Have we learned anything of value from the "science" of evolution?

[percysunshine]

Have we learned anything of value from the "science" of evolution?

Well, if we had evolved from anything other than a monkey, we probably wouldn't be so fucked up now.

Having a common ancestor doesn't mean we "evolved" from a monkey. Sigh.

Well, not all of us anyway...

 

[SFC Ollie]

I simply believe that it is hilarious that rdean tries so hard to make religion and politics mix.

Is he so ignorant that he denies the great Southern Black Baptists? Or How about the Kennedy's, who were all supposedly devote Catholics? Aren't they Christians who believe in the all powerful God? How about Mr Obama and his family? Is rdean ready to make fun of his beliefs?

You see deano, your rant does nothing but destroy your own..............

I simply believe that it is hilarious that rdean tries so hard to make religion and politics mix.

Make them "mix"? That's retarded. One is "superstition". Guess which one.

So you think that all Christians and any other religious people are ignorant and do not believe in science? So well over half of your precious Democrats to include Mr. Obama and family. are ignorant and think science is stupid? Really? That's what you want us to believe?

 

[rdean]

I simply believe that it is hilarious that rdean tries so hard to make religion and politics mix.

Is he so ignorant that he denies the great Southern Black Baptists? Or How about the Kennedy's, who were all supposedly devote Catholics? Aren't they Christians who believe in the all powerful God? How about Mr Obama and his family? Is rdean ready to make fun of his beliefs?

You see deano, your rant does nothing but destroy your own..............

I simply believe that it is hilarious that rdean tries so hard to make religion and politics mix.

Make them "mix"? That's retarded. One is "superstition". Guess which one.

So you think that all Christians and any other religious people are ignorant and do not believe in science? So well over half of your precious Democrats to include Mr. Obama and family. are ignorant and think science is stupid? Really? That's what you want us to believe?

Why do you keep "imagining" what I believe?

What do you believe?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

One of the examples we have of the transition from fish to land animals is Tiktaalik roseae. The front fins appear to have wrist bones, and the rays of the fins have been suggested to have resemblance to fingers. There are more similarities, and it's quite a fascinating creature.

So it went into the water from land?

 

[tonystewart1]

The thing of it is Dean that we don't live in the utopian world (thank God) of radical academic one sided restrictive liberalism. Americans should be free to consider Creationism while the academic world concentrates on genetic mutations in lower life forms and the origin of the species. Teaching Creationism in schools is not a threat to the world of liberalism as we know it. Kids will still be learning how to put a condom on a cucumber. Relax lefties.

Teach creationism in philosophy class, not biology class.

Creationism does not belong in the classroom. Teach evolution or whatever you want in school. I will teach my children at home how God created the world I dont trust any school to teach it to my children.

 

[Woyzeck]

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

One of the examples we have of the transition from fish to land animals is Tiktaalik roseae. The front fins appear to have wrist bones, and the rays of the fins have been suggested to have resemblance to fingers. There are more similarities, and it's quite a fascinating creature.

So it went into the water from land?

No, this early specimen lived primarily in shallow streams. The appearance of spiracles on the top of skull suggest it had some primitive form of lungs, which would be useful in shallow water where the oxygen content was low. It's all there in the link, although it's written in a pretty basic manner.

If you want an example of something that went from (water to) land to water, you can look at whales and dolphins.

 

[rdean]

One of the examples we have of the transition from fish to land animals is Tiktaalik roseae. The front fins appear to have wrist bones, and the rays of the fins have been suggested to have resemblance to fingers. There are more similarities, and it's quite a fascinating creature.

So it went into the water from land?

No, this early specimen lived primarily in shallow streams. The appearance of spiracles on the top of skull suggest it had some primitive form of lungs, which would be useful in shallow water where the oxygen content was low. It's all there in the link, although it's written in a pretty basic manner.

If you want an example of something that went from (water to) land to water, you can look at whales and dolphins.

Scientists say a unique fossil specimen on display at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County shows the fossil of an embryonic plesiosaur contained within the fossil of its marine reptile mother.

"Many of the animals alive today that give birth to large, single young are social and have maternal care," O'Keefe said. "We speculate that plesiosaurs may have exhibited similar behaviors, making their social lives more similar to those of modern dolphins than other reptiles."

Pregnant Fossil Shows Dinosaur Gave Live Birth

 

[SFC Ollie]

I simply believe that it is hilarious that rdean tries so hard to make religion and politics mix.

Make them "mix"? That's retarded. One is "superstition". Guess which one.

