Evolution?

[Phenomanul]

Anyways... I have to run...

-Peace

[I. Hustle]

Seeing as how we live longer now than ever, it could really also have been 47 years.

there is faith in God and then there are other beliefs at how we arrived here including abiogenesis.

there is no need for faith in evolution. It has been pretty well established.

Yeah it could have been 30 years. That is exactly my point. No there does need to be faith in evolution. You can't tell me that theories don't change and with the finding of anything new whether it be fossils or new species like the ones discovered not too long ago. In order to believe in evolution you have faith in what these people have researched and studied and theorized.

you are assuming purpose over randomness.

that falls into the philosophical arena.

No that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is you will never know why. I am not assuming one way or the other. All I am saying is that there will always be questions no matter what you believe in. If this wasn't true then there wouldn't be any more research or scientific discoveries.

[mouse]

so what do you think happened?

You want another theory I have or do you want me to post the other five theories I already posted in the other five Evolution topics?

[usckk]

OK I have a question about evolution. I want to start off saying a couple of things though. First I do not believe in evolution. Call me what you will and I am not trying to "convert" or convince you so I am not looking to argue. Second, this is a serious question that I have never figured out in the theory of evolution and again I am not trying to argue. Third, did I mention that I wasn't looking to fight?

Ok so now that I am done with the disclaimer here it is. People that believe in evolution and the evolutionary chart believe that we have evolved from microorganisms to fish to monkeys to whatever to now. Ok so I understand some people say we are still evolving and it takes millions of years but my question is why are the animals that we supposedly evolved from still around? I see examples where dinosaurs are now birds and how modern horses evolved from a species that was about the size of a small dog, etc. etc. So why are the apes that we evolved from still here?
I think I could grasp it more if the animals we supposedly evolved from were no longer around. Instead of examples of an arthritic man and a pigs tooth that explain where we came from. I mean if monkeys are still around where are the in betweens? Why are they gone but everything else still here?

Again I am being serious and want to know if maybe you have researched or have your own theories.

I haven't read the whole thread besides this opening post, so I haven't seen what has already been discussed already. Excuse me if I repeated something that someone has already said.

As a biochemistry/microbiology major, I have a pretty strong background in this area. First, evolution is a FACT. This cannot be argued. Evolution is the change in inherited traits of a population through successive generations. The changes occur from a variety of things, such as mutations and genetic recombination. The changes that that stay today are the ones that are especially helpful for the organism to survive. Again, this is a FACT. You can easily see this with the changes seen in pathogenic microorganisms. Because they reproduce in a fast rate compared to humans, there are a lot of changes in relatively short period of time. This is why many of the drugs that worked before against certain microorganism are no longer useful, such as penicillin. In other words,the microorganisms have evolved with drug-resistance. With the luck of the draw, some microorganisms have genes that allow them to escape harm from drugs. These genes are then selected for because the other microorganisms cannot survive as well under the new environment where drugs are used.

The only argument you can make about evolution is that humans did not evolve from another species. In other words, humans has it's own evolutionary path completely separate from the other millions of species out there today. Of course, I don't believe this, but this is the only argument I can see against the evolution of humans. Really, the only argument creationist have is that God created a world in which evolution exists, instead of it arising spontaneously.

About your ape question and why they are still here, speciation (the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise) does not require the original species to die out for the new species to arise. For example with
Staph infections, there are new stands of it nowadays that are resistant to methicillin. These are called the methicillin-resistant staphylococcus. So there's a new strand, but the old strand of staphylococcus aureus still exists today. I know this isn't a perfect example because we're talking about different strands and not species. But the same principal applies.

If you have any questions, let me know. I couldn't go to much detail now because I have class early in the morning.

[I. Hustle]

I haven't read the whole thread besides this opening post, so I haven't seen what has already been discussed already. Excuse me if I repeated something that someone has already said.

As a biochemistry/microbiology major, I have a pretty strong background in this area. First, evolution is a FACT. This cannot be argued. Evolution is the change in inherited traits of a population through successive generations. The changes occur from a variety of things, such as mutations and genetic recombination. The changes that that stay today are the ones that are especially helpful for the organism to survive. Again, this is a FACT. You can easily see this with the changes seen in pathogenic microorganisms. Because they reproduce in a fast rate compared to humans, there are a lot of changes in relatively short period of time. This is why many of the drugs that worked before against certain microorganism are no longer useful, such as penicillin. In other words,the microorganisms have evolved with drug-resistance. With the luck of the draw, some microorganisms have genes that allow them to escape harm from drugs. These genes are then selected for because the other microorganisms cannot survive as well under the new environment where drugs are used.

