theking

I have stated that the "theory" has evidence to support it (especially in the microevolution area...less in the macroevolution area)...and as "theories" go it has merit. It is still a "book" that has missing chapters. It does not reach the level with me that is required in a criminal trial..."beyond a resonable doubt"...but it does reach the level that is required in a civil trial..."preponderence of the evidence". You are free to be a staunch "believer"...it does not reach the level that I am willing to committ to it being a "belief" of mine. You seem insistent that everyone accept your "belief" of the truth of the "theory" when others of...equal or greater...intelligence are not convinced of your "belief".

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

Nathan

#1 No, you are actually wrong. Your example of explaining it has by far more holes and problems than Evolution. Thus that theory stands and remains the scientific fact. Like others have said, the only way to remove evolution from being the scientific fact would be to find problems with it AND find OTHER MEANS to explain THOSE PROBLEMS without breaking the rest.

#2 There is nothing to interpret. Natural Selection is anything which makes a difference in A and B cause A or B to survive natural problems. Humans are extremely bad examples, because we have developed an intelligence which helps us circumvent natural selection, or I guess one would say, win most of the time.

The only viable examples are things like the moth experiment posted earlier. You of course immediately say "but thats a silly experiment, of COURSE the black moth survives".. well, sorry, but that IS natural selection. The black moth is a mutation, and it survives, or the white moth is one and it dies. Either way, natural selection. Evolution has made sure that the black moths are preferred in terms of handing down their genes.

Also, mutation is something that not always is needs to be considered something spontanious. We evolve by mixing our genes. The example of humans being bigger now than hundreds of yours ago, you simply dismissed by saying "Well, but asians in america are taller than asians in asia, thus this has nothing to dow ith evolution, its a diet thing"... You do realize that we are talking local europe for example here and those people that were taller than others had a better chance of surviving thus giving away their genes.

Your main problem is the that you do not understand how for example a Fish evolves to a Lizard or the like. There are still today species in between those to which show the chain at least in parts. There are fish where the fins have evolved to something more similar to feet because they are mostly "walking" on the ground and not swimming.

Evolution takes billions of years simply because it is so many tiny changes that need to be picked up by natural selection. For example, in case of the fish, there were those with big and small fins, the bigger the fin, the better they could hold themself on the ground, did it become too big they had problems again. Natural selection made sure that those with the right sized fin survived more than the others. That does not mean that NONE of the small or huge fin fish survived, it just means that MORE big fin fish survived causing a natural selection over a few hundred years.

And it goes on and on.... Its not really a huge problem to explain all kinds of mutations.

__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger

Joe Citizen

You do understand that there are no 'facts' in science?

Not a one.

There are only theories that have not been falsified.

BlueQuartz

no honestly its not evolution

some fucker waved a big wand and bam here we are

Victor-E

Actually, I was saying just the opposite: In evolution, common sense and scientific evidence complement and support each other. I was just suggesting that if the evidence alone can't convince someone, they should also consider their common sense.

For me, both provide overwhelming proof of evolution. It is more than a belief for me. It is enough for me to not waste my time questioning it and to move on to other unexplored territories. What I do believe, is that people who still have a problem with evolution and claim there is not enough evidence, may really have other issues or agendas. Maybe not. Either way, I "believe" they are wasting their time.

__________________
www.velvetecstasy.com

Drake

If a religious person believes that God created man and all the animals as they are in an instant, there are no less holes in the argument than their is for Evolution. In fact their are far fewer holes. The only problem religion has is proving the existance of God. That is the single problem they'd tackle. Evolution tackles millions of unanswered questions. I don't support either position for these reasons.

Are you saying Humans fall outside of the evolutionary process? If so, you're hindering and not furthering your support for evolution. Granted, I already agreed that "natural selection" will occur in situations. Natural selection is not the same as saying man evolved from cells.

Sure, an example of natural selection. Not evolution in the broad sense that we evolved from simpler beings or cells.

Where are you getting your information from? There are many reasons why we're bigger today which includes better nutrition, health care, hormones, and food. And as you said, this may be a simple case of natural selection.

I understand these notions very well. They're basic and simple which is one of the reasons laymen embrace it so readily. Most people have no interest in this stuff. If the prevailing notion is that evolution occurred 99.9 people will agree with it without giving it a second thought, especially if it comes from a trusted scientific community. After all the scientific community does know things. Scientific knowledge is clearly responsible for humankind's progress over the centuries.

