NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to hear how one species can develop into another...as far as I know there is no proof.

There is proof, not direct proof, but that's why it's a theory.

Macro evolution is just lots of microevolution. Done and Dusted.

I want to hear how one species can develop into another...as far as I know there is no proof.
virii and bacteria

I want to hear how one species can develop into another...as far as I know there is no proof.

OK I know that this is a fun topic, but please it's been done to death...

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

There are 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

I only had to type it into Google...

Coincidentally I just listened to this morning's in our time again which is almost on this topic

Click the listen again link from here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml

Macro evolution is just lots of microevolution. Done and Dusted.
not quite...micro evolution may change a few very tiny things, over a very long time, but it is not macro-evolution. there is no complete fossil record...actually it is very far from complete...how can a mixture of gases "evolve" into the billions of different living cells that make up the human body? I have taken some pretty advanced classes in college dealing with the human body... it is far too complex to have simply "evolved".

not quite...micro evolution may change a few very tiny things, over a very long time, but it is not macro-evolution. there is no complete fossil record...actually it is very far from complete...how can a mixture of gases "evolve" into the billions of different living cells that make up the human body? I have taken some pretty advanced classes in college dealing with the human body... it is far too complex to have simply "evolved".
well if you took all these science classes you should bloody well know everything is made up of the EXACT same things: atoms, lots of atoms.

and since you seem to be a creationist since you are whining about evolution, forget the fact they arnt even related, sicne you took all this science, one would think having some unseen, unprovable, unmearsurable being just making stuff pop into existance from nowhere is quite illogical

not quite...micro evolution may change a few very tiny things, over a very long time, but it is not macro-evolution. there is no complete fossil record...actually it is very far from complete...how can a mixture of gases "evolve" into the billions of different living cells that make up the human body? I have taken some pretty advanced classes in college dealing with the human body... it is far too complex to have simply "evolved".

Now that's an opinion, it's an opinion I believe is wrong, and that is also and opinion.

Like you I'm not basing my opinion on blind faith I have also studied this for a number of years and read around the subject.

It's something that interests me as does finding intellegent people who hold differing views to me.

Originally Posted by San haiti
Macro evolution is just lots of microevolution. Done and Dusted.not quite...micro evolution may change a few very tiny things, over a very long time, but it is not macro-evolution. there is no complete fossil record...actually it is very far from complete...how can a mixture of gases "evolve" into the billions of different living cells that make up the human body? I have taken some pretty advanced classes in college dealing with the human body... it is far too complex to have simply "evolved".
Regardless, San haiti is correct. Macro-evolution is nothing more than an accumulation of micro-evolutionary steps. Change the size of an ear here, a colour there; eventually there are enough changes that you have a different species.

Evolution has been a FACT, not a theory, for at least five years now. Under laboratory conditions, bacteria, viruses and fungi have all been shown to evolve.

As for higher lifeforms evolving, there are two types of evolution: gradual and "great leap". Gradual evolution is a FACT in human evolution. 100,000 years ago, we had thicker skulls, more calcium in our bones, more muscle attachment points, and actually had a larger brain.

Evolution has been a FACT, not a theory, for at least five years now. Under laboratory conditions, bacteria, viruses and fungi have all been shown to evolve.

As for higher lifeforms evolving, there are two types of evolution: gradual and "great leap". Gradual evolution is a FACT in human evolution. 100,000 years ago, we had thicker skulls, more calcium in our bones, more muscle attachment points, and actually had a larger brain.
Oh, please. There is much evidence to support micro-evolution, but any scientific theory remains a theory forever --it doesn't suddenly evolve into a fact, any more than one critter suddenly evolves into another.

well if you took all these science classes you should bloody well know everything is made up of the EXACT same things: atoms, lots of atoms.

and since you seem to be a creationist since you are whining about evolution, forget the fact they arnt even related, sicne you took all this science, one would think having some unseen, unprovable, unmearsurable being just making stuff pop into existance from nowhere is quite illogical
exactly. but that is exactly what you believe no? the big bang theory...it makes no sense at all. that is how you explain everything right? I mean there had to be something form all of these atoms to develop from correct? I believe in a creator, because just one cell is far to complex to have ever evolved. each and every cell is carefully constructed. how could that have happened without somone to create it? how could it have happened just over time?

not quite...micro evolution may change a few very tiny things, over a very long time, but it is not macro-evolution. there is no complete fossil record...actually it is very far from complete..