The only argument you can make about evolution is that humans did not evolve from another species. In other words, humans has it's own evolutionary path completely separate from the other millions of species out there today. Of course, I don't believe this, but this is the only argument I can see against the evolution of humans. Really, the only argument creationist have is that God created a world in which evolution exists, instead of it arising spontaneously.

About your ape question and why they are still here, speciation (the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise) does not require the original species to die out for the new species to arise. For example with
Staph infections, there are new stands of it nowadays that are resistant to methicillin. These are called the methicillin-resistant staphylococcus. So there's a new strand, but the old strand of staphylococcus aureus still exists today. I know this isn't a perfect example because we're talking about different strands and not species. But the same principal applies.

If you have any questions, let me know. I couldn't go to much detail now because I have class early in the morning.

That was really informative dude. Thanks.

[TheManFromAcme]

God is great.

I pity those who want to make God into this cosmic plasma stuff.

In due time lads. In due time...

[admiralsnackbar]

God is great.

I pity those who want to make God into this cosmic plasma stuff.

In due time lads. In due time...

I pity those whose imagination is too limited to imagine that God works in ways which our ancient forebears couldn't have grasped as much as those who close their minds entirely to the idea of God on the basis of what precious little we do know.

[boutons_deux]

"make God into this cosmic plasma stuff"

God is EVERYTHING, including that cosmic plasma stuff. Or do you think He's only some bearded white/Jewish dude in clean white robes floating around in the sky?

[TheManFromAcme]

"make God into this cosmic plasma stuff"

God is EVERYTHING, including that cosmic plasma stuff. Or do you think He's only some bearded white/Jewish dude in clean white robes floating around in the sky?

Fair enough.

Science is a tool for us to understand him. He is plasma, cosmic, atomic, sub-atomic or whatever scientific terminology you want to use.

God is great.

The first part of Genesis is all I need to know.
Sure I took science. 12 hours of it to be precise in College.
I am just not locked solely unto science to explain the unexplainable or what is percieved as "already" explainable.

That's part of his plan.

[tlongII]

Oh great. Let's get into a discussion of what God is now...

[tlongII]

Fair enough.

Science is a tool for us to understand him. He is plasma, cosmic, atomic, sub-atomic or whatever scientific terminology you want to use.

God is great.

The first part of Genesis is all I need to know.
Sure I took science. 12 hours of it to be precise in College.
I am just not locked solely unto science to explain the unexplainable or what is percieved as "already" explainable.

That's part of his plan.

LMAO @ plan!

[TheManFromAcme]

Yup. His plan alright.

Sorry.

[DarkReign]

Wow, why is I. Hustle doubting evolution. I thought he was under the tutelage of the late great BacksideBasics trailer park prophet, who strongly believes in evolution.

Evolution is not a belief. Do we all have to believe in mathematics now, too?

Evolution is real, its measurable, its do ented.

The only doubt assigned to evolution is the process of how all life on earth got where it is today. That we humans have a common ancestor with other primates, etc.

Its a bold theory, and so far, the only one supported with evidence, but no conclusion.

[DarkReign]

Just because I know the inevitable crap that will come of my previous post.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...reatspeciator/

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additi...-in-Drosophila

Evolution is fact. Its hard science. Its measurable, observable and repeatable.

What is not, however, is the theory of how all life on Earth came to be.

Thus, the Theory of Evolution.

Its important to differentiate between the two. Evolution ≠ Theory of Evolution

[DarkReign]

I missed usckk's post. He killed my momentum. Props.

[I. Hustle]

Just because I know the inevitable crap that will come of my previous post.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...reatspeciator/

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additi...-in-Drosophila

Evolution is fact. Its hard science. Its measurable, observable and repeatable.

What is not, however, is the theory of how all life on Earth came to be.

Thus, the Theory of Evolution.

Its important to differentiate between the two. Evolution ≠ Theory of Evolution

good post

[Phenomanul]

I haven't read the whole thread besides this opening post, so I haven't seen what has already been discussed already. Excuse me if I repeated something that someone has already said.

