Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[Whaspe]

They are certainly on their way. But what you have to ask when this is acheived is not whether life can be created from abiogenesis but whether or not it was actually created in this way. On that point noone can give a definitive answer.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Creationism is just as supported as Abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is heavily taught along side the theory of evolution.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comparison, but are you suggesting that creationism is comparable to a scientific theory?

Im not a creationist. But truth be told, none of the ideas on how life began have any measureable scientific proof to make it a theory along the lines of the theory of evolution.

Also evolution doesnt exactly mean there wasnt a creator either unless you link abiogensis with it.

You can test and "prove" evolution.

You cannot test and "prove" creationism or abiogenesis, or panspermia, or any of the other ideas mislabeled as theories about how life started.

You can prove the formation of DNA. From DNA to Humans is somewhat of a harder task.

Have they made anything that reseambles life(the characteristics of life) from abiogensis.

You should be saying, going from DNA to living organisms with the theory of abiogenesis is somewhat of a harder task.

Well, it kinda depends on how tough you're gonna be on the definition of 'living'. If they self replicate... is that good enough for you?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ntdz
Yes to all.

Good for you.

What do you think about religious nuts?

I don't think all religious people are nuts, I think Christianity is generally good for our country. A small percentage are nuts, sure, but 95% of religious people are just normal people IMO. I don't have a problem with someone being religious at all.

I didn't ask you about religious people.

I asked you about religious nuts.

I think religious nuts have bought way too far into their religion, and take everything as literal when maybe it shouldn't be taken that way. I was watching this thing about religious people and this little 9 year old girl thought that anyone know didn't believe in god would automatically go to hell. First of all, I don't believe in hell, but from what I know about God (and I know enough, I went to a Catholic school), he wouldn't send someone to hell just for not believing in him. When I saw that, it just made me sad. Here she is, only 9, and already brainwashed into believing this garbage. People forget the bible was written by men, not god. It's not a perfect testiment to what god says or anything, just LOOSE guidelines. I also have a problem with people that are so into religion it affects their lives negatively. Going to church every week is one thing, but when you follow the bible to a tee it starts to get ridiculous. You cut out like half your life trying to follow that stuff. With all that being said, Christian religious "nuts" are NOTHING compared to Islamic religious nuts. Christian religious nuts try to live their lives as they think god wants, while Islamic religious morons look to kill innocent people and destroy lives. That is why I think Christianity is almost always good while Islam is an extremely negative influence on the Middle East. They can blame everything that happens on the USA and somehow justify their bullsh!t with the Koran. It's disgusting b/c Islam wasn't a religion like that, and doesn't teach violence.

Look at the situation in which they are living, and then yo'll understand why a minority tries to justify their actions with their religion. Doesn't matter what religion they are, or if they have relgious beleifs~ if you can invoke god on your side you will because it makes your cause seem true and worthy.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Well according to my Biology (Campbell et al) textbook:
Microevolution: A change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations.

These guys aren't what I would be calling "creation scientists" either.
Don't open your mouth if all you want to do is put your foot in it (it usually doesn't taste very good)>

If these particular authors decided to define in the term in their book then fine, but the term as its colloquially used does not belong in a biology textbook. It undermines the understanding of evolution. How does that def fundamentally differ than of evolution or "macro"evolution? What is the boundary between "micro" and "macro" evolution? What are some of the testable criteria that one can classify an observed evolutionary event as either "micro" or "macro"? If this is the context within those authors use the term then they are wrong for using it in such a way (tho I highly doubt this.)

The idea that the range of genetic variation has some outward boundary beyond which is can never cross is absurd. If it is true, than what is the mechanism that keeps variation within its original range?

Macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction.

