Is Evolution really so "sure"?

[StageLeft]

Trying not to get into anything theological, I was recently reading something that said that evolution isn't as definite as most people think. Granted, we all know it's a theory and not a law, but the author noted a couple of significant shortcomings from it such as a very drastic lack of fossil evidence pointing towards evolution. Sure, we've all seen homo-erectus skeletons, but how do we know they aren't really a legitimate species, that just happened to die out? There was even a quote by Darwin and he himself admitted surprise at the lack of fossil evidence towards evolution. There seems to be a distinct lack of transitional fossils - for instance, we have some homo somthing or rather, but not much in the way of fossils specifically between them and their successor or precursor; rather we have distinct, clearly identifiable remains, as opposed to remains that are particularly hard to place in one group or another.

Further, it can be said that if evolution were as significant as thought, then the world would be in a greater chaotic state than it is now. As we have it now there are clealy defined and easily identifiable species.

For me personally the only real exposure I had to evolution was in junior high or highschool in some bio classes, and I've no doubt it's the same for most here, so I'm looking for answers from people who've actually studied it in depth.

 

[amcdonald]

Its a theory.
A well-supported theory, but still a theory.

 

[Descartes]

As I said in the other thread, it is an unequivocal biological FACT; however, the mechanism by which it occurs is theory, and there are many.

 

[Descartes]

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. If you wish to know more, look no further than this book. You can't summarize all the ideas into a single post of course.

 

[vi edit]

We are only at the bottom of the mountain in terms of scientific discovery about these things. You can only learn so much about a couple hundred millions years worth of "stuff" when we've only really been studying it for a 150 or so years.

Just my thoughts anyway.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Trying not to get into anything theological, I was recently reading something that said that evolution isn't as definite as most people think. Granted, we all know it's a theory and not a law, but the author noted a couple of significant shortcomings from it such as a very drastic lack of fossil evidence pointing towards evolution. Sure, we've all seen homo-erectus skeletons, but how do we know they aren't really a legitimate species, that just happened to die out? There was even a quote by Darwin and he himself admitted surprise at the lack of fossil evidence towards evolution. There seems to be a distinct lack of transitional fossils - for instance, we have some homo somthing or rather, but not much in the way of fossils specifically between them and their successor or precursor; rather we have distinct, clearly identifiable remains, as opposed to remains that are particularly hard to place in one group or another.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Further, it can be said that if evolution were as significant as thought, then the world would be in a greater chaotic state than it is now. As we have it now there are clealy defined and easily identifiable species.

why do you say that?

 

[Feldenak]

I think of evolution as simply change over time.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I think of evolution as simply change over time.

Wow, really?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I think of evolution as simply change over time.

Wow, really?

i love how they wanted to change "evolution" to "gradual changes in biology over time"

 

[glen]

Get a book by Richard Dawkins.
he can explain it in simple lay terms without loosign any of the scietific detail.
He is an amazing Author.
I liked "The Blind Watch Maker"


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=s_b_rs/104-0354998-0627954

 

[BullsOnParade]

Skoorb, i can't believe you are arguing the merits of evolution based on
the theory vs. fact/law/dingus classification. The distinction between scientific theories,
natural laws etc are pedagogical, arguing strict definitons when not understanding them is
somewhat meaningless. Everyday joe schmoe simply has a feeling that theory<law/fact.
As Decartes said evolution is an observed and well skrutinized phenomenon, a natural law.
When skepticism is applied to the various mechanicsm theorized to drive evolution it is invariably
misunderstood as skepticism about evolution as a whole.

As far as the *lack of a complete fossil record or even a complete hominid tree, browse some Sciam
articles, their anthropology features have been pretty rich in information regarding primates and hominid
evolutionary trees.

 

[Ranger X]

It's too bad the Theory of Evolution does not work with humans. The burger flipping dopers are getting more play than the successful computer geeks.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I think of evolution as simply change over time.

Wow, really?

/taps sarcasm meter

Damnit, I think you broke it!

Seriously, why does evolution have to mean only biology?

