The Theory of Evolution

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.

Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?

If the existence of God is true, there should be actual evidence that he has existed either in the past, etc, etc. Nope, evolution requires faith just like a belief in God.

Furthermore, I've heard that argument before. Look at the fossil record and tell me there is nothing transitional about it's parts.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
This thread is intended to help dispel some of the myths about evolution. To believe in evolution, one needs a measure of faith. We haven't seen with our eyes what Darwin suggested, and there have been corollaries to the theory since Darwin lived. Time to ask yourself. What do you believe?

I'm not sure how accepting evolution requires any faith, other than faith in an objective reality. That populations of organisms change over time is an indisputable fact, unless you think God put fossils on Earth to test your faith.

We have seen with our eyes that what Darwin suggested is real. Antibiotic resistant bacteria, vaccine-evasive viruses, dogs, cats, wheat, corn are all directly observable examples of natural selection (you can call them artificial selection, but last time I checked humans are as natural causal agents as anything else).

That microevolution happens is indisputable. Macroevolution is nothing more than the logical extension of microevolutionary processes; so far no critic has ever developed a plausible theory as to why the same processes that cause microevolution can't cause macroevolution, so their argument falls flat on its face.

In any other scientific discipline, inferred evidence is given serious weight as well. Transitional forms (both extinct & extant), anatomical & molecular vestiges, ontogeny, homologies, convergences, conservations, suboptimal functions, and a mountain of genetic evidence (functional redundancies, transposons, etc.) all support the neo-Darwinian or modern synthesis of evolution.

Corollaries are the scientific process at work.

You either have to be blinded by an extremely conservative interpretation of faith (limited primarily to America & the Middle East), have your faculties crippled by illness, or just plain ignorant to think that evolution doesn't happen, and that we don't have a real, functional understanding of how it happens.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski
No, I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept it as the best explanation based on Scientific Principles.

How do you think that life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter?

A. Miller and Wächtershäuser's theories

B. Clay Theory

C. Spontaneous generation.

D. "Deep-hot biosphere" model

E. "Primitive" extraterrestrial life

What does it matter?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski
No, I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept it as the best explanation based on Scientific Principles.

How do you think that life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter?

A. Miller and Wächtershäuser's theories

B. Clay Theory

C. Spontaneous generation.

D. "Deep-hot biosphere" model

E. "Primitive" extraterrestrial life

I've honestly heard of none of these theories, Riprorin. But I'm sure they are placed there to be X'd off in an orderly fashion in order to discredit evolution. Perhaps we evolved from mitochondria, and mitochondria came about from some other smaller microorganism, and perhaps that just happened to come from some random attachment of amino acids. Doesn't matter to me. I can't explain what happened before the Big Bang either. (perhaps foreplay ) My purpose is to demonstrate that science does not push God from the lives of people who believe. It merely helps us understand the order of things. We have a brain for a reason, right? IMO understanding the order of things helps us to understand God, or whatever version of a higher power, or even the reason for faith. Perhaps a random whack at the ultimate question: "why do we exist?"

Technially, evolution deals with what happened after life began. I was just curious about what people thought regarding the origin of life.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: Tab
Where is the "I have no idea what I beileve opition?"...

I'll add it.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
This thread is intended to help dispel some of the myths about evolution. To believe in evolution, one needs a measure of faith. We haven't seen with our eyes what Darwin suggested, and there have been corollaries to the theory since Darwin lived. Time to ask yourself. What do you believe?

I'm not sure how accepting evolution requires any faith, other than faith in an objective reality. That populations of organisms change over time is an indisputable fact, unless you think God put fossils on Earth to test your faith.

We have seen with our eyes that what Darwin suggested is real. Antibiotic resistant bacteria, vaccine-evasive viruses, dogs, cats, wheat, corn are all directly observable examples of natural selection (you can call them artificial selection, but last time I checked humans are as natural causal agents as anything else).

