Evidence for Evolution & Evolution 101

[SnakeBoy]

robdiaz, avante - idiots who deny facts
snakeboy - some personal bias blinding him, unfortunately
mouse - #justmousethings

Blinding me from what? I believe in evolution. I don't believe we have it all figured out yet, you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who would disagree with that.

[z0sa]

Blinding me from what? I believe in evolution. I don't believe we have it all figured out yet, you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who would disagree with that.

Ok then... I stand corrected.

[RandomGuy]

That's fine, like I said before whatever makes you happy. I just said I didn't believe that learning good science had anything to do with why you started the thread and you've proven that to be true.

Suit yourself. I think you have proven rather conclusively that the process you use to reach conclusions tends to be pretty flawed, and lead you to a lot of foolish conclusions, so I won't be losing much sleep over them.

[RandomGuy]

I was reading about the theory of evolution 30 years ago. And still don't buy it at all.

I've also been reading stuff like this just as long...

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Not really evidence, merely a lot of dishonest misrepresentations of evidence, and the theory of evolution. I skimmed it, but won't bother with a point by point.

What do you think is the best point from the link you posted? (or did you actually read it?)

[AussieFanKurt]

When people believe in creationism and use science as a way to dispel evolution.. well I just can't take the irony

[RandomGuy]

It's 1936 and Jesse Owens has just won the Olympic 100m in 10.3. He is the fastest man in the world (no not really that was the injured Eulace Pea ). Now if someone would have asked the scientific world what the limits of human beings were in the 100m do you really think they come up with 9.58? Of course not, they would have worked around 10.3 and probably came up with 9.9ish. No way they see a guy 6-5 with a 400/200m background running a 100m, that was unheard of in 1936.

Give it up people, we did not evolve from fish....ok, that's ing stupid and only a moron would buy that bull .

How come fish aren't leaving the ocean today?


http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-f...o-be-wrong.php

Argument from incredulity.

Debunked:

Claim CA100:

It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

Doesn't really speak to the evidence of evolution though, does it?

Perhaps you can explain why all the marsupials on the planet are in one place?

Ring species?

Bacterial flagella?

How does one explain these items without the theory of evolution? Perhaps you can explain it for me. I don't think you have a coherent alternative theory.

[RandomGuy]

So nobody knows anything about this but you, right? How come I don't believe that?

Lots of people know about evolution besides me.

That is why there are so many links to the basics on evolution, and why it is so easy to rebut your really bad arguments. I have to spend as much time debunking them as you spent copying and pasting them. The difference, of course, is I understand and read what I am posting about, and you don't even really read what you post.

[RandomGuy]

Everyone understands, it's not even as complex as the zone defense.

You have attempted to define what evolution is, and have failed to accurately do so.

That would imply that it is more complex than your flawed understanding of it.

Which is why I have posted some 101 links in the OP.

Did you read any of it?

[RandomGuy]

So I guess these fishy things just crawled up on shore knowing they'd find something they could eat and preceded to ........hmmmmmm? What happened next?

I;m with you, talk about some stupidity there it is.

http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/6/1/8


Generally, finding something to eat is generally secondary to the ability to escape predators, or reproduce in relative safety.

here are different kinds of air-breathing fishes. Aquatic air-breathing fishes remain in water and surface periodically to gulp air. This behaviour may be continuous in some species subjected to low oxygen concentrations and high water temperatures, or facultative in species subjected to occasional conditions unfavourable for aquatic respiration. In contrast, amphibious air-breathers emerge from the water to feed, rest, escape predators, find a mate and defend territories. Some species are active on land, such as the mudskippers that are the subject of the next section. Other species are inactive on land and become air-breathers when their aquatic habitat disappears during the tropical dry season. Some lungfishes are in this category and are confined in mud burrows until the rains return. They are without food and enter a hypometabolic state or even aestivate (see Figure 2).

The ability of a fish to briefly leave the water is a very powerful adaptation.

Not hard to imagine that a progressive series of minor adaptations in such populations would lead to variations that allow for more and more time spent out of water, given so positive a selective force.

