Ada Apa dengan Teori Evolusi?

[J-o-n-e-d]

semua hipotesis memang ada pro-kontra nya..

[Ache]

@crysanthium

Yah, okelah... tapi sebaiknya kita jangan mempersempit pemikiran kita.

Baiklah terlepas dari soal itu, mengenai hukum persamaan hardy-weinberg.
Jerapah pendek punah. Tapi seharusnya pada jerapah berleher panjang tetap mengandung alel berleher pendek, walaupun tidak nampak. (Bila benar pada kromosom jerapah ada alel leher pendek). Jerapah yang mati kemungkinan adalah yang mempunyai alel berleherpendek homozigot.


Tentang akal, yang berfungsi sebagai processor adalah akal itu sendiri.
Jadi yang saya maksud bukan otak. Tapi bukannya otak tidak punya pengaruh. Misalnya pada anak yang mengalami syndrom atau gangguan otak lainnya, ini akan mengakibatkan tidak optimalnya informasi yang dapat diterima anak tersebut. Juga misalnya ada orang buta dan tuli, maka dia juga tidak akan bisa berproses dengan maksimal.
Sebagaimana saya analogikan komputer, bila keyboardnya rusak, mousenya rusak, scanner/camera nggak ada, sistem audionya rusak, tidak ada informasi yang dapat masuk, maka komper tersebut juga tidak bisa bekerja.
Manusia, adalah organism yang paling adaptif terhadap lingkungannya karena dia memiliki akal. Tidak seperti organism lain (hewan/tumbuhan) yang beradaptasi dengan berbekal organ-organ khusus. Dari segi adaptasi perilaku pun manusia masih lebih baik.

Ya, tapi hewan juga ada yang punya akal kok. Dimulai dari ****** yang berusaha meraih pisang di kandangnya dengan akar pohon. Lalu contoh lain hamster yang mengetahui bagaimana cara kabur dari kandang jika tidak dikunci. Pasti mereka pakai akal. Evolusi itu memang ada. Kalo tidak, bagaimana Anda menjelaskan penemuan berbagai manusia purba seperti **** **** heidelbergensis, **** neanderthalensis, Australopithecus afarensis, **** habilis, **** ergaster, dkk?

[lethologica]

Yah, kalo evolusi itu tidak ada, kita asalnya dari mana selain alasan teori kreatonisme? Simpel aje

[luna_croz]

hmmph keknya pada bingung ada ato ga nya bukan? sekarang balikin lagi ke awal de.. penemu teori evolusi pertama x itu siapa?

[lethologica]

hmmph keknya pada bingung ada ato ga nya bukan? sekarang balikin lagi ke awal de.. penemu teori evolusi pertama x itu siapa?

Charles Darwin dong, siapa lagi

[VintageAllstar]

Charles Darwin dong, siapa lagi

Alfred Russel Wallace

[Omicron]

Ya, tapi hewan juga ada yang punya akal kok. Dimulai dari ****** yang berusaha meraih pisang di kandangnya dengan akar pohon. Lalu contoh lain hamster yang mengetahui bagaimana cara kabur dari kandang jika tidak dikunci. Pasti mereka pakai akal. Evolusi itu memang ada. Kalo tidak, bagaimana Anda menjelaskan penemuan berbagai manusia purba seperti **** **** heidelbergensis, **** neanderthalensis, Australopithecus afarensis, **** habilis, **** ergaster, dkk?

Tapi tidak ada realitas bahwa hewan dapat membedakan baik dan benar, baik dan buruk, punya etika, logika dan berpikir rasional. Dengan akal manusia dapat melakukannya. Manusia mampu menciptakan peradaban, teknologi dan kebudayaan. Manusia ada yang bijaksana, lalim, jahat, baik, ulet, malas, semangat, putus asa. Hewan?

Bagaimana kalo dibandingkan dengan: ****** yang berjalan melalui berbagai saluran organ hingga menemukan dan dapat membuahi sel telur?

Bukankah, kera tetaplah kera dan manusia tetaplah manusia (secara biologis)?

[luna_croz]

Charles Darwin dong, siapa lagi

nah ketika si darwin tersebut menyangkal kebenarannya ketika dia mau mati. hayo diapain itu teorinya?
manusia klo udah dikasi doktrin dan sempat percaya itu paling susah bikin tobatnya, karena mereka uda menganggap doktrin tersebut benar dan pasti benar walaupun kenyataannya ga jelas..