And examples from primary literature:

Title: The rise of birds and mammals: are microevolutionary processes sufficient for macroevolution?
Source: Trends in ecology & evolution [0169-5347] Penny
yr: 2004 vol: 19 iss: 10 pg: 516

Title: Large extinctions in an evolutionary model: The role of innovation and keystone species
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [0027-8424] Jain
yr: 2002 vol: 99 iss: 4 pg: 2055

Title: Testing for microevolution in body size in three blue tit populations
Source: Journal of evolutionary biology [1010-061X] Charmantier
yr: 2004 vol: 17 iss: 4 pg: 732

Title: Mammalian microevolution in action: adaptive edaphic genomic divergence in blind subterranean mole-rats
Source: Proceedings. Biological sciences [0962-8452] Polyakov
yr: 2004 vol: 271 pg: 156

and my favorite.... mmm Candida albicans...

Title: Microevolution of Candida albicans Strains during Catheter-Related Candidemia
Source: Journal of clinical microbiology [0095-1137] Shin
yr: 2004 vol: 42 iss: 9 pg: 4025


Why are you so afraid of these words? The fact that they are scientific and you are afraid they weaken evolution demonstrate that you are a little shaky on the theory yourself. Not to mention that you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps reading some of these or at least knowing they exist in this context will ease your mind a little.

Macroevolution FAQ

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

Some scientists use the term, some don´t

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: digitalsm
I fully believe in the evolution, but not the theory of evolution that tries to explain how life started. There is far far less support, which is why their are competing theories to how life began.

What is this "theory of evolution that tries to explain how life started?"

That's the problem with the Creationists. They distort evolution to mean the creation of life itself and even the creation of the universe.

Then why when you refer to evolution do you always include the implication of the origin of life, or the idea that evolution somehow trumps all religion? Like how you have been all up in arms about the textbook sticker that simply said that evolution was theory in regard to the origin of life? When in fact evolution is barely even a theory with regard to abiogenesis.

Hypocrite, heal thyself.

Where did I ever imply evolution is the origin of life? Care to point that out for me?

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: glenn1
We've observed it happening, which is the very definition of a fact.

The "theory" of Abiogenesis on the other hand, while constantly (and IMHO purposely) aggregated with evolution as part of a seeming package deal, is a scientific sham and SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess). It makes a mockery of the scientific method in creating a "theory" for an event which was never observed.

Also the idea of exaptation also seems highly irrational... think of how many structures there are in life that wouldn't have proven advantageous to survival until after many generations of formation toward some functional state (eyes for example); these would have emerged by pure chance; not even natural selection could have guided their formation. Their amazing complexity and fuctionality, for the most part, makes the notion that they formed by chance alone (or even that they had some other uses before their current ones) seem markedly foolish.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: mattsaccount