That microevolution happens is indisputable. Macroevolution is nothing more than the logical extension of microevolutionary processes; so far no critic has ever developed a plausible theory as to why the same processes that cause microevolution can't cause macroevolution, so their argument falls flat on its face.

In any other scientific discipline, inferred evidence is given serious weight as well. Transitional forms (both extinct & extant), anatomical & molecular vestiges, ontogeny, homologies, convergences, conservations, suboptimal functions, and a mountain of genetic evidence (functional redundancies, transposons, etc.) all support the neo-Darwinian or modern synthesis of evolution.

Corollaries are the scientific process at work.

You either have to be blinded by an extremely conservative interpretation of faith (limited primarily to America & the Middle East), have your faculties crippled by illness, or just plain ignorant to think that evolution doesn't happen, and that we don't have a real, functional understanding of how it happens.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but it would be based on faith. I'm not a molecular biologist or a biochemist.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski
No, I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept it as the best explanation based on Scientific Principles.

How do you think that life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter?

A. Miller and Wächtershäuser's theories

B. Clay Theory

C. Spontaneous generation.

D. "Deep-hot biosphere" model

E. "Primitive" extraterrestrial life

I've honestly heard of none of these theories, Riprorin. But I'm sure they are placed there to be X'd off in an orderly fashion in order to discredit evolution. Perhaps we evolved from mitochondria, and mitochondria came about from some other smaller microorganism, and perhaps that just happened to come from some random attachment of amino acids. Doesn't matter to me. I can't explain what happened before the Big Bang either. (perhaps foreplay ) My purpose is to demonstrate that science does not push God from the lives of people who believe. It merely helps us understand the order of things. We have a brain for a reason, right? IMO understanding the order of things helps us to understand God, or whatever version of a higher power, or even the reason for faith. Perhaps a random whack at the ultimate question: "why do we exist?"

Technially, evolution deals with what happened after life began. I was just curious about what people thought regarding the origin of life.

The short answer is I don't (think about it). It's about as enlightening as thinking about how the Universe began. I don't really care about that either, I think it's irrelevant. What matters is the Universe began, that life began, and now here we are.

I'm more interested in understanding life itself, not how it got here. Why? Because we can, and we can do something with that understanding. I'm not sure what knowing how the Universe or life began would really do anyway.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.

Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?

Where are your eyes? And aren't you the one without evidence? What use do YOU have for evidence. You believe what you want to believe untroubled by facts or a lack of common sense.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.

Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4161281,00.html

So it seems that genetic compositions will mutate given enough time (or relatively short time for the fruit flies that he experimented with). If people agree with his experiments BUT insist that evolution for mankind is not true, what causes our genetics to be immune to such mutations?

 

[Proletariat]

Ugh retards arguing the obvious again.

Evolution is all we have, get over it. Enough is enough.

Intelligent design is the wet dream of ball-ess men with no inner strength.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.

Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4161281,00.html

So it seems that genetic compositions will mutate given enough time (or relatively short time for the fruit flies that he experimented with). If people agree with his experiments BUT insist that evolution for mankind is not true, what causes our genetics to be immune to such mutations?

Actually, I believe we are more prone to these mutations than we used to be. What they call "free radicals" will kill us most of the time and we'll call it "cancer". Perhaps we are evolving faster? Or perhaps, it's like mu buddy says that we are deevolving because society coddles the weak more than it used to.

 

[CellarDoor]

I'd just like to point out that there is a difference between Evolution itself and the Theory of Evolution.

In a different thread another poster mentioned this and provided the following link as well...

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.

Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4161281,00.html

So it seems that genetic compositions will mutate given enough time (or relatively short time for the fruit flies that he experimented with). If people agree with his experiments BUT insist that evolution for mankind is not true, what causes our genetics to be immune to such mutations?

Actually, I believe we are more prone to these mutations than we used to be. What they call "free radicals" will kill us most of the time and we'll call it "cancer". Perhaps we are evolving faster? Or perhaps, it's like mu buddy says that we are deevolving because society coddles the weak more than it used to.