[Ache]

Tapi tidak ada realitas bahwa hewan dapat membedakan baik dan benar, baik dan buruk, punya etika, logika dan berpikir rasional. Dengan akal manusia dapat melakukannya. Manusia mampu menciptakan peradaban, teknologi dan kebudayaan. Manusia ada yang bijaksana, lalim, jahat, baik, ulet, malas, semangat, putus asa. Hewan?

Bagaimana kalo dibandingkan dengan: ****** yang berjalan melalui berbagai saluran organ hingga menemukan dan dapat membuahi sel telur?

Bukankah, kera tetaplah kera dan manusia tetaplah manusia (secara biologis)?

Aduh kok jadi berbelit ya, back to the point deh, u percaya dengan adanya evolusi atau enggak?

[Omicron]

Aduh kok jadi berbelit ya, back to the point deh, u percaya dengan adanya evolusi atau enggak?

Wah, bingung yah..
Ya, kalau memang terbukti benar secara ilmiah.
Saya masih banyak pertanyaan, dan belum cukup memuaskan untuk saya percaya.
Soalnya saya nggak mudah percaya ama doktrin-doktrin.

[Menara_Jakarta]

Yah, arah perdebatannya memang sudah berbelit, saya sendiri juga bingung Ache sama Omicron ini pendukung evolusi atau bukan, soalnya sudah sampai lari ke Mars dan pengaruh Evolusi terhadap PD I, hehe, tapi teruskan saja, asal gak bikin bingung yang baca

[telorbebek]

Klo gw bole nanya


Diri qta sendiri itu merubakan perubahan atau evolusi??

Dari qta merangkak,berjalan,dari awalnya cuma bisa nangis2 aja sampai bisa ngucap kata2,dari awal qta cuma bisa ngegenggem aja sampe bisa gerakin tangan2 qta..

[Furillaz]

knapa ya masi ada monyet2x itu.

knapa meraka gak jadi manusia semua ya.

tolong penjelasan na ia kak.

[Menara_Jakarta]

Klo gw bole nanya


Diri qta sendiri itu merubakan perubahan atau evolusi??

Dari qta merangkak,berjalan,dari awalnya cuma bisa nangis2 aja sampai bisa ngucap kata2,dari awal qta cuma bisa ngegenggem aja sampe bisa gerakin tangan2 qta..

Itu namanya pertumbuhan dan perkembangan, bukan evolusi -_-

[sariayu]

The Problem with Creationism

by Doug Yurchey

‘It’s too simple. How could Life, the Universe and Everything have been a simple process?’

How can Creationism be true? In the Dark Ages, not that long ago, there was only one viewpoint; there was only one agenda. The united Churches of various countries ruled supreme. They were ‘God,’ exactly as those with too much power feel that they are today. The Church was a solid, unchanging monolith. Today, people are financially ruined; back then, they burned you at the stake for any type of heresy. ‘They’ (authorities) had a full range of public tortures to teach the masses a lesson. This was the Holy Church. They took your money and if you were not careful; they might confiscate everything you own (like the I.R.S.).

This writer must ask a few questions to readers. What time is it? What century is it? Creationism might work for those of the pre-Renaissance. Creationism does not function well in the days of the post-Renaissance. How can any philosophy not include science? How can any view not incorporate some strands of established, scientific truths? We do not have to swallow classic Science or Darwin’s version of Evolution, but most real facts clash with general Fundamentalism.

Churches may disregard certain disturbing facts, but would their deity? What kind of God do Creationists have that ignores universal facts? The Supreme God, by definition, has set the universal stage and is aware of every scientific fact in town. Then, anything TRUE is of God; God, that incomprehensible thing that is the Ultimate Scientist? The God-force certainly does not possess the ignorance of men who believed the Earth was flat. Would not God condemn superstitious ignorance and appreciate scientific wisdom? By this logic, if we really want to get closer to religious truths (and God)…then, we should not follow a ‘spiritual’ way of life…but, a ‘scientific’ path.

What is wrong with a union of Science and Religion? Answers do not reside exclusively in one camp or the other. There exists only ONE truth and it must stand in-between Evolution and Creationism. Theological truths are not black or white. Eastern philosophies (such as metaphysics, reincarnation, etc.) are middle-truths since they are opposed by Church and State. The point is to not side or place all of your faith in one (Western) extreme or the other. A middle-of-the-road attitude tends to be a correct code. Creationism is a mad, blindfolded monster from the Dark Ages. Any modern person can slay Creationism; even a child.

