The Theory of Evolution

[geauxtohell]

Oh, Christ. Wikipedia again. This is what education has come to in America. I swear, you are proof that humans are DEVOLVING rather than evolving. Any minute now, your opposable thumbs are going to disappear.

Than how embarrassing it must be for you that he was in correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I want it to be something other than a bacteria. A Chihuahua is genetically distinct from a German Shepherd, but it's still a dog.

You don't even accept that things evolve into new species, and now you want things to evolve beyond the level of species?

You'll understand if I don't jump at the task of performing a fool's errand.

Oh, and by the way, adaptation in a species triggered by human activity, ie. the action upon the species of an outside intelligence, doesn't exactly help the argument for evolution.

It doesn't hurt it either. You would have a point if only humans caused adaptation.

No, actually, I DON'T understand why you won't jump at the task of proving the truth of what you keep telling me is true.

Why is it that you can say, over and over, "Evolution is true", but when I say, "Prove it", your answer is, "Fool's errand." Am I supposed to believe that one species changes into another completely randomly, or aren't I? And if I am, WHY am I supposed to? Because I can see one species changing . . . into itself?

I never said anything about human design hurting a species in general, so I have no idea why you're arguing against a point I never made.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, but the analogy wasn't talking about metal replicating, and you know it. It was talking about looking at something clearly engineered and concocting a theory about it being created by random accident. And we both know it, so running off down a "metal doesn't replicate" tangent is just cowardly avoidance of the point.

If you don't understand why self replication (and metal's inability to do it) is central to this issue, you are truly lost.

If you don't understand that no one was saying metal replicates, you're a moron. If you do understand it and you're still babbling about it anyway, you're a disingenuous poltroon.

Take your pick.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since you don't accept the fossil record, I doubt there is much point.

Things change, the changes are passed on. Saying you accept microevolution but not macoevolution is like saying you believe in pennies but not dollars.

there's some great quotes here... i mean, asshelmet!?! im using that in traffic.

there's extremists on both ends, having seen majik and celine at work. im not out to claim fact, but science, like life, requires the ability (or willingness) to see probability in plausability.

My name is Cecilie, not Celine. And I'm curious as to how I'm an extremist. All I've really said is, "Prove it", and "That isn't proof", followed by quite patient - considering the sources - explanations of WHY it isn't proof. What's extreme about that? I haven't even stated empirically that evolution isn't true. All I said is that it isn't proven.

Science, like life, requires the ability to tell the difference between evidence and supposition.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since you don't accept the fossil record, I doubt there is much point.

Things change, the changes are passed on. Saying you accept microevolution but not macoevolution is like saying you believe in pennies but not dollars.

Accept the fossil record? Accept WHAT about the fossil record? Please point out to me this apocryphal fossil evidence for evolution. So far, all I've seen is you saying, "The fossil record proves it. There, it exists." Your word for it just about constitutes proof that you believe it, in my eyes. It doesn't prove jack in the way of actual truth.

Things change, ergo things change into other things. Is that your idea of "mountains of evidence"?

Microevolution and macroevolution are not two parts of the same thing. They're two totally different things, and if I had seen pennies and merely been told by doofuses on the Internet that dollars exist - doofuses who couldn't give me one shred of a reason to believe them - you're damned right I'd say that I believe in pennies and not in dollars.

You're gonna have to do better than this or stop claiming there are "mountains of evidence". If a mountain exists, you should at least be able to show it to me on a map, if not produce some pictures of you on vacation there.

The fossil record provides an "A to B" map of evolution. You reject it, that's fine. The overwhelming majority of scientists, let alone biologists, disagree with you.

No, it doesn't. Read the quotes I provided. Even evolutionary scientists don't claim that the fossil record provides any such thing. If it did, you'd be able to provide the proof I keep asking for, instead of just saying, "You don't agree, that's fine. But you're wrong." Didn't they ever teach you in school to show, not tell? Stop telling me I'm wrong and SHOW ME that I'm wrong. That, or admit that you can't.

You keep saying "show me this" and "show me that" and when posters actually take the time to cite articles, you flippantly dismiss them. Again, you'll understand if I am not eager to do a fool's errand. I know you already have your mind made up on the matter and are not going to change it.

Yeah, I keep saying it, and you keep saying, "That's a fool's errand. You're just wrong, and that's it."

Cite WHAT articles? Who has cited any articles, or anything at all other than Prole citing Wikipedia and YouTube? Are you seriously telling me that the best evidence you can come up with on the entire Internet to support evolution is WIKIPEDIA? Seriously?

And I love that whole "You won't believe me, so I'm not going to prove it. You're just wrong, and that's it" line. The classic retort of someone who can't prove it. YOU are the reason my mind is made up: because if evolution was true, it would have better defenders than disingenuous twits who run and hide the first time they're challenged.

You lose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, Christ. Wikipedia again. This is what education has come to in America. I swear, you are proof that humans are DEVOLVING rather than evolving. Any minute now, your opposable thumbs are going to disappear.