Fish turningi nto lizards and vice versa is ludicrous and there is no definitive evidence for this. Species in between? Give me an example of one. You're already biased in your belief of evolution that you think an animal with fins and feet is a species in transition. It may not be. Another plausable explanation is that it's simply a species that has fins and feet (characteristics found in mammals and fish). One cannot conclude they're in transition by that observation.

lol that's pure conjecture. It's good story telling though. But it hardly has any grounds in the real world. There are tons of fish with big and small fins today.

A superficial investigation would lead one to conclude it's not a problem explaining all kinds of mutations. It really depends on the mutation you're referring to. We've observed bacteria mutate into different strains of bacteria. We've haven't observed cells evolving into multi-celled organisms.

Drake

I wanted to address this post. I don't want you to have the impression that I'm being arrogant. I'm being quite the opposite. I'm being humble about what we actually know as opposed to what we claim to know.

Evolutionists will say that I'm willfully being ignorant by ignoring the 'obvious' fact of evolution. Creationists will say that I'm a sinner and that I'm ignoring the 'obvious' fact that God created us. Both will say that I'm arrogant and pretending to be 'better' than them by claiming to know more.

Both the evolutionist's and creationist's view about me is wrong. I contend that one or both of them may be right. However, I require more evidence to convince me of one or the other. I don't put much stock in Creationism obviously because it's seemingly impossible to prove the existence of God. So, I'm more inclined to believe in Evolution. But I cannot set aside my common sense faculty and accept it blindly.

You may say their is a proponderance of evidence in favor of evolution. I've proposed anddefined three "proofs" that would convince me. I'm NOT a person who will reject something if it's right in front of my face. What you consider enormous evidence can be shut down. I can give you alternative explanations for the bones you find. I can say that your premise that all living things share genetic similarities means that they were all related at some point in time is faulty. I know that it's easy to twist logic in favor of a view and discard alternative explanations simply because they don't fit the view. So it doesn't surprise for example that scientists in different fields of research have lots of 'evidence' to suppor the theory. If one was to investigate each field, each of the pieces of the evidence could be discounted one by one by providing alternate explanations, that would support a view that things have not evolved in the way they say they do.

For the record, using the fossil record to say that species evolve is one thing. It's also another to say that cells evolved into organims. Unfortunately we're unable to unearth single cells from millions of years ago. Therefore even if you were to show that species evolved (and this has not been done effectively) you would still need to show further evidence. Their are all kinds of assumptions imbedded within each step of evolutionary thinking that have very little basis. Observing the fossil record to find traces of ancestors is one assumption (the fossils found could be the remains of a similar but distinct species) and using this to project the notion that we evolved from cells is yet another leap.

So, of everybody in this thread, I'm the least arrogant. We've seen people jumping into this thread accusing me of being a Creationist without reading that I'm not. They're arrogant in their perception that the world only conists of two views. We've seen people in this thread that accuse me of not understanding evolution when they themselvs show a clear lack of knowledge on the subject and only regurgitate what they've been told with respect to fish leaving their fins and developing feet and so forth. I'm the only one saying, let's take a step back, re-evaluate exactly what the data tells us. And if we do so, it doesn't lead to one conclusion...that evolution exists.

sacX

Well technically you could argue that dogs that would not naturally interbreed are different species. A geographical barrier or a structural difference that prevent interbreeding can lead to speciation.

You're caught up in the definition. The accumulation of these differences over time leads to speciation. The huge variation in dogs over 2000 years is undeniable that selective pressures can lead to large morphological changes.

junction

Hmmmm......kinda like the bible.

Drake

It's people like this that will find the holes an evolutionist won't and/or offer suggestions for new study because he is able to ask questions the evolutionist would never consider because he is already blindsided by his faith in evolution.

Aside from the Creationist agenda, their is another agenda. That agenda is in the interest of science to discover the truth. It has always taken men who were able to transcend the predominant view of their own time to push progress forward. I'm not at all saying to stop investigating. My three 'proofs' for evolution indicate I would like to push science further in this area so that there is almost no doubt about the authenticity of evolution. The three proofs I outline would be the next step in evolutionary discovery and would fall in line with current evolutionary theory. Not only explaining abiogenesis but applying it and watching it work. Not only explaining evolution but applying it's principles in the lab and observing the reality of it.

When men were ruled by religion they would have argued that their was overwhelming evidence in favor of God(s). They would say look around you, do you think everything you see came from nowhere? They would say everyting around you is an example of God's creation. Therefore they would argue that their are millions of reasons to believe in God. But, they were wrong. Because observing nature in all its glory does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a God exists.