1. Do you accept that there exist complex molecules in the cells of living organisms which are known as "DNA?"
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy
2. Do you accept that, within these DNA, there are individual "genes?"
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy
3. Do you accept that there are naturally occuring factors, like radiation and toxins, that can alter the genes within a given cell?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy
4. Do you accept that cells reproduce themselves within the organism?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy
5. Do you accept that the genes of a cell that is reproducing will be duplicated to the new cell, even if changed by an external influence?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy. All copies are flawed, according to all evidence available, leading to genetic variability
6. Do you accept that an offspring's genes are determined by the genes in the reproductive cells of both parents that were used to concieve the progeny?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy. In the case of sexual rep
7. Do you accept that any changes that were made to the genes of one of the above reproductive cells will be passed on to the progeny?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy
8. Do you accept that such changes can result in differences in how the organism appears, its capabilities, or to its level of intelligence?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy.
9. Do you accept that, if a change is entirely beneficial, the organism has a higher chance of surviving than the rest of its species?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy, if you change species to population. Evolution acts on populations, not species--according to the evidence.
10. Do you accept that an organism that has a higher chance of surviving has a higher chance of reaching the age of sexual maturity?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy
11. Do you accept that, if an organism has a higher chance of reaching sexual maturity, it has a higher chance of reproducing? (remember, we are assuming that said genetic difference is entirely beneficial)
No, I don't accept this--but statistically its quite likely accurate
12. Do you accept that, as in the case with the organism's parents, it will pass on its genetic variation to its offspring?
No, I don't accept this--but there is an overwhelmingly massive amount of evidence that leads me to conclude its accuracy.
13. Do you accept that, if the organism produces progeny which have the same genetic difference, which has already been established as beneficial, that it is likely that this variation will eventually encompass greater and greater numbers of the species, until the entire population has changed (though not necessarily the entire species, as there may be geographical barriers separating the variation from mating with other populations of the same species)?
No, I don't accept this--but all scientific evidence leads me to conclude its accuracy.
14. Do you accept that, eventually, a population of organisms may become so radically different from the original that they lose the ability to reproduce with other populations of the original species (if any exist)?
No, I don't accept this--but there is an overwhelmingly massive amount of evidence that leads me to conclude its accuracy
15. Do you accept that, given that scientific classification of organisms is based on genetic differences, the above population of organisms is a new species?
No. Classification is a human artefact, mostly done for the purpose of communication. Classification is not always based on genetic differences, sensu stricto. Regardless of some classification scheme, putative new species may exist, or may be in the process of becoming. Artificial classification is incidental to the process.
If you've gotten this far, congratulations! This is exactly what evolution is all about. You've just proven why evolution is certainly true!

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Is there any educated person who *doesn't* understand why evolution is clearly true?

Jason

 

[0roo0roo]

well you can be educated and choose not to believe as many do. and of course it is a fact.

 

[MadRat]

You need your direct evidence to make it fact. It has not met that criteria, therefore Evolution is theory. Such dumbass statements like "Evolution is fact" repeatedly get made around here. The link hasn't been made and probably never will because the criteria is virtually impossible to meet. It would take severalfold times the existence of man to see a change. Finding it in a single lifetime will probably never happen.

 

[Mucho]

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. yes
5. yes
6. yes
7. yes
8. yes
9. yes
10. yes
11. yes
12. yes
13. yes
14. yes
15. yes

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: MadRat
You need your direct evidence to make it fact. It has not met that criteria, therefore Evolution is theory. Such dumbass statements like "Evolution is fact" repeatedly get made around here. The link hasn't been made and probably never will because the criteria is virtually impossible to meet. It would take severalfold times the existence of man to see a change. Finding it in a single lifetime will probably never happen.

actually its correct. evolution is both a theory and a fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[crooked22]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
This is one issue where I've never understood the fierce polarization. The religious people seem to think it contradicts everything they hold dear, although I don't exactly see why religion and the theory of evolution can't coexist nicely. (then again, I'm not a real religious scholar). Then you have the extremist Darwin-heads to try to secularizingly ram it down religious people's throat as if to antagonize them and use it for the purpose of attacking religioun/religious people in general.

Why are they so mutually exclusive? Both sides need to chill.

Imagine that holy book being refuted. Imagine everything a Christian holds dear suddenly holds no water because a "theory" prove it wrong. Everything in Christian faith, everything they fight for, everything that is their fundamental, comes from one book. If that book fails, they have nothing. If all you believe in is one book, and the book has fiction in it, how do you separate fiction from truth (not that an all mighty god going puff and man exisited, and another puff and his ribs developed legs and arms and a vagina is not fiction)? selectively? What is truth then? Is it over? Does the suicide rate goes up?

This is why Christians fight tooth and nail for the word of God. Questioned it, and burn in the stake. Maybe its time for Christianity 2.0 to get an overhaul.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: crooked22
Imagine that holy book being refuted. Imagine everything a Christian holds dear suddenly holds no water because a "theory" prove it wrong. Everything in Christian faith, everything they fight for, everything that is their fundamental, comes from one book. If that book fails, they have nothing. If all you believe in is one book, and the book has fiction in it, how do you separate fiction from truth (not that an all mighty god going puff and man exisited, and another puff and his ribs developed legs and arms and a vagina is not fiction)? selectively? What is truth then? Is it over? Does the suicide rate goes up?