Than embarrassing it must be for you that he was in correct.

You're right, he WAS incorrect, although I have to point out that that is just one word.

 

[rdean]

The rims of the Grand Canyon formed 270 million years ago. The bottom is over 1 and a half billion years old. The fossils found at the bottom are very simple. Like clams. As you go through the layers of earth, with the oldest being on the bottom and the newest on top, the fossils become more complex. Also, the fossils indicate the type of creature that lived during the time of the layer, whether swamp or grassland and how those creatures were adapted to that environment. Like I said in my previous posts, this isn't 1882.

Nothing in science is ever more than a theory, but to turn your back on the accumulated knowledge or choose not to learn is insane and in this competitive world, a disgrace.

Geology News: Age of the Grand Canyon by NPS

 

[antagon]

My name is Cecilie, not Celine. And I'm curious as to how I'm an extremist. All I've really said is, "Prove it", and "That isn't proof", followed by quite patient - considering the sources - explanations of WHY it isn't proof. What's extreme about that? I haven't even stated empirically that evolution isn't true. All I said is that it isn't proven.

Science, like life, requires the ability to tell the difference between evidence and supposition.

sorry for butchering your name, Cecilie.

from where i stand, having subscribed to some of the basic ideas of evolution on the basis of their logical implications, id say its extreme to empirically deny evolution, but youve put forth that you havent expressly stated that that's the case with you. as for the need for proof, your arguement is with prolitarian and the majikm..guy who have it down to a matter of fact... also extreme takes on virtually any bit of science. like i said, time and the method debunk some of science's greater work. in light of that, the pusuit of knowledge through science isnt about declaring 'fact' or waiting for 'proof' with your arms crossed. thats a laymans' gig (witness global warming debate). instead, its about discussing, researching and attempting (through supposition, if you insist) to understand what youre after.

im on vacation. its 6am and the jetlag is wearing off. sleepytime.

thank you for the insight and discussion

 

[MajikMyst]

So here is the skinny on evolution!! It is fact!! That is it there is no arguement!! to deny it is willfull ignorance and stupidity..

Mankind and planst share 99% of their DNA.. That is right, we have the genetic code for photosenthisis.. Chickens can grow teeth, and we can grow feathers..

How much DNA do plants share with humans?

Evolution is a genetic fact!! There is no two ways around it!! It is a genetic FACT!!

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth: Scientific American

The only way that all life on this planet can share that much DNA and genetic code is if we all evolved from a single sourse species.. Which would be microbial life from the ocean.. No land.. But the ocean..

The only thing that remains a theory in evolution is exactly what evolutionary path did modern animals take from being a microb in the ocean to what they are today.. That will most likely always be a theory as we don't have genetic samples of all life on this planet both past and present..

But I would like you willfully ignorant fools to please explain why all life on this planet shares 99% of it's DNA?? Why do chickens have the genetic code to grow teeth?? Why does mankind have the genetic code for photosinthisis?? Why do plants have the genetic code to grow scales like a fish??

All these things are there in our genetic makeup.. They are just dormant as our current species doesn't use them.. But none the less, they are all there..

Evolution can be seen in the flu virus.. Each year we have to get vaccinated with a new vaccine as the flu has become resistant to last years vaccine.. The flu has a very short life cycle which also means it has a very short evolutionary cycle.. Which is why scientists are so worried about the super flue pandemic.. A flu that is immune to all or most treatments.. The Swine flu is another example, as it has mutated to exist in both pigs and humans.. I doubt to many of you morons want to deny the existence of h1n1?? The swine flu exists because of evolution.. God didn't create it back in the days of genisis..

Evolution is fact!! Denying it does nothing but show your own ignorance..

 

[eagleseven]

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

Not too much unlike the theory of man casued globalclimatecoolerwarmering.

As far as scientific theory goes, it has proven itself particularly useful. Specifically, it explains why bacteria and viruses keep changing to defeat our medical technology. Without evolutionary theory, there's no reason why bacteria and viruses should change at all.

Unless God makes modern bacteria antibiotic-resistant, and creates new types of viruses like HIV, just to make our lives miserable? (although if you asked Pat Robertson, he'd argue God created HIV to punish the homosexuals)

 

[germanguy]

I love this kind of debate...

I remember my biology teacher debating Darwin´s theory with a, well kind of, christian extremist. She was quite eloquent, but her argument went pretty much down to:
"I do not have to prove my theory, I want you to prove yours and then make holes out of the weak spots.."

At the end the answer of my teacher was:

You either take whatever holy book you believe in as fact, then any debate is fruitless.
Or you start to follow the scientific method, which pretty much runs down to probabilities.
We know, that a stone will fall to the earth with a certain speed and therefore within a certain time. We can measure this and predict therefore that other stones will do so in the future as well. Based on this method we can send people to the moon or construct airplanes.