Of course we are coddling the weak in comparision to previous centuries. But sometimes the "weak" are not necessarily the weak.

Some of my "weakest" friends are the most intelligent I know. They may not have the physical strength but their mental prowess is unparelled.

 

[Grabo]

Since I've been fed Evolution as 'truth as we currently know it' since forever, (and the Christian creation-myth relatively later), I have to say I believe it, more or less (I don't doubt any parts, really, but the scientists don't know all of it yet).

Hmm, come to think of it though; Evolution seems about as dull as that Creation-myth..possibly because Christianity seems like such an imported religion(I know you can argue that all are, but everything is relative, too), and because most die-hard scientific atheist-people herearound(not this forum, mind) seem to always wear a somewhat single-minded sneer whenever you mention anything that hasn't been pegged down by science.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.

Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?

Rip, to be honest you don't know enough about the vast number of fields involved to even begin a logical discussion with you, even if you were capable of such a thing. Evolution has been confirmed in fields ranging from anthropology, to biology but the vast majority of the evidence is in molecular biology. Being that you don't even have a grasp of the basics of most of these fields any attempt to have a discussion about it would be devoted to trying to get you to understand basics while you try to wildly suppose answers on complex theories without even understanding the basics.

Equating this to the study of mathmatics you cannot teach a man calculus if he doesn't understand algebra and in this case Rip, equivalently you don't even understand multiplacation or division let alone the algebra or calculus. For instance you continue to confuse abiogenisis with evolution, although related in a small way, the fields of study are completely different. If you want to have a serious discussion on this I suggest you consult your local community college and begin with biology 101 working your way through until you have a sufficient understanding of the topics involved to intellectually discuss them.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Bogus poll answer = Unquestioningly. It is absolute truth!.

I have no doubt that, although current evolutionary theory is the only theory that that accounts for what we have observed, it too, will evolve as new data and relationships are observed. The true beauty of science is that it is unnecessary to have the "absolute truth" to attempt to explain observable phenomena. Science also demands that these explanations be expanded and modified when new information becomes available.

Creationism is based on a supposed "absolute truth", and is therefore, unconcerned with new information. From the standpoint of the supernatural, understanding and explanation have no positive value.

I almost find it humorous that the same pepole that reject evolutionary theory, are often supporters of things like cancer research, which use identical scientific principles and practices to develop theories that may ultimately guide them to finding a cure or developing preventitive measures.

 

[martinez]

Disregarding evolution entirely is to deny ones own ability to change. The majority of our behaviour is influenced by our environment. We tend to adapt well to new and unfimiliar situations. Regardless of the scientific data, commonsense dictates to me that not only is change possible and natural, it is inevitable.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is no way to believe in it in a non-faith manner. Yes we witness natural selection everyday, but the whole scope of evolution is unknowable as of right now, and perhaps forever. Although I don't believe it to be as big a leap as believing what one book from 2000 years ago says. I mean isn't the Odyssey roughly that old, I don't believe in Cyclops and Sirens...

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
You should read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. I wanted to get a pro and a con book on the subject, and this dude's a biochemist and his angle has nothing to do with espousing creationism (although creationists use his arguments anyway). He raises some good questions.

I have read it and noticed the flaws in it. He misleads the reader and perhaps himself with his analogies into misunderstanding how evolution works. It's not a balanced book on the subject, and while he's not a young-Earth creationist, he certainly is a creationist.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski
No, I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept it as the best explanation based on Scientific Principles.

How do you think that life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter?

A. Miller and Wächtershäuser's theories

B. Clay Theory

C. Spontaneous generation.

D. "Deep-hot biosphere" model

E. "Primitive" extraterrestrial life

I don't know how it happened; we don't have sufficient evidence to make a decision.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Since Darwin's The Origin of the Species, there have been corollaries to modify the original theory such as "punctuated equilibrium" in recent times. Things like that would make someone who had accepted the original theory as absolute fact before feel kind of foolish.