Drake

I agree, I'm not religious but you're yet another person who jumped to this conclusion without reading the thread.

I'm agnostic. I'm scientific. I have no belief in the bible or God.

Drake

Scientists can't even agree if and when speciation occurs.

Interbreeding dogs is no different than your parents getting together and having you as their child. They each had their own set of genes and passed some down to you. You received genes from both parents. Therefore you probably look like both of them, one of them, or none of them. This is not evidence for evolution. It's evidence for my theory that man was always man. Has been for the past few thousand years and appears that it's the way he will be for time immortal to come.

sacX

Sure they can. "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

Why don't you address enormous morphological changes that occur in dogs due to artificial selection?

sacX

No that's not the case because all humans can interbreed.

Some dogs because of morphological changes can not interbreed. They are for all intensive purposes different species. They have evolved (albeit by artificial means).

Drake

Please define these morphological changes preferrably with examples.

Drake

Please provide examples of such dogs. Also, are these dogs able to reproduce? I will read up on this.

Note that if they're being bred by artificial means. In other words they're being bred in a manner that never could have and never would have occurred naturally, it's not a clear cut example of evolution which is a natural process.

But it may very well be. I would gladly do some reading on the findings, and their analysis of those findings, and draw my own conclusions.

sacX

"Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures."

Drake

Let's use the dogs example, do you have evidence for the example regarding dogs. The example regarding dogs will likely be more difficult for me to answer because they've probably done much more studies on it.

Also feel free to give me links to the sources where you're taking the quotes from, including the one above. Thanks.

sacX

"Some breeds have been developed to emphasize certain physical traits beyond the point at which they can safely bear litters on their own. For example, the Bulldog often requires artificial insemination and almost always requires cesarian section for giving birth."

Wikipedia

Do a search for it, there's plenty of information arouund.

sacX

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

That talks about the algae and bacteria although it doesn't quote the study.. I might have a look for it.

Drake

sac, I think I alluded to this in one of my posts. Quite frankly I didn't find a whole lot except for conjecture and uncertain evidence.

For example "There is archaeological evidence of dog remains, showing the characteristic morphological differences from wolves, from at least 14,000 years ago, while wolf remains have been found in association with hominid remains that are at least 400,000 years old. "

"Some evidence suggests that several varieties of ancient wolves contributed to the domestic dog". Evidence on a topic like this is far from certain.

But without attacking the evidence, let us look at the qoute you provided about the bulldog. The qoute says that Bulldogs have developed extreme traits and that they often require artificial insemination and cesarian section. Now, do you think this is an example of evolution or de-evolution? Do you think a dog would evolve in such a way that it makes it more difficult to breed to the point where if it existed without man, it would be extinct within one generation or two? To me, this is the opposite of evolution. It suggests a problem that we've introduced by interbreeding dogs for traits so far from their own that they're unnatural and wouldn't survive. Evolution is adapting, not un-adapting to the environment.

Drake

Interesting. The wonderful thing about this impartial scientific link you provided is that for most predictions it makes, it provides a confirmation of the prediction and a potential falsification for it.

Therefore my answers to you to refute the evidence, would be all the potential falsifications they've outlined on that page.

In essence they're stating that their is room for their observations and assertions to be incorrect. I'm certain I could find further potential falsifications that they may have left out or not thought about.

sacX

Well successful evolution is adaption, but due to the random nature of the process of course there are many extinctions.

Perhaps a better example is that a Great Dane is very unlikely to succesfully breed with a Chihuahua. The reduced or minimal fertility means they're not going to share traits and will more likely diverge further.

Here's a couple more references to algae becoming multicellular.. not the actual original articles though..

http://www.unbf.ca/vip/amnedelcu/res...rytransitions/

sacX

Well Mike33, I haven't claimed evolution is rock solid. Perhaps we're just arguing on degrees, I find the evidence impressive, you obviously do not.

Drake

It's not that I don't find it impressive because I do. I don't think we're arguing on degrees as much as what you think the data tells us about evolution and what I think it tells us about evolution. I appreciate your input in this thread. I hope you and people like you continue working in this area and uncover more evidence. There does seem to be a lot of potential in it.

Johny Traffic

Can you believe I started this 10 years ago?

Wonder how many believe now and many people are still here

__________________


hosted flv's, hosted galleries, morphing rss feeds, free content, free sites, hosted blog