Want to hear something really wild? Not only do I have no problem with evolutionary biology, I'm a Christian as well.:Q

 

[Jittles]

Adapting doesn't mean Evolution. I recently read Refuting Evolution 2 which presents very solid evidence against evolution, but it is clear in the fact that adaption does occur.

Before I get flamed, I have also read so-called rebuttals of Safarti's text and I find that none of them have any merit. Please point me to something worthwhile to read and I will, I have an open mind to learn.

I'm Christian, but I'm not going to deny many facts of "evolution" and biology, and I'm not going to shove my beliefs in your face. There is no more scientific evidence for evolution than there is for creation. Read the book I mentioned if you don't believe this.

 

[maziwanka]

interesting read in the talkorigins website...

 

[BigToque]

All living things on this planet evolved from the very first unicellular organisms.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I think of evolution as simply change over time.

Wow, really?

/taps sarcasm meter

Damnit, I think you broke it!

Seriously, why does evolution have to mean only biology?

Want to hear something really wild? Not only do I have no problem with evolutionary biology, I'm a Christian as well.:Q

We'll I don't know about ALL christian religions, but I know the biggest of them all, the Catholic religion certainly embraces the theory of evolution, so I don't understand why you needed to put a ":Q" in your post.
Your post really wasn't that wild

 

[DrNoobie]

The evolution at the cellular level is fact. It must occur for survival. After studying, in depth, the process that cells go through to form different parts of the body, I have come to believe in evolution. I find it amazing how cells structured themselves to form living creatures; however, I still believe that due to the extreme preciseness required to form a complicated creature such as humans, evolution was not/is not random, and was set into motion by something that we don't understand. Whether that be God or something else is up to you, I will not discuss my views on that.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I think of evolution as simply change over time.

Wow, really?

i love how they wanted to change "evolution" to "gradual changes in biology over time"

It is a much better term. It was the less fundimetal christians that coined the phrase evolution because it makes us sound better then the "lower" stuff. Darwin used a different term w/o the implied meaning evolution has.

 

[Jittles]

There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

 

[cipher00]

Before I get flamed, I have also read so-called rebuttals of Safarti's text and I find that none of them have any merit. Please point me to something worthwhile to read and I will, I have an open mind to learn.

Anything by Richard Dawkins. My personal favorite is The Selfish Gene.

 

[Jittles]

Originally posted by: cipher00
Before I get flamed, I have also read so-called rebuttals of Safarti's text and I find that none of them have any merit. Please point me to something worthwhile to read and I will, I have an open mind to learn.

Anything by Richard Dawkins. My personal favorite is The Selfish Gene.

Cheap too, bonus! Anywhere I can find a review of this? Brief googling showed nothing.

Oh and I'm getting results for "The Selfish Gene" and "Dawkins and The Selfish Gene." None of these book sites have any good info/reviews so far.

 

[cquark]

evolution was not/is not random

I respect your wishes not to discuss your beliefs, but I have to address this common misconception that evolution is random. It's not. There's a reason why the theories of evolution have selection in their names--natural selection and sexual selection being the two most well known--and it's because evolution is not a random process. Complex organisms arise through natural selection in the same way complex programs arise through genetic algorithms, that is, through a selective process.

There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but scientists like myself define evolution as the change in allele frequencies over time. You're missing the point of evolution with your misconceived focus on introduction of new genes. However, you'd also be wrong in asserting that has never happened--speciation has been observed to occur through polyploidy in plants.

 

[Jittles]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but scientists like myself define evolution as the change in allele frequencies over time. You're missing the point of evolution with your misconceived focus on introduction of new genes. However, you'd also be wrong in asserting that has never happened--speciation has been observed to occur through polyploidy in plants.

Explain please. I don't care how technical, I just don't understand what you mean, and I can't say you're right or wrong if I have no clue.

 

[DrNoobie]

Originally posted by: Jittles
There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

Then explain to me how DNA mutation in bacteria leads to antibiotic resistance. Sure sounds like the bacteria evolving to me.