This is why Christians fight tooth and nail for the word of God. Questioned it, and burn in the stake. Maybe its time for Christianity 2.0 to get an overhaul.

Thing is, the Bible *has* been refuted, pretty much all of it. It's just going to take a lot of time, perhaps several generations, for the truth behind the Bible to become common knowledge.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

1. Do you accept that there exist complex molecules in the cells of living organisms which are known as "DNA?"

2. Do you accept that, within these DNA, there are individual "genes?"

3. Do you accept that there are naturally occurring factors, like radiation and toxins, that can alter the genes within a given cell?

4. Do you accept that cells reproduce themselves within the organism?

5. Do you accept that the genes of a cell that is reproducing will be duplicated to the new cell, even if changed by an external influence?

6. Do you accept that an offspring's genes are determined by the genes in the reproductive cells of both parents that were used to conceive the progeny?

7. Do you accept that any changes that were made to the genes of one of the above reproductive cells will be passed on to the progeny?

8. Do you accept that such changes can result in differences in how the organism appears, its capabilities, or to its level of intelligence?

Every last one of those is scientifically valid to the best of our knowledge.

9. Do you accept that, if a change is entirely beneficial, the organism has a higher chance of surviving than the rest of its species?

Do some critical thinking on that one, mutants, even mutants who have minor benefits, are often left out of the mating process. The requirement here isn't any mutant of any benefit at all, but a mutant of either enough benefit to directly effect the mating survivability of a spices enough to push out the rest of the species or something directly linked to the natural in-born desire to mate.

This is a much higher bar than most people who argue about evolution are willing to accept because it implies that random chance is much less likely than an intelligent design.

10. Do you accept that an organism that has a higher chance of surviving has a higher chance of reaching the age of sexual maturity?

11. Do you accept that, if an organism has a higher chance of reaching sexual maturity, it has a higher chance of reproducing? (remember, we are assuming that said genetic difference is entirely beneficial)

again, the definition of "entirely beneficial" needs to be looked at, as the bar is set way to low by most.

12. Do you accept that, as in the case with the organism's parents, it will pass on its genetic variation to its offspring?

13. Do you accept that, if the organism produces progeny which have the same genetic difference, which has already been established as beneficial, that it is likely that this variation will eventually encompass greater and greater numbers of the species, until the entire population has changed (though not necessarily the entire species, as there may be geographical barriers separating the variation from mating with other populations of the same species)?

yes, this is possible, but again, it takes much more than a bird with 1/10th longer legs to make a pre-emu oust a slightly shorter pre-emu and it takes a use that requires out-right survivability and a large mutant population base with dramatically extended legs in order to move from the kiwi/emu ancestor.

14. Do you accept that, eventually, a population of organisms may become so radically different from the original that they lose the ability to reproduce with other populations of the original species (if any exist)?

15. Do you accept that, given that scientific classification of organisms is based on genetic differences, the above population of organisms is a new species?

possible, yes, has it ever been proven scientifically, no. This is what still makes evolution a Theory instead of fact.

Evolution's never been out-right proven and people trying to deny the only true scientific fact, that all of our theories are "to the best of our knowledge" and not fact is something that people who've built religions around faith in evolution have a hard time holding on to.

 

[Moonbeam]

Evolution is a fact and the science of why some deny this is fascinating. People are selectively unconscious for reasons. We attach to ideas because they fortify our egos, and we need that because we feel like the worst in the world. The problem comes when we fortify with lies we create a mental prison. We think we will die without our lies, never realizing that we are already deadened by unconsciousness.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Evolution is a fact

what exprenemtnal test proved this again?

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Evolution is a fact

what exprenemtnal test proved this again?