Depends on who you ask (http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Fossils.htm).


.how can a mixture of gases "evolve" into the billions of different living cells that make up the human body?


The theory of evolution does not concern the origins of life.


I have taken some pretty advanced classes in college dealing with the human body... it is far too complex to have simply "evolved".

Says the person who does not understand Evolution by his own admission.

I may seem condescening, but your arguments are trite. Please take your time to properly research (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html).

Oh, please. There is much evidence to support micro-evolution, but any scientific theory remains a theory forever --it doesn't suddenly evolve into a fact, any more than one critter suddenly evolves into another.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzztttt! Wrong again Alex! Evolution is evolution, there's no micro or macro, it's evolution. Distinguishing between them just shows you believe evolution occurs. A link was already posted about the 29 observed instances of speciation which is listed on one of the best sites on evolution on the internet. Start reading through that site and become educated on the beauty of this "theory". Incidentally, in science, a theory describes a fact. The layman's term for theory is quite the opposite of the scientific term. This is explained in detail on that site as well.

exactly. but that is exactly what you believe no? the big bang theory...it makes no sense at all. that is how you explain everything right? I mean there had to be something form all of these atoms to develop from correct? I believe in a creator, because just one cell is far to complex to have ever evolved. each and every cell is carefully constructed. how could that have happened without somone to create it? how could it have happened just over time?
lets see
big bang: there was some incalcuable sized super dense matter, some chain reaction occured that caused it to explode, sending off chunks of matter in all directions, these become solar systems and stars and planets and etc

creation: some unmeasurable, unimaginable, unseen entity created everything from NOTHING.


what asinine trip. "i believe in a creator because blah blah blah is complex blah" how sad.you believe in a creator because you are too simpel to just ACCEPT, wow its complex because that is what it became to continue working correctly. it can easily evolve complexity. Occam's Razor, god is a pointless, useless variable for hte feeble minded. all teh christians and other religions are just like "cant you just accept god did it" that is a stupid question and argument because god is an extra facotr, cant you just accept its like that because it IS

exactly. but that is exactly what you believe no? the big bang theory...it makes no sense at all. that is how you explain everything right? I mean there had to be something form all of these atoms to develop from correct? I believe in a creator, because just one cell is far to complex to have ever evolved. each and every cell is carefully constructed. how could that have happened without somone to create it? how could it have happened just over time?

Maybe you should try researching some things involving the Big Bang theory and abiogenesis. Then you can't say it makes no sense. Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it's not true.

exactly. but that is exactly what you believe no? the big bang theory...it makes no sense at all. that is how you explain everything right? I mean there had to be something form all of these atoms to develop from correct? I believe in a creator, because just one cell is far to complex to have ever evolved. each and every cell is carefully constructed. how could that have happened without somone to create it? how could it have happened just over time?
I personally have no answer about the big bang, or how something came from apparently nothing.

I don't know enough about the big bang, and yet I do know a fair amount about evolution.

I can happily see that the big bang may be proven to be wrong, many people and not just creationists believe that it is. However I have read and seen evidence of evolution, I've looked at the different options. I believe, through reasoned arguments backed up with evidence that evolution theory is correct.

I do have blind faith that there is no omnipotent being benign or other wise. I choose not to argue this faith however because I recognise that it is just that and even I can see that there may well be a chance that things change and I could possibly be convinced that there is a God. I don't see me turning my back on the evidence for evolution.

I also believe that none of my opinions make me a bad person.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzztttt! Wrong again Alex! Evolution is evolution, there's no micro or macro, it's evolution. Distinguishing between them just shows you believe evolution occurs.
D'uh! That's what I said!