Evolution is a fact; natural selection is a theory that explains the fact. Don't confuse the two and you won't feel foolish. The existence of gravity was still a fact after Einstein developed general relativity, even though we'd based our calculations for centuries on Newtonian gravitation. The same is true for evolution.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
You should read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. I wanted to get a pro and a con book on the subject, and this dude's a biochemist and his angle has nothing to do with espousing creationism (although creationists use his arguments anyway). He raises some good questions.

Lets boil Behe's whole book down to one sentence. Life can't evolve because it's too complex and can't work without it's parts. His entire book is based on the premise that life has a "goal". or an objective, as the life evolves and this is contrary to reality. There is no causality, there is no goal.

Evolution is a fact. It's an observed, documented and confirmed fact of this world. The "theory of evolution" is the method by which that observed, documented and confirmed process works. When creationists talk about evolution what they do is disregard the fact and accept the theory (natural selection). The irony and outright idiocy of that position is outstanding.

And lets be clear on something else, science isn't faith. Science is based on reason, evidence and experimentation. Creationists have been trying for years to say that science is somehow equivalent to religion by equating science to faith. They have and continue to seek the credibility that science has but they will never achieve it because their beliefs are not based on reason, evidence and experimentation. Until god is willing to show up and participate in an experiement to prove his existence then religion is relegated to philosophy were it shall stay. If your religion contradicts the observed universe than it is your perogative to ignore those observations and pretend they don't exist but don't try to convince me that the science is wrong because you think your book says it is.

Ah. Didn't Behe admit that he basically believed in evolution? You've probably also read Dawkin's Climbing Mount Improbable or The Blind Watchmaker. in which he explains evolution not just as natural selection, but as random mutation coupled with natural selection. I keep hearing creationists just plain get it wrong when they speak of life being too complex to have been based merely on randomness. They quip about how we cannot arrive at random to the complexity of the human mind that we "see" today.

However, in science, there have been other theories that were almost always true. A good example is Newtonian mechanics. F = ma. Or how about Energy = Potential Energy + Kinetic Energy = FD + 1/2 mv ^ 2 It was true pretty much all the time. Except when Einstein came up with Mass Energy and the idea that it's almost always true except when we approach very high speeds it must be MODIFIED to add the mc ^ 2.

Since Darwin's The Origin of the Species, there have been corollaries to modify the original theory such as "punctuated equilibrium" in recent times. Things like that would make someone who had accepted the original theory as absolute fact before feel kind of foolish.

but when newtonian theories were questioned (and long before einstein decided to) they were questioned in reference to themselves and other scientific inquiry. essentially, they need each other to get to what we will currently believe to be true. i dont think he is saying "this is it. we can stop now" but it seems that the whole ID/creationist camp is devoted to simply saying something is wrong rather than proving something false or proving something true.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bogus poll answer = Unquestioningly. It is absolute truth!.

I have no doubt that, although current evolutionary theory is the only theory that that accounts for what we have observed, it too, will evolve as new data and relationships are observed. The true beauty of science is that it is unnecessary to have the "absolute truth" to attempt to explain observable phenomena. Science also demands that these explanations be expanded and modified when new information becomes available.

Creationism is based on a supposed "absolute truth", and is therefore, unconcerned with new information. From the standpoint of the supernatural, understanding and explanation have no positive value.

i pretty much agree with this. science isn't like religion - it requires little to no faith since it's falsifiable. i can't even select any of the poll options b/c none of them are close to what i think about the theory. nothing in science is 100% gauranteed to be right but evolution theory as far as we can tell is correct. i'm not sure if it's happened yet but i'm sure someone will try to tie abiogenesis into this and say it's part of evolution theory even though it's not. they'll then try to show how abiogenesis isn't an incredibly strong theory yet so therefore evolution theory is just as weak. just a heads up....

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.

Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?

They're in natural history museums and universities around the world. Do your mind a favor and visit archaeopteryx or the equine evolution series sometime.

 

[cquark]

While plenty of posts on this thread are funny enough in themselves, check out the "Intelligent Design of Whales" anyway: http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2005/06/23/