So you think that all Christians and any other religious people are ignorant and do not believe in science? So well over half of your precious Democrats to include Mr. Obama and family. are ignorant and think science is stupid? Really? That's what you want us to believe?

Why do you keep "imagining" what I believe?

What do you believe?

In case you haven't noticed I do not, and have never discussed my religion in an open forum.......

I believe that a man's religion is his own business, that it should be between him and his God, whatever he deems that to be........

But you believe that anyone who believes in a God is a fool......... So therefore you believe Obama is a fool.....

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

It isn't necessary for a theory to answer every single question possible to be true.

For another example, take Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Kepler discovered the three laws through observational data collected by Tycho Brahe. The theory was controversial, but it was verifiable.

However, Kepler's Laws in no way explain WHY planets move in elliptical orbits with varying speeds related to an area differential. They're completely and totally silent on the why.

Later on, Newton would come along to explain the mathematics as to why a universe with a gravitational force inversely proportional to the square of the distance would force an elliptical path using some fairly advanced Calculus. Finally we knew why Kepler's Laws worked: The Law of Gravity.

Of course, at this point there are still questions. We now know how to mathematically describe the effect of gravity, but as of the last I heard we don't seem to have nailed down exactly WHY Gravity works the way it does. It just works.

It's similar to what we're seeing with evolutionary theory. We can see evolution in action on various levels: At high speed on the single cell level, and at a slightly slower speed for multi-cellular organisms. We know the mechanism that makes it work. However, even with that not all the questions are 100% known. That's why research continues.

You're putting evolution up with gravity? LOL. Seriously?

Gravity can be rigorously tested and has been for ages...and we still have the Pioneer anomaly! evolution? not so much

Yes, actually. We have actual examples of animals evolving along the lines Evolutionary Theory predicts using the actual mechanism that Evolutionary Theory prescribes, which is actually more than we can say for the Law of Gravity which tells us mathematically how gravity works, but not the mechanism.

Take for example Elephants. You may not know this, but the percentage of elephants being born without tusks is dramatically increasing. The reason for this is that Elephants with tusks are killed for those tusks while those without are not. Therefore those without have more babies passing on their "tuskless" trait to more elephants. We're probably less than 100 years away from Elephants being born without tusks. At which point, you might have to consider them a different species of Elephant. That's how new species come about. Gradual change over time until one day your reptilian dinosaur is now a bird.

The biggest misunderstanding about Evolution is applying it to the origin of life, something it truly doesn't address. What it does is describe the mechanism by which life adapts and survives. The analogy with Gravity is that the Law of Gravity doesn't tell you how the solar system was formed, but it does tell you how it will act, what form it will take, and what it's in for in the future.

 

[FurthurBB]

The thing of it is Dean that we don't live in the utopian world (thank God) of radical academic one sided restrictive liberalism. Americans should be free to consider Creationism while the academic world concentrates on genetic mutations in lower life forms and the origin of the species. Teaching Creationism in schools is not a threat to the world of liberalism as we know it. Kids will still be learning how to put a condom on a cucumber. Relax lefties.

Is that what you are doing in school tomorrow?

 

[FurthurBB]

I did a DVD course on evolution from The Teaching Comany; it gave a nice overview of the wonders and beauty of the creation that occurred to get us where we are. A literal interpretation of Genesis, for me, could only be based on a God that considered us too stupid to appreciate the wonders of his ability and handiwark. If we were created in His image, we should be able to grow and expand in our knowledge of His creation. He gave us an openended game as is fitting a creator.

I appreciate your post, as a biologist I do not believe there is anything incompatible with the theory of evolution and any religion.

 

[FurthurBB]

The thing of it is Dean that we don't live in the utopian world (thank God) of radical academic one sided restrictive liberalism. Americans should be free to consider Creationism while the academic world concentrates on genetic mutations in lower life forms and the origin of the species. Teaching Creationism in schools is not a threat to the world of liberalism as we know it. Kids will still be learning how to put a condom on a cucumber. Relax lefties.

Scientific theories are proved true or proved false based on their ability to make verifiable predictions. Until such point they are merely hypothesis.

In a science class teachers have a responsibility to prove theory, not hypothesis. If you can provide a prediction made by Creationism that is verifiable via experimentation, fine, teach it in science classes. Otherwise, reserve it for a philosophy course.

In the long run, Evolution is going to win out for the same reason the Kepler model won out over the Ptolemaic model, namely the Kepler model actually let you build accurate calenders and star charts and the Ptolemaic model didn't. Evolutionary theory helps develop cutting edge medical treatments and advances in genetics. Creationism doesn't.