[SnakeBoy]

Suit yourself. I think you have proven rather conclusively that the process you use to reach conclusions tends to be pretty flawed, and lead you to a lot of foolish conclusions, so I won't be losing much sleep over them.

What process did you use to reach the conclusion that this thread of yours would be any different from all of the other evolution threads?

Since your goal here is to provide answers, I do have a question for you. How long will it take for you to get frustrated and throw a temper tantrum like you have in other evolution threads?

[RandomGuy]

Yep, those that believe in some God being responsible for all this.


So this is simply wrong?


The "Tree of Life" is falling

New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:²⁶ "The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened." "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. 'For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,' says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach."
"But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombs has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." "The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes". "As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances". " 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine." "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.¹³ 'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."


Why is it we are totally surrounded by that sort of thing today? So many not believing in Darwin's theory. How come everyone isn't accepting it as the way it really was? I don't think you really understasnd just how many out there aren't buying it at all and totally disagree with with you.

Indeed, there is a huge amount of evidence that early single-celled organisms exchanged a lot of genetic information. This, however, doesn't somehow "disprove" evolution.

The only thing it does is simply refine the concept of speciation.

Do you think that the number of people believing in something affects the underlying truth of an idea?

[Avante]

Indeed, there is a huge amount of evidence that early single-celled organisms exchanged a lot of genetic information. This, however, doesn't somehow "disprove" evolution.

The only thing it does is simply refine the concept of speciation.

Do you think that the number of people believing in something affects the underlying truth of an idea?

It took us how long to give black folks their freedom, women the right to vote? Remember when sexuality was considered a mental illness? Look at how pot is now being threated? There's evolution.

More and more scientists are starting to question the theory of evolution, why is that?

[RandomGuy]

What process did you use to reach the conclusion that this thread of yours would be any different from all of the other evolution threads?

Since your goal here is to provide answers, I do have a question for you. How long will it take for you to get frustrated and throw a temper tantrum like you have in other evolution threads?

(shrugs)

The inherent assumption to your first question is flawed, the question is therefore meaningless.

As for if/when I lose my temper: I have no idea. It does happen.

Does my ability to control my temper have any impact on the evidence supporting the theory of evolution? or is using the phrase "temper tantrum" just allow you some emotionally comforting way of dismissing me?

[RandomGuy]

Do you think that the number of people believing in something affects the underlying truth of an idea?

It took us how long to give black folks their freedom, women the right to vote? Remember when sexuality was considered a mental illness? Look at how pot is now being threated? There's evolution.

More and more scientists are starting to question the theory of evolution, why is that?

Doesn't really answer my question.

Yes or no, 2nd time:

Do you think that the number of people believing in something affects the underlying truth of an idea?

[Blake]

It took us how long to give black folks their freedom, women the right to vote? Remember when sexuality was considered a mental illness? Look at how pot is now being threated? There's evolution.

More and more scientists are starting to question the theory of evolution, why is that?

You're equating blacks being able to vote with the theory of evolution.

wow. You are completely re ed.

[DarrinS]

Another evolution vs creation thread?

pass

[RandomGuy]

Avante claims to want answers, but never seems very interested in actual evidence.

Doesn't really jibe with someone who cares about reality, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Shameless bump.

[mouse]

/thread

[mouse]

Shameless bump.

Why bump when you can just finally post a link to the fossils that prove we evolved from an ape?

[spurraider21]

/thread

you just posted this same flawed thing in the other thread

[mouse]

you just posted this same flawed thing in the other thread

And you had nothing add to that topic just like you have nothing to add to this topic.

[spurraider21]

And you had nothing add to that topic just like you have nothing to add to this topic.

i pointed out critical flaws. that is adding to the topic

[mouse]

i pointed out critical flaws. that is adding to the topic

Not really negative feedback is taking away not adding.

If you had a restaurant and all you got was negative feedback how will that increase profits?

[RandomGuy]

Why bump when you can just finally post a link to the fossils that prove we evolved from an ape?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources...uman-evolution

Easy enough.







etc

etc