The Theory of Evolution

[Cecilie1200]

Evolution is like saying:

If a tornado hit a large junkyard and stayed there spinning for a billion years.

When the wind finally died down.

There could easily be a complete 747 jet airplane that had "evolved" from the scrap metal swirling in the air.

Metal doesn't self replicate.

Argument refuted.

It's like we've heard this one before.

Evolution would be a lot more believable if it's proponents didn't so often have to resort to such deliberate obtuseness to avoid addressing points.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What implications of evolution would make us uncomfortable? Christianity has no need for evolution to be false. .

So they recanted Genesis?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

that's why i lack patience for their arguments. they are ignorant...ignore all scientific methodology and try to equate theology with biology.

I don't mind the arguement, as long as it's genuine.

However, you rarely find that with people who want to argue against evolution. Usually there is an ulterior motive.

It says a lot to me that people constantly have to crook the facts and data to try and take down evolutionary theories.

It's always said a lot to me that people have to utterly ignore the facts and date to try and prop evolution up. And it never helps when they outright lie.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

and by the way, ID doesn't require any supernatural entity at all. It doesn't even address the supernatural. THAT actually comes more from its detractors.

So the intelligence in ID is natural? Were we made by aliens? How does ID explain the aliens?

Are you always this stupid?

 

[geauxtohell]

Also important to not, evolution picks up at the one cell level.

Incorrect. It picks up with the first replicators (self-replicating molecules).

Explaining how a one cell world came about is abiogenesis and is much more controversial.

Abiogenesis addresses the emergence of the first replicators. Once these are formed, evolution applies to them (the path of evolution in these early forms is open to speculation; there can be no theory as to how it occured, only to possible routes)

Okay, thanks for the correction.

 

[rdean]

It takes far, far more "faith" to believe in the theory of evolution.

Than it takes to believe in Intelligent Design

I can breed dogs and plants into any shape I desire and watch a version of evolution in my own lifetime.

To sound like more of an non-believer than I am, what do I have to go with to help me believe in Intelligent Design?

I don't even have to go any further to know what ridiculous arguments the right would bring up. They can't really counter science with stupid no matter how they try. But their arguments can sometimes be imaginative. To bad they can't point that intellect to actually "learning" instead of "denying". How many scientists have we lost to mystical mumbo jumbo.

First off, dogs can still breed with dogs or even wolves, the creatures they were bred from. Much better examples would be animals that have genetically "drifted apart into where they can no longer properly reproduce. Two very well known examples are the "lion" and the "tiger" or the "horse" and the donkey". Both can still have offspring, but the offspring is nearly always born "faulty". Either sterile or some other defect. That is why the equine offspring is called a "mule".

Next, you will have the right say, "But they are the same kind". Isn't that funny? The same "kind". They use that same silly canard to explain why Noah could have "millions" of creatures on a boat two thirds the size of the Titanic. The Titanic only carried a couple of thousand people.

To them, the same "kind" means that only one pair of "cats" that became lions, tigers, house-cats, lynx, panthers, cheetahs and so on.

The problem here is that this isn't 1882. We know through genetics, when species "speciated". Worse for the magical creationists, many times the data is supported by other branches of science.

All they have is one book written by primitives from the Middle East who didn't know to wash after wiping. They didn't even know what a "germ" was.

Then the right will try to put down "peer review" and the "scientific method" as if they know the meaning of either.

The worst part is the hypocrisy. They go to doctors. I can tell you now, you will not find a licensed medical doctor who is both respected and believes in "magical creation". Every single doctor will tell you that evolution is the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology.

The nerve of these people. Using the fruits of science and at the same time trying to stop it's teaching. They are terrible. Truly awful. They want to hamstring their own children, make them less competitive in this world, and all for the sake of ignorant and superstitious mystical beliefs. It's appalling.

Is it any wonder that the Pew Institute poll shows that only 6% of scientists will admit to being Republican? What a terrible indictment against a political party. They have no shame. They have "magic".

Well, good luck on that "magic" the next time a virus evolves and they need to go to a doctor. Otherwise, maybe the can "pray it away".