Understand as I say this that I am a Christian who very much believes in the Biblical version of events, but we're at the point where if you're denying that evolution takes place, you're pretty much on par with the Flat Earth folks or the Ptolemaic model folks. Clearly evolution is in progress. What's interesting is that evolution even helps resolve some of the more difficult biblical stories. Noah's Ark makes a whole lot more sense when you add in the idea that Noah's original group of animals could, through evolution and natural selection, have diversified out into what we have now.

Actually, things are not really proven in science, science is about the best explanation for observed phenomenon. It would be more accurate to say evidenced instead of proven.

 

[FurthurBB]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

No nothing evolves spontaneously. Probably what happened is some species of fish got separated from their breeding population and habitat. When this happens it doesn't take very long for them to become a new breeding population so genetically different from the original population that they can no longer successfully breed.

 

[FurthurBB]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

It isn't necessary for a theory to answer every single question possible to be true.

For another example, take Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Kepler discovered the three laws through observational data collected by Tycho Brahe. The theory was controversial, but it was verifiable.

However, Kepler's Laws in no way explain WHY planets move in elliptical orbits with varying speeds related to an area differential. They're completely and totally silent on the why.

Later on, Newton would come along to explain the mathematics as to why a universe with a gravitational force inversely proportional to the square of the distance would force an elliptical path using some fairly advanced Calculus. Finally we knew why Kepler's Laws worked: The Law of Gravity.

Of course, at this point there are still questions. We now know how to mathematically describe the effect of gravity, but as of the last I heard we don't seem to have nailed down exactly WHY Gravity works the way it does. It just works.

It's similar to what we're seeing with evolutionary theory. We can see evolution in action on various levels: At high speed on the single cell level, and at a slightly slower speed for multi-cellular organisms. We know the mechanism that makes it work. However, even with that not all the questions are 100% known. That's why research continues.

You're putting evolution up with gravity? LOL. Seriously?

Gravity can be rigorously tested and has been for ages...and we still have the Pioneer anomaly! evolution? not so much

Evolution actually has much more evidence than gravity so evolution should have been put before gravity. Evolution is the scientific theory with the most evidence than any other. It can also be tested and has been for ages.

 

[Old Rocks]

A whole series of books written by Stephen Jay Gould would be a good start for anyong interested in getting a basic understanding of the way that evolution works. Of course, people like Franky boy have an aversion to anything above a third grade level.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dr. Traveler:

The biggest misunderstanding about Evolution is applying it to the origin of life, something it truly doesn't address. What it does is describe the mechanism by which life adapts and survives. The analogy with Gravity is that the Law of Gravity doesn't tell you how the solar system was formed, but it does tell you how it will act, what form it will take, and what it's in for in the future.

I happen to agree with that statement. It's pretty brilliant analogy.. But you're copping out here. Since I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER my public school indoctrination telling me that we clearly descended from slime mold. ((Tortures me to this day)). If we could just get all the religion-bashering leftists to conceed this point -- rainbows would form and there would be no more tantrum rooms on USMB.

It takes HUGE leaps of faith to accept the slime mold theory. Especially in light of the multiple mass extinctions that refused to take out our ancestral lines. Just like it takes immense faith to accept the Big Bang theory even for folks who recognize the evidence for it..

 

[flacaltenn]

Just as an aside. A college roommate in wildlife management did a thesis on southern possums adapting to different shades of coats depending on the type of hiway covering that was used in the area. Evidently - more contrast against the asphalt at night -- meant larger chances to have sex and propagate. Bad for harvesting road kill meals tho..

 

[flacaltenn]

WoW:

Did I chill this thread out? Because I thought it was getting interesting with Dr. T's remarks about not claiming that evolutionary theory really addresses questions of creation.

Who believes that evolutionary principles are all we need to explain our origins in slime mold? Because that is the NUT of the problem with what's being taught as science.

The Scopes trial just didn't go far enough.. Because I can conceed the connection to the Great Apes.. But that doesn't mean "the science is solved" for your great great great ancestor "ole slimy"...

 

[Old Rocks]

The genetics point to a common origin to all life on Earth. The fact that you dislike the idea have have a distant relationship to bluegreen algea does nothing to change that relationship.

 

[flacaltenn]

The genetics point to a common origin to all life on Earth. The fact that you dislike the idea have have a distant relationship to bluegreen algea does nothing to change that relationship.

The periodic chart suggests a strong common lineage between a mountain and molehill. But I wouldn't presume that the relationship of the primary building elements tells me anything about how they developed..