Why would we want beliefs anywhere near our great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather’s views? Remember what time it is. Are we not modern men and women? Remember to keep your eyes and mind open. Too many people have died because they believed they knew the truth and THE CHURCH KILLED THEM!

Giordana Bruno was an Italian philosopher; born in 1548, not far from Mount Vesuvius. His controversial work included a belief that the universe was infinite and the Earth orbited the sun. Bruno became a Dominican priest. He coined the phrase, ‘libertes philosophica,’ which means the freedom to think/dream and make philosophy. Chief theologians, at the time, and the pope’s Inquisition convicted the heretic. He was imprisoned for eight years and then taken to the palace of the Grand Inquisitor in February, 1600. After given numerous opportunities to recant in order to save his life, Bruno refused and was burned at the stake.

‘…He suffered a cruel death and achieved a unique martyr's fame. He has become the Church's most difficult alibi. She can explain away the case of Galileo with suave condescension. Bruno sticks in her throat. He is one martyr whose name should lead all the rest. He was not a mere religious sectarian who was caught up in the psychology of some mob hysteria. He was a sensitive and imaginative poet, fired with the enthusiasm of a larger vision of a larger universe...and he fell into the error of heretical belief. For this poet’s vision, he was kept in a dark dungeon for years and then taken out to a blazing marketplace and roasted to death by fire! It is an incredible story. The Church will never outlive him.’

Bruno suffered a terrible demise that Copernicus, Galileo and Martin Luther did not have to experience. A ‘Giordana Bruno’ reference has to do with where the Church is coming from; its godforsaken, cruel history. How many elderly were deemed witches or warlocks and ignited on fire by the Churches? Even Jesus Christ was persecuted and killed for philosophic clashes with Sanhedrin. Isn’t it time we question the Church’s right-winged Fundamentalism and each aspect of its principles? Could the Church survive against self-Inquisition and righteous judgment? (What freedom to be able to print new views without rocks being thrown!).

Given that prelude…shouldn’t we QUESTION the basic, fundamental doctrines of Creationism? Creationism is too simple of a philosophy. It is traditional dogma and passed on opinions from a dim time period. How could Life, the Universe and Everything have been a simple process? Where is some science? Shouldn’t complex sciences have been involved? Where is even a glimmering ghost of science in Fundamentalism? The quick formation of Earth by God, Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naively accepted as fact by most people before the 20th Century. A modern view should be one that reexamines archaic creeds with future eyes. We should expect the unexpected and prepare to toss old-fashioned conventions in the Recycle Bin.

Author’s note: This writer is not an atheist. But, I sure want a true belief-system above the level of a witchdoctor…or more advanced than the 4th Century.

Consider how long the war has been waged between Church and State, Religion and Science or Creationism and Evolution. We can read anti-Creationism information exactly as we can read anti-Evolution information. One side attacks the other as if their viewpoint is the right one and there are, of course, only two choices. In this text, religion or fundamental Creationism will not be criticized because of an Evolutionary point of view. In this text, Darwin Evolution and ‘primates’ will not be criticized from a Creationist point of view. BOTH Science and Church cannot be correct on the single question of our genesis. We will be in search of one harmonious conclusion that explains the human mystique.

One definition of ‘Creationism’ is purely a rejection of Darwinism. Because there are those that oppose Darwin and ‘Natural Selection,’ does not make them Creationists.

‘God did it,’ should not be a sufficient answer to our unknown origins and the mysteries of the universe. We should demand more as members of a modern age.

Creationists presuppose that the Supreme God created the Earth and the rest of the Universe, the ‘heavens and the earth.’ Maybe God was not responsible? Possibly, other life forms built the cosmos. Is GOD as the ‘Builder of All’ too damn easy of a concept to be true? How does the farthest extent of GOD fit so smoothly into our infinitesimally small brain? The feat is impossible.

Creationists believe that our planet is a matter of thousands of years old and not billions as is the scientific belief. Known, biological life on the planet is probably tens of thousands of years old. The age of Earth is a different story. Our Earth, old ‘terra firma,’ has experienced a vast scope of time. Who says our ancestors were the planet’s first kingdom? Lemuria or Mu, the starting-empire of the Asian Race, precedes the Indian civilizations of Atlantis and was centered in the Pacific Ocean. We can extrapolate other, possibly alien empires living and dying out long before the Lemurians. Slight traces of intelligent societies, hundreds of thousands of years ago, have been ignored or given no credibility by scientists. Unfathomable civilizations could have come and gone on terra a million years ago when conditions were utterly different than what Earth is like today.