But actually we will in deep shit if the stone will stop falling. Will this happen ?
We do not know.

And now to my beloved Eddie and his comments on this :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QrGAJJ2sSc[/ame]


regards
ze germanguy

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And as I keep pointing out, changes brought about by the agency of intelligent human activity hardly proves random evolution.

There's no such thing as 'random evolution'. Mutations are pseudo-random and evolutionary pressures are very not-random in the way they 'select' for' or favour various traits. UI recommend a child's science book for you.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Microevolution and macroevolution are not two parts of the same thing. They're two totally different things, and if I had seen pennies and merely been told by doofuses on the Internet that dollars exist - doofuses who couldn't give me one shred of a reason to believe them - you're damned right I'd say that I believe in pennies and not in dollars.

When a penny is defined as a coin valued at 1/100 of a dollar

There is no micro-/macro- distinction. No such distinction exists except in the minds of idiot like Kirk 'The Banana Man' Cameron

 

[☭proletarian☭]

We can't watch evolution occur.

Really? We never see the effects of interracial marriages? We never observed generations of flies? We don't have a new flu shot every year? Blue genes don't mutate and locusts aren't becoming immune to our pesticides?

Interracial marriage? Hey, I don't know if you got this news bulletin from the 21st century, Klan Boy, but black humans and white humans are THE SAME SPECIES. And so are their offspring.

And we cn see the pheno- and genotypical difference between them and the way their children emerge as the result of this mix of diverse genetic material-the evolution of new racial types under new conditions as once-seperate groups interbreed.

Moron.

Show me a marriage between two humans producing a kitten or a coupling between a human and a pony producing something entirely new, and you'll have something.

You show me that, and you'll have a pretty good argument against evolution

As for locusts and immunities, see my last post on this subject re: I didn't become another species when I developed an immunity to chickenpox. I'm still human.

Genetic differences across generations =/= biological changes in a single organism.

I already linked you to examples of ongoing human evolution.

 

[☭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.

It is a theory and not a fact. That's all you need to know. .

You're an idiot.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][4][5][6][7] The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution: Fact Or Theory? How Can It Be Both? What's the Difference?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

humans are DEVOLVING

No such thing as devolution, genius. Stop taking your science from Mario Brothers movies.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

ID doesn't purport to explain who or what the intelligence is. It merely points out that some things encountered in nature show clear signs of having been designed, rather than random. Any desire to jump to conclusions and put labels on things originates with YOU, not ID.

The worst thing I can imagine is being anything that a mouthbreather like you would consider "intelligent".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw[/ame]

Ooh, YouTube. THAT puts me in my place even better than Wikipedia, you mad scientific genius, you.

Do you even know who tyson is- or who any of the people in the audience are?

SA Distinguished Public Service Medal. His contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos have been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid "13123 Tyson". On the lighter side, Tyson was voted "Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" by People Magazine in 2000.

Tyson is the first occupant of the Frederick P. Rose Directorship of the Hayden Planetarium.

Home | Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Oh, Christ. Wikipedia again. This is what education has come to in America. I swear, you are proof that humans are DEVOLVING rather than evolving. Any minute now, your opposable thumbs are going to disappear.

Than embarrassing it must be for you that he was in correct.

You're right, he WAS incorrect, although I have to point out that that is just one word.

So you really wish to assert that 'bacteria' is a species?

UC Berkley good enough for you?

History of life through time

What is evolution and how does it work?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Are you always this stupid?

ID doesn't purport to explain who or what the intelligence is. It merely points out that some things encountered in nature show clear signs of having been designed, rather than random. Any desire to jump to conclusions and put labels on things originates with YOU, not ID.

The worst thing I can imagine is being anything that a mouthbreather like you would consider "intelligent".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw[/ame]

Yet, against those long odds, here we are.

 

[Immanuel]

The theory wasn't just "dreamed up". It was proposed by Darwin in 1859. Now, 150 years later, it remains on of the most supported concepts in science.

Evolution has also never been concerned with the "why". It has always been about the how. Theologists and moralists concern themselves with the "why".

Which explains the goofy attempts by the creationists to interject God into the theory via intelligent design.

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.

Why does one have to assume that Charles Darwin was 100% correct and that people who believe that God or another intelligent being, created life or even the universe have to be 100% incorrect. I have always believed that Charles Darwin was at least partially correct when he presented his theory and that there is room for "expansion" of the theory.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation despite what the church proclaims.

For instance, I find it hard to believe that a dog can become a whale, or was it supposed to be the other way around? But, I can find daily evidence of dogs and cats having been bred into different species; still dogs and cats just not the same breed.

I always struggle with the abiogenesis theory because to me it takes more faith to believe that then to believe that God started all of this, but who says God didn't start it all and set evolution into motion? IF God did create it all, we know he had to include all the other scientific laws such as gravity so why is it so hard to believe that he put evolution into motion as well?

Immie

Note: I'm not stating that you assume such, geauxtohell, just posing the question.