As a biochemistry/microbiology major, I have a pretty strong background in this area. First, evolution is a FACT. This cannot be argued. Evolution is the change in inherited traits of a population through successive generations. The changes occur from a variety of things, such as mutations and genetic recombination. The changes that that stay today are the ones that are especially helpful for the organism to survive. Again, this is a FACT. You can easily see this with the changes seen in pathogenic microorganisms. Because they reproduce in a fast rate compared to humans, there are a lot of changes in relatively short period of time. This is why many of the drugs that worked before against certain microorganism are no longer useful, such as penicillin. In other words,the microorganisms have evolved with drug-resistance. With the luck of the draw, some microorganisms have genes that allow them to escape harm from drugs. These genes are then selected for because the other microorganisms cannot survive as well under the new environment where drugs are used.

The only argument you can make about evolution is that humans did not evolve from another species. In other words, humans has it's own evolutionary path completely separate from the other millions of species out there today. Of course, I don't believe this, but this is the only argument I can see against the evolution of humans. Really, the only argument creationist have is that God created a world in which evolution exists, instead of it arising spontaneously.

About your ape question and why they are still here, speciation (the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise) does not require the original species to die out for the new species to arise. For example with
Staph infections, there are new stands of it nowadays that are resistant to methicillin. These are called the methicillin-resistant staphylococcus. So there's a new strand, but the old strand of staphylococcus aureus still exists today. I know this isn't a perfect example because we're talking about different strands and not species. But the same principal applies.

If you have any questions, let me know. I couldn't go to much detail now because I have class early in the morning.

Just because I know the inevitable crap that will come of my previous post.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...reatspeciator/

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additi...-in-Drosophila

Evolution is fact. Its hard science. Its measurable, observable and repeatable.

What is not, however, is the theory of how all life on Earth came to be.

Thus, the Theory of Evolution.

Its important to differentiate between the two. Evolution ≠ Theory of Evolution

One needs to further differentiate the terms...

I would say that your statement applies only to Micro-Evolution... the genetic responses to environmental stimuli can effectively be studied to show that species develop new traits (i.e. drug resistance, color patterns, slight anatomical variances, etc...)...

That said, the laboratory setting cannot be used to present a convincing case for Macro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution is simply not repeatable. The data obtained can only be used for observational purposes (for example: the percentage of genomic similarity between different taxidermic classes and orders). But inherently, massive genetic rifts that occured that 'long ago' cannot be repeated today, and as such observations from the fossil record cannot be presented as 'hard science'. Furthermore, when it comes to the great transitions between families and orders we tend to speculate, we fill in the gaps, we assume. None of that is hard science. Nevermind the fact that viable genetic material simply doesn't exist for the majority of the fossil record. Unfortunately, that 'little tecnicality' hasn't stopped people from pushing the agenda that the driving forces behind Micro-Evolution also prove Macro-Evolution by proxy. That leap in judgement is one that shall not be questioned.

Hey... at least some of you all are finally starting to realize that the Theory of Evolution does not address the question of biological Origins.

[admiralsnackbar]

One needs to further differentiate the terms...

I would say that your statement applies only to Micro-Evolution... the genetic responses to environmental stimuli can effectively be studied to show that species develop new traits (i.e. drug resistance, color patterns, slight anatomical variances, etc...)...

That said, the laboratory setting cannot be used to present a convincing case for Macro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution is simply not repeatable. The data obtained can only be used for observational purposes (for example: the percentage of genomic similarity between different taxidermic classes and orders). But inherently, massive genetic rifts that occured that 'long ago' cannot be repeated today, and as such observations from the fossil record cannot be presented as 'hard science'. Furthermore, when it comes to the great transitions between families and orders we tend to speculate, we fill in the gaps, we assume. None of that is hard science. Nevermind the fact that viable genetic material simply doesn't exist for the majority of the fossil record. Unfortunately, that 'little tecnicality' hasn't stopped people from pushing the agenda that the driving forces behind Micro-Evolution also prove Macro-Evolution by proxy. That leap in judgement is one that shall not be questioned.

Hey... at least some of you all are finally starting to realize that the Theory of Evolution does not address the question of biological Origins.

Taxonomy is different than taxidermy.

Second: We are made of cells. Bacteria are cells. Connect the dots. That's what theories do: connect the dots. If a theory comes along that connects the dots more coherently and is able to answer more questions, it becomes the leading theory. Even though the fossil record is, as you point out, extremely incomplete, genetics is doing more to further cement the theory of evolution as fact than any collection of skeletons ever could.