It's a fact that evolution has happened, based on observational evidence.

Surely you aren't suggesting that it's merely coincidence that all possible methods of comparing organisms have agreed on the same basic hierarchical pattern of relationships among species?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Evolution is a fact

what exprenemtnal test proved this again?

It's a fact that evolution has happened, based on observational evidence.

Surely you aren't suggesting that it's merely coincidence that all possible methods of comparing organisms have agreed on the same basic hierarchical pattern of relationships among species?

I?m just pointing out that "evolution" as a theory isn't a fact and the how and why of it all is something we don't have proof of.

Don?t confuse my disagreement with the theory of evolution with me disagreeing with historically observable adaptation of species.

Often when you get someone trying to "prove" evolution is true, when infract it?s an testable theory, you've got someone with a vested interested in having faith in a scientific theory... dangerous indeed.

t's a fact that evolution has happened, based on observational evidence

we have no proof that any species has ever transitioned from one species to another.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
I?m just pointing out that "evolution" as a theory isn't a fact and the how and why of it all is something we don't have proof of.

And I'm just pointing out that what you say is ridiculous, and does not agree with the last hundred years of science.

Don?t confuse my disagreement with the theory of evolution with me disagreeing with historically observable adaptation of species.

Then what are your objections?

Often when you get someone trying to "prove" evolution is true, when infract it?s an testable theory, you've got someone with a vested interested in having faith in a scientific theory... dangerous indeed.

No, what's dangerous is people like you ignoring a century of scientific knowledge in the name of a mythological god.

we have no proof that any species has ever transitioned from one species to another.

Yes, we do.

[edit: fixed quote tag]

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Evolution is a fact

what exprenemtnal test proved this again?

It's a fact that evolution has happened, based on observational evidence.

Surely you aren't suggesting that it's merely coincidence that all possible methods of comparing organisms have agreed on the same basic hierarchical pattern of relationships among species?

Evolution is only a scientific theory....

There is no publication of standard that can provide the evidence necessary to move evolution to fact or law.

 

[Vic]

Do you accept evolution as fact?

I was suddenly amused by the thread title. "Do you accept evolution as fact?" sounds so much like a priest asking "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?"
Is there a difference? I sometimes wonder, especially when you see the evolution fanatics attacking as heretics those who dare to doubt (or question why it even matters)...

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Evolution is a fact

what exprenemtnal test proved this again?

It's a fact that evolution has happened, based on observational evidence.

Surely you aren't suggesting that it's merely coincidence that all possible methods of comparing organisms have agreed on the same basic hierarchical pattern of relationships among species?

Evolution is only a scientific theory....

There is no publication of standard that can provide the evidence necessary to move evolution to fact or law.

That evolution has occurred, and that we share a common ancestor with other species, is a FACT.

The theory of evolution is the explanation of this phenomenon.

Basic science, folks.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Evolution is a fact

what exprenemtnal test proved this again?

It's a fact that evolution has happened, based on observational evidence.

Surely you aren't suggesting that it's merely coincidence that all possible methods of comparing organisms have agreed on the same basic hierarchical pattern of relationships among species?

Evolution is only a scientific theory....

There is no publication of standard that can provide the evidence necessary to move evolution to fact or law.

Wrong. Come on, Pack. You've read these numerous threads on this subject. You know the facts and evolution is a fact. The theory refers to the mechanics of evolution.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Vic

Do you accept evolution as fact?

I was suddenly amused by the thread title. "Do you accept evolution as fact?" sounds so much like a priest asking "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?"
Is there a difference? I sometimes wonder, especially when you see the evolution fanatics attacking as heretics those who dare to doubt (or question why it even matters)...

Uh, no. Belief in Jesus as your personal savior is a religious belief based on faith. Evolution is accepted science and has been for more than a century. Rejection of evolution is a politically/religiously motivated movement.

If you can't see the difference between the two, it is not I who is the fanatic here.