The next thing you know, someone wll tell you having no occult beliefs is itself a religion. Oh wait. Someone is already telling me that on another thread.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

 

[xsited1]

Maybe that it's still a theory taught as absolute fact.

Not too much unlike the theory of man casued globalclimatecoolerwarmering.

Gravity is a theory.. Are you going to deny that too??

Theory is fact.. But we may not understand how it happens.. Evolution is fact!! There is no denying it.. What we don't know is the exact evolutionary path every species took to get where they are.. Hence the theory part.. Gravity is fact!! But how it exactly works is still under debate, hence the theory part..

Just because something is called a theory doesn't mean it isn't fact or real.. It means we may not know all the details about something.. But we know it to be true..

Why is it you neotards don't know the definition of such a simple word..

Global warming is fact!! But we don't know positively what % man is responsible.. We know we are responsible and that global warming is fact!!

You people are simply in a state of denial and spinning the definition of a word to suit your needs..

Theory in most cases is fact, though the details are yet to become known for sure..

Intelligent design is a farce and there is nothing to back it up with..

Yet another fabulous troll post from MajikMyst!

Keep this up and you'll win the coveted USMB "Troll of the Year" award.

 

[Toronado3800]

The question is, what does what humans can accomplish deliberately through the application of their intelligence-directed will have to do with random, undirected change?

I agree entirely that human intervention increases the speed of evolution almost w/o exception.

The Australian separation comes to mind as creating many new species of animals. Or this odd case of the snapping shrimp which evolved into different species after the Isthmus of Panama rose. Now they don't even breed when we put the two together.

 

[geauxtohell]

but dont species define themselves when they cant produce fertile offspring with one another? we may define breeds like chihuahua and great dane, but species are a scientific constant.

Right. I was just making the point for people that get wrapped up on the concept of microevolution versus macroevolution.

 

[antagon]

I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.

sure i have heard some takes, but i have not been in such a debate and didnt want to half-ass an opposing arguement then refute it.

i *theorized* that science is getting its own religious fanaticism about it. all of the claims of 'scientific fact' are oximoronic when put to your pick of the future or the scientific method itself. largely used by non-scientists radicalized against people who believe in god or question what their lab-coat imams had summerized simplisticly in newsweek.

speciation is a weak point if one refutes circumstantial evidence say in fossil records. plenty of speciation is observed in plants through selective breeding. plants, bacteria and fruit flies allow what is millions of years of change to be observed more rapidly. interestingly, when fruitfly males dont recognize females, as in one popular case study (with bald flies and fuzzy flies), they dont voluntarily mate. that is considered a type of speciation, but not the strictest... and those were bred from the same stock on the fuzzy/not fuzzy trait.

the science community does think of the speciation arguement as spoken for, perhaps, and
has moved on to other bits of genetics.

see? i didnt have speciation on my short-list. isnt there anything redeeming about fossil evidences and gene-maps that show divergence with common traits/genes implying ancestry?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, just like gravity. ****'n hogwash!

I can quantify and measure the effects gravity, even though I don't know how it works at the molecular level. The same thing cannot be said of sentient-life-out-of-protoplasm evolution theory.

Silly premise refuted.

Evolution is observable in the fossil record. It is absolutely a quantifiable science.

No, it isn't, and no, it isn't.

Not only does the fossil record not prove evolution, it's not even CAPABLE of proving it.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee, 1999

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." Gareth Nelson, fossil expert, American Museum of Natural History in New York

 

[Cecilie1200]

Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.

Anyone whop denies the fact of evolution is a ******* moron. There is no room for debate; evolution is a proven fact.

And it certainly saves you the trouble of TRYING to debate it, and thus looking like even more of an imbecile when you can't substantiate anything you say. It's always easier when you can just say, "I'm right, and if you disagree, then you're stupid and don't deserve to be listened to. I win!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wrong. Evolution n is a fact.

No, it is not a fact

Never heard of a child being born? Never heard of MRSA? Blue germs? Never got a shot?