I suspect you know this, yet you will insist on bringing up Coelacanths as though they cons ute egg on science's face, when all they really represent is a) an animal that hasn't needed to adapt for thousands or millions of years, and; b) that you don't really understand how science works, that it is always in a state of becoming. What you seem to want from "hard science" is total knowledge, or revelation, which isn't tenable... what IS tenable is exactly that: what is tenable. A theory on the basis of which we can make predictions which we can then check against the theory. Back and forth, forever ))<>((

I believe in God, but I don't believe in feeling that my faith is even remotely threatened by science, and as you and nearly everybody else has pointed out, Darwin's theory doesn't concern itself with the origin of Life, just of species. Like it says in the le of the book.

[Phenomanul]

Second: We are made of cells. Bacteria are cells. Connect the dots. That's what theories do: connect the dots. If a theory comes along that connects the dots more coherently and is able to answer more questions, it becomes the leading theory...

So you're perfectly fine with evidence for micro-evolution being presented as proof for the validity of macro-evolution???

That's quite the jump to conclusions. If you're OK with that... fine... Just don't expect me to label such standards as 'hard science'. People here toss that moniker around as if macro-evolution was as proven as "2+2=4" (in response to the analogy that questioning evolution was like questioning math... really people? ).

If my last post wasn't clear enough... Part of what makes scientific analysis 'hard-science' is that it the conclusions be based on the repeatability of the experiment, that the observations support that conclusion and that the conclusion can be used to further predict the dynamic at play. Evolutionary proponents wave the 'magic wand' of time to suggest that their process most-definitively and without question produced the biological diversity we see today. If the majority of the 'links' between organisms today are missing how is it that the Macro-Evolutionary process be deemed scientifically repeatable??? Just because the proverbial 'shoe fits' doesn't mean that a line of thinking is justified... the 'hard-science' you all scream of really isn't there.

Even though the fossil record is, as you point out, extremely incomplete, genetics is doing more to further cement the theory of evolution as fact than any collection of skeletons ever could.

???? My post WAS referencing the fact that the genetic history of earth's immense biodiversity is missing. It does us no good to point to bones and suggest that this creature led to that creature which led to that creature, etc... only the genomic comparison can do that. Genomes, which for the umpteenth time are almost completely missing... Only that comparison can produce viable scientific data... data that would allow us to connect such "dots"... Everything else is just observational...

Ironically enough... we do have genetic material from soft tissues found inside a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex remains... from the Jurassic Period no less, millions and millions of years ago... a real head-scratcher that one...

I suspect you know this, yet you will insist on bringing up Coelacanths as though they cons ute egg on science's face, when all they really represent is a) an animal that hasn't needed to adapt for thousands or millions of years, and; b) that you don't really understand how science works, that it is always in a state of becoming.

The crux of that whole subject was to point out that scientists long believed coelacanths to be a link between fishes and amphibians...

The fact that they're still around and have no desire whatsoever to 'crawl' on land... or even exhibit the slightest behavior that would indicate that this observation was even applicable... not even the assumption of their habitat was correct... that's the "slap in the face"...

Evolutionary proponents at the turn of the previous century felt that the widespread distribution of coelacanth fossils helped solidify the probabilities that the coelacanth's amazing fins could somehow be a precursor to terrestrial limbs... They were so willing to find such a transitionary species to fill in the gaps that they never imagined coelacanths were still around. The modern rediscovery of the coelacanth was a slap in their face only because that ''connection of dots''... was well... premature, and agenda driven.

Simply put; that's why people just can't go around making such 'connections' and loosly call them fact just because it makes observational sense to do so... in this case, coelacanths provided a creature with remarkable fins that could, given our imagination, be used to walk around like mudskippers... unfortunatly for those proponents... we now know that their assumption was way off base.

What you seem to want from "hard science" is total knowledge, or revelation, which isn't tenable... what IS tenable is exactly that: what is tenable. A theory on the basis of which we can make predictions which we can then check against the theory. Back and forth, forever ))<>((

Loosely connected assumptions can't hold much weight when it comes to embodying the scientific foundation for such an overencompassing and grand theory as the Theory of Evolution. Belief in Macro-Evolution requires certain elements of faith in that context.

You won't hear me arguing against the hard-science delivered by micro-evolutionary experiments (the Drosophilia flies experiment being the most convincing and complete study in that area). The conclusions from experiments such as this one however, cannot be used to prove the validity of the former.

I believe in God, but I don't believe in feeling that my faith is even remotely threatened by science, and as you and nearly everybody else has pointed out, Darwin's theory doesn't concern itself with the origin of Life, just of species. Like it says in the le of the book.

Evolution doesn't challenge or threaten my belief in GOD whatsoever. The fact that you've come to that conclusion just because I don't buy Macro-Evolution... while not surprising... is completely misplaced. People around here always seem to assume more than they're able to prove. It's no wonder they don't find anything wrong with that dynamic when applied to other walks of life.

