catholics must believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that God created the human soul directly.  As far as how He created our bodies, it is acceptable to believe in some form of evolution, as long as you believe God created the universe from nothing.\n\nSo the concept of Darwinism (we came about from random mutations that were not guided or designed by a creator) is unacceptable.  We (as Catholics) can still believe in evolution as long as we believe that it is a process that was designed by God.
33683
<I>darwin denoiced his theroy before his death, claiming that a God could have only done this but the history books forgot that part</I>\n\nThere's the source of all life, and there's the concept of evolution.  These are two different discussions, and Darwin himself said that a "creator" started it all off and we could never know how.\n\nBut he always believed in evolution, which is provable (although not necessarily to the extent he was considering).  God and faith can exist while recognizing what we know about evolution.
392101
History of the concept: Aristotle, Pasteur, Darwin, Oparin\n\nFrom its first formulation by Aristotle in the 4th century BC it was an article of both common and learned belief, at least in Europe, that complex living organisms arose spontaneously from non-living matter - fleas and adult mice from dirty laundry and from piles of wheat, maggots and flies from rotting meat, aphids from drops of dew. Life, in short, came about by spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis. Holes began to be knocked in Aristotle's dictum by early biologists in the 18th century, but not until the meticulous experiments of Louis Pasteur in 1862 was it finally established that a truly sterile medium would remain forever sterile, and that complex living organisms come only from other complex living organisms. The "Law of Biogenesis", (omne vivum ex ovo or "all life from an egg") based on his work is now a cornerstone of modern biology.\n\nThe modern science of abiogenesis addresses a fundamentally different question: the ultimate origin of life itself. Pasteur had proved that abiogenesis was impossible for complex organisms. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution put forward a mechanism whereby such organisms might evolve over millennia from simple forms, but it did not address the original spark, as it were, from which even simple organisms might have arisen. Darwin was aware of the problem. In a letter to J.D. Hooker of February 1, 1871, he made the suggestion that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words the presence of life itself prevents the spontaneous generation of simple organic compounds from occurring on Earth today - a circumstance which makes the search for the first life dependent on the laboratory.\n\nThe answer to Darwin's question was beyond the reach of the experimental science of his day, and no real progress was made during the 19th century. In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that, pace Pasteur, it was the presence of atmospheric oxygen, and other more sophisticated life-forms that prevented the chain of events that would lead to the evolution of life. Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets, he suggested, "grow" by fusion with other droplets, and "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, those that don't become extinct. All modern theories of the origin of life take Oparin's ideas as a starting point.
161432
The problem isn't evolution. The problem is the 'science' they use to 'prove' it.\n\nFirst, they started with an unsupported assumption (that the earth is millions / billions) of years old, then they used circular reasoning between varying fields of science to support that precept as fact, then they assumed without any evidence (in fact, in the face of their own evidence to the contrary) that one species can evolve into another.  Fact:  DNA strands of different lengths or different RNA locations cannot combine.  That means in order to produce say, a human, from say, gorillas, a male and a female gorilla would have to have identically mutated genes at exactly the same time at exactly the same place, find each other and successfully mate.  The probability of that happening one time (ape to man) exceeds the most liberal mathematical calculations of probability.  To happen thousands or hundreds of thousands of times to evolve from a single cell organism to any mammal way exceeds ANY mathematical concept of possibility.  What science has done is said "This is what we are going to prove, don't confuse us with the facts."
449120
No, it really isn't.\n\nThe fundamentals of intelligent design are basically anti-science.  The sole argument used in its support is to cease thinking about any subject which is not immediately understood.\n\n"That feature of life looks hard to evolve, therefore, Unnamed Intelligent Designer did it."\n\nI like to look at how history would be different if the great scientists of the past had used such logic.\n\nIsaac Newton:  "Gravity pulls things down, but the moon stays up.  How strange.  Must be God."  (Nobody works out the laws of physical motion.)\n\nEdward Jenner:  "I wonder why milkmaids get smallpox less seriously than other people... Oh, I guess God did it."  (Nobody invents vaccines.)\n\nIntelligent Design "theory" is the death of science.  It is lazy thinking.  It is simply accepting any unknown as an unknown and finding nothing in it worth investigating further.  It is the most fundamentally anti-science idea possible.\n\nThink my examples of overstated?  Consider the real life guru of the ID movement, Michael Behe.  He testified in court that nobody could figure out the evolution of the immune system.  When he was presented with dozens and dozens of articles working out the evolution of the immune system, he admitted having read none of them, but had no compunction about just declaring it "wasn't enough".  How much would be?  Here is a person who has stopped thinking.  He's supposed be a biochemist, but he has no interest in expanding biochemistry.  He found a gap and declared that God filled it and his thoughts stopped there.  Many, many other scientists, unencumbered by the albatross of ID continued to investigate and have expanded our knowledge of the immune system extensively, just so Behe can sit back smugly and declare whatever progress they've made cannot possibly be enough.\n\nI repeat, ID is the death of science.  ID is the most fundamentally anti-science idea possible.\n\nID "theory" is best stated, "It is absolutely undeniable that someone, somewhere, at some point, did some thing, using some methods, to create life."  That's not a theory.  That hardly qualifies as an idea!  But they can't fill in any of the vapidity.  If they fill in any of the unknowns, it becomes obvious they're trying to force their religion onto the masses.  Therefore, they're stuck with a vague framework of an idea.\n\nIf they could fill in bits, they might stumble into a theory that was testable.  If we replace "someone" with "My great grandmother", suddenly, we have an idea we can test.  A false idea, but still a testable one.  My great grandmother has identifiable properties.  We know how much biochemistry she knew.  We can judge the likelihood of her having done such a thing.  That likelihood is, of course, so close to zero there's little point in calculating it.\n\nIf we fill in the "how" gap with "using a screwdriver", then again, we can test it.\n\nBut ID theory refuses to fill in the gaps.  It claims to not be interested in who.  It claims to not be interested in where, when, how or what.  Dembski says it's a theory of "design detection".  But, again, how do we test it?\n\nDembski's filter resolves to two states:  Yes, it was designed!  We don't know.\n\nSo, can this be falsified?  Can we send something designed through and have the filter produce a false negative?  No, because the filter has no negative state.  It doesn't say "designed/not designed", it says "designed/don't know".  There is no way to test for a false negative.\n\nCan we test for a false positive?  Nope.  Since God is on the table here (and they refuse utterly to let natural laws have sway like real science does), everything in the universe supposedly could be designed.  So there is nothing that you can definitively say isn't designed to run through the filter.
1036836
Darwin's theory of evolution isn't entirely wrong. However what does seem wrong is that while it is able to explain the phenomena of selection as well as survival in animals, humans seem to violate the very postulates of the theory.\nAlso darwin's theor talks about sexual selection where the male is generally the better-looking or stronger etc of the two genders and that the female choose the one who is stronger/better looking/can sing better etc...but then there are certain birds where instead of the male it is the female that has the coloured plummange and looks better.\n\nBetter research some specific examples in case you need to prove a point to someone