THAT is your idea of proof? "Children are born, MRSA exists, people get shots, therefore evolution is fact"? You were better off when you went with, "I'm right because only stupid people think I'm wrong, so I win."

 

[Cecilie1200]

The underlying fact is that we are not all alike, we pass our traits on in DNA, and that mutations cause alterations in traits.

What you are describing is adaptation.

That is not evolution

Yes it is. Adaptation or failure to adapt is part of evolution.

You don't have to believe in evolution, but you don't get to claim fiat on the matter.

Espeically when there are mountains of evidence that support it.

Sorry, but the debate is not whether or not things change. The debate is whether or not things change INTO OTHER THINGS ENTIRELY, and changing within a species does NOT prove change between species, so that tired smokescreen of "evolution is just change over time" ain't gonna work.

Show me a "mountain of evidence" in favor of change between species. Hell, I'll settle for a foothill, or even a speed bump, of evidence. Let's see it.

 

[geauxtohell]

'Cept I'm not a creationist, either...In fact, I'm agnostic.

I take my skepticism seriously.

I never accused you of being one. Just noting that the implications of evolution have always made Christians uncomfortable.

That is why they are concerned with the "why".

Evolutionary theory is not concerned at all with the "why", it doesn't try to explain why it happened, just how it happened.

What implications of evolution would make us uncomfortable? Christianity has no need for evolution to be false. It is atheists who need it to be true.

I think the fact that it conflicts with the Genesis account of how species were created makes Christians uncomfortable.

I think it's evident that elements of Christianity have a problem with evolution when so many groups that attack it are motivated by there religious beliefs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The gene comes out different, on a much smaller more chemical level than say your hand gets blasted by the x-ray machine. I'd also venture to say it usually comes out inferior. But when it does SOMEHOW work to the advantage of the specimen that specimen is more likely to reproduce than its competitors with the normal gene.

Yes, it usually comes out inferior. The vast majority of genetic mutations are fatal to the owner, if I remember correctly, and some percentage of the non-fatal ones are not passed on to the offspring. So assuming millions of random, non-fatal, hereditary mutations in the direction of increasingly more complex and diverse species is . . . reaching.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.

Anyone whop denies the fact of evolution is a ******* moron. There is no room for debate; evolution is a proven fact.

And it certainly saves you the trouble of TRYING to debate it, and thus looking like even more of an imbecile when you can't substantiate anything you say. It's always easier when you can just say, "I'm right, and if you disagree, then you're stupid and don't deserve to be listened to. I win!"

lol

Where was your refutation of the examples I provided earlier?

Evolution has been observed- speciation ahs been observed. It's an open and shut case. Modern medicine only works because evolution is a fact. A proper understanding of evolution and its mechanisms is what allows us to synthesize antibiotics and vaccines and how we knew where the anthrax virus in the mail came from. It's also how Maury finds out what poor bastard got the slut on his show pregnant

 

[Cecilie1200]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Whale_skeleton.png

This whale skeleton seems to indicate it's species evolved from something else, something with legs.

Unfortunately, looking at the skeleton of something and saying, "That looks very much like a whale with legs, therefore that must mean that either a whale evolved from something with legs or something with legs evolved from a whale" doesn't constitute evidence of anything. It's called "conjecture", also known as "speculation", also known as "wild-assed guessing".

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Sorry, but the debate is not whether or not things change. The debate is whether or not things change INTO OTHER THINGS ENTIRELY, and changing within a species does NOT prove change between species, so that tired smokescreen of "evolution is just change over time" ain't gonna work.

It's not a smokescreen, dumbass. It's the definition of evolution.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow. What a way to totally misunderstand the point. Did you do that on purpose, or were you just lucky?

Dr. Behe, I presume? Apparently I didn't misunderstand the point, and neither did the judge.

Untrue. Intelligent design has quite a bit more conflict with evolution than merely the "supernatural entity" mechanism - and by the way, ID doesn't require any supernatural entity at all. It doesn't even address the supernatural. THAT actually comes more from its detractors.

It surely does. An all powerful, sentient being that guides the development of species is be definition supernatural.