[Blake]

So you're perfectly fine with evidence for micro-evolution being presented as proof for the validity of macro-evolution???

Micro-evolution entirely on it's own? No. But combined with all of the other scientific finds, studies and breakthroughs? Yes, it makes for a nice argument for the validity of macro-evolution.

Obviously you don't do your homework. I could copy and paste some more from some real legit sources, but chances are, you will just whine about them being agenda driven and ramble on some more about how you don't have the time to ramble on.

You're an idiot.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Micro-evolution entirely on it's own? No. But combined with all of the other scientific finds, studies and breakthroughs? Yes, it makes for a nice argument for the validity of macro-evolution.

Obviously you don't do your homework. I could copy and paste some more from some real legit sources, but chances are, you will just whine about them being agenda driven and ramble on some more about how you don't have the time to ramble on.

You're an idiot.

Blake you are stirring up a hornet's nest of unimaginably epic magnitude by calling out phenomanul.
This dude will go on for thirty pages about how the theory is not complete therefore god exists. And how he dropped knowledge on park rangers in the grand canyon about rock formation and .

[MB20]

Blake you are stirring up a hornet's nest of unimaginably epic magnitude by calling out phenomanul.
This dude will go on for thirty pages about how the theory is not complete therefore god exists. And how he dropped knowledge on park rangers in the grand canyon about rock formation and .

If this is the Blake I know (the one who used to discuss Rasho vs Nazr), then 30 pages would be a piece of cake for him.

[admiralsnackbar]

So you're perfectly fine with evidence for micro-evolution being presented as proof for the validity of macro-evolution???

Are you suggesting it disconfirms it? Or do you have a better theory?

That's quite the jump to conclusions. If you're OK with that... fine... Just don't expect me to label such standards as 'hard science'. People here toss that moniker around as if macro-evolution was as proven as "2+2=4" (in response to the analogy that questioning evolution was like questioning math... really people? ).

I don't care what you call it, really. Do you think the theory of electro-magnetism isn't "hard science?" There's a lot we don't know there, too -- and yet the theory we have is useful, and grows more complete by the day. LOL @ wanting to repeat "macro-evolution" in order to prove it.

???? My post WAS referencing the fact that the genetic history of earth's immense biodiversity is missing. It does us no good to point to bones and suggest that this creature led to that creature which led to that creature, etc... only the genomic comparison can do that. Genomes, which for the umpteenth time are almost completely missing... Only that comparison can produce viable scientific data... data that would allow us to connect such "dots"... Everything else is just observational...

You do realize we don't need the genomes of missing links in order to help chart the evolution of species. That WAS my point. PS, a little hint: science at the theoretical level IS observational. And incomplete. And fallible. But as things stand, there is no better model, and there is no reason to assume your "macro-evolution" took place in a different way than bacterial evolution does.

Ironically enough... we do have genetic material from soft tissues found inside a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex remains... from the Jurassic Period no less, millions and millions of years ago... a real head-scratcher that one...

Err... why? If they evolved from, say, bacteria, and we did, too -- it would follow that we share genetic information.

The crux of that whole subject was to point out that scientists long believed coelacanths to be a link between fishes and amphibians...

The fact that they're still around and have no desire whatsoever to 'crawl' on land... or even exhibit the slightest behavior that would indicate that this observation was even applicable... not even the assumption of their habitat was correct... that's the "slap in the face"...

Evolutionary proponents at the turn of the previous century felt that the widespread distribution of coelacanth fossils helped solidify the probabilities that the coelacanth's amazing fins could somehow be a precursor to terrestrial limbs... They were so willing to find such a transitionary species to fill in the gaps that they never imagined coelacanths were still around. The modern rediscovery of the coelacanth was a slap in their face only because that ''connection of dots''... was well... premature, and agenda driven.

Simply put; that's why people just can't go around making such 'connections' and loosly call them fact just because it makes observational sense to do so... in this case, coelacanths provided a creature with remarkable fins that could, given our imagination, be used to walk around like mudskippers... unfortunatly for those proponents... we now know that their assumption was way off base.

So a supposition from over a century ago was disproven, therefore baby goes with bathwater and the theory is now implausible? Have I said you make farcically unrealistic demands of science already?

Anyway, you believe as you will -- I've got to get back to work.

[admiralsnackbar]

You're an idiot.

... quoting you would have saved me a lot of trouble.

[clambake]

phen uses a ouija board.

and i'm not kidding.