A literal few thousand years from the beginning of the Earth to its final form does not sound plausible, naturally. But, if planet-builders (Slartybartfast in ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide…’) were capable of manufacturing entire worlds, then creatures would be churning planets out of gigantic factories in space. Whatever means of planetary integration or materialization, the birth of Earth and other worlds might not be natural/slow-moving events. Planetoids may have been quickly built, SYNTHETIC constructions. Venus and our Moon break most laws of physics and reason. Yet, enigmatic Venus and Luna continue as unbelievable oddities in the heavens. Study photos of Saturn’s moon Iapetus if students want to observe a cosmic body that is ARTIFICIAL. We can visually see its unnaturalness. Very close examination shows irregular, but unnatural architecture!



The possibility exists that planets could have been erected in thousands of years or LESS, but not by the fire and brimstone God of the Christians. Advanced humans, aliens or any number of high-tech angels might be in charge of manufacturing planets. Have the gods seeded a human-culture on Earth? Do aliens own the planet? Is Earth their property? Are we? Strange at it sounds; there are aspects of fundamental Creationism that could have its true points. If planets and moons are ‘artificial’ constructions, then their fabrication into existence did not require billions of years as naturalists contend.

Naturalists may be ‘barking up the wrong tree’ when they erroneously view an unnatural world and only see a lifeless universe. Maybe the infinite universe is filled with more than gas, dust and debris? Maybe nature and the universe are alive? Life could be everywhere. What if every molecule of nature, from atoms to cosmic bodies, is unnatural and has been synthetically produced? What if we only presume nature comes naturally?

Religious Fundamentalists may be correct when they say we began in the Garden of Eden. Did Atlantean geneticists clone people in a garden called Eden? Were Adam and Eve clones that emerged out of a lab? What if Biblical Creation was a simplified story that is ‘basically’ true? How do you inform yesterday’s distant descendants of ancient history? How could future generations, whose technology had plummeted to the Dark Ages, understand anything of their amazing heritage? Prehistory was similar to a sci-fi epic that would interest the likes of George Lucas. In fact, we may have already seen prehistory (generally) portrayed on the big screen in ‘Attack of the Clones.’

If future generations of ancient astronauts lost their high-tech and fell upon barbaric times, their primitive descendants could not conceive the phenomenal story of the first/great Indian Societies. The complex world of yesterday was gone. Now, there only remain savage barbarians of the Dark Ages. Historic stories, records, myths, legends and memories from long ago had to be simplified for a much simpler age of people. Idyllic EDEN might be a true report of a far, buried memory. Our beginning was a Paradise. The ‘Garden of Eden,’ the ‘forbidden fruit,’ the ‘serpent’…could be watered-down ways of telling ancient tales of history to new, naive generations. Were the ‘forbidden fruits’ highly destructive weapons, the fruits of knowledge? Was it a Tree of Knowledge (technology) that could be used for good or evil purposes? Did the long echoes of time change a complex Homer’s Odyssey into a simple, children’s story? We have to stop being childish. We have to start thinking for ourselves and finding our own answers. We have to stop being sheep.

Biblical Eden parallels legendary Atlantis. Consider these two legends. Plato wrote of Atlantis, our mother-civilization. Psychic, Edgar Cayce confirmed Atlantis as the root race that later split into the Pre-Egyptians and Pre-Incas. Both stories were the beginning genesis for the human race. Both stories of a technical utopia and garden paradise similarly coincide. Atlantis and Eden could be reflections of the same story or same historic events; one record of real happenings and one told to simpler generations to come. Both legends suffered a disastrous end as humanity had to depart in disgrace.

Author’s note: How can there truly be any separation between Church and State? The idea of a ‘separation’ is fallacy, an illusion, a convenient mask to what is really going on in the world. Secret, governing bodies are a two-headed snake; Church and State.

The problem with Creationism is not that it is wrong. (As this writer’s tongue gags-in- mouth), ‘In many cases, Creationism is correct and has it right. The problem is a simple, easy, uncomplicated, basic, almost superstitious viewpoint of traditional Fundamentalism does incredible damage.’ Even if religious Creationism has valid points, to dilute the fantastic occurrences of prehistory into a pale fable for the masses (fraught with misconceptions) causes immeasurable harm. It has created a billion simpletons, the religious-right that could not be more wrong.

‘God is a concept by which we measure our pain.’ -- John Lennon



Doug Yurchey can be contacted at [email protected]