A link was already posted about the 29 observed instances of speciation which is listed on one of the best sites on evolution on the internet. Start reading through that site and become educated on the beauty of this "theory". Incidentally, in science, a theory describes a fact. The layman's term for theory is quite the opposite of the scientific term. This is explained in detail on that site as well.
If what you've stated here is evidence of what they teach, then the site is not worth reading, as it has nothing to do with science.

Fact: a statement that is true. Like binary, it's either 1 or 0.
Theory: a group of ideas about facts, derived from facts and assumptions/speculations about the facts, designed to describe an idea that fits all the available facts, and open to new facts being introduced that could very well amend the theory.

Facts are fixed. Theories are not. They are not the same thing. A theory is not a fact.

I want to hear how one species can develop into another...as far as I know there is no proof.

Old saying in science goes: Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

Meaning, science is not about proving something, it's about examining the evidence around us and structuring an explanation that fits with what we know. We have a TON of evidence to structure the theory of evolution, it's one of the strongest, if not THE strongest, theory science has today.

I mean there had to be something form all of these atoms to develop from correct? I believe in a creator, because just one cell is far to complex to have ever evolved. each and every cell is carefully constructed. how could that have happened without somone to create it? how could it have happened just over time?
I don't understand how this leads you to believe there is a creator. Can you be more specific?

If what you've stated here is evidence of what they teach, then the site is not worth reading, as it has nothing to do with science.

Fact: a statement that is true. Like binary, it's either 1 or 0.
Theory: a group of ideas about facts, derived from facts and assumptions/speculations about the facts, designed to describe an idea that fits all the available facts, and open to new facts being introduced that could very well amend the theory.

Facts are fixed. Theories are not. They are not the same thing. A theory is not a fact.

I never said a theory is a fact. A theory DESCRIBES a fact! From the site you so modestly pass off (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html) Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

The reason this site is so good to read is because it is done and maintained by a lot of actual scientists. I particularly like this site better as it's articles are more peer-reviewed but still agree with the other site (http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml)

I never said a theory is a fact. A theory DESCRIBES a fact!
I said the same thing, and you said "Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong!"

I said the same thing, and you said "Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong!"

I just went back and reread your posts, somehow I misread them the first time. So I guess I was arguing about nothing :headbang:

I just went back and reread your posts, somehow I misread them the first time. So I guess I was arguing about nothing :headbang:
Now there's something you don't see here everyday - someone admitting they were wrong...

Here is something that no one has answered to me so far on NS, why don't christians belive in evolution?

Sure, let's say that the world has just existed for 10 000 years, that doesn't mean that there is no evolution. There are a lot of other proves for evolution, DNA for example, you can't accept DNA without evolution, it is the logical nextstep. And if the earth will just exist some 5000 years at maximum, then humans, and everything else living, will be practically just as they were during the creation.

Here is something that no one has answered to me so far on NS, why don't christians belive in evolution?

Sure, let's say that the world has just existed for 10 000 years, that doesn't mean that there is no evolution. There are a lot of other proves for evolution, DNA for example, you can't accept DNA without evolution, it is the logical nextstep. And if the earth will just exist some 5000 years at maximum, then humans, and everything else living, will be practically just as they were during the creation.
Well, you can't generalise Christians on this topic --some believe that, some don't. Some are fine with both ideas of Evolution and Creation working together. Some believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, and some accept the idea that it is older.

Those who don't believe in evolution are most likely those who accept on faith a literal interpretation of the Bible. It's as simple as that.

exactly. but that is exactly what you believe no? the big bang theory...it makes no sense at all. that is how you explain everything right? I mean there had to be something form all of these atoms to develop from correct? I believe in a creator, because just one cell is far to complex to have ever evolved. each and every cell is carefully constructed. how could that have happened without somone to create it? how could it have happened just over time?

This is just hiding the question, and pretending that you've answered it. "When I see a watch, I infer a watchmaker", is, I'm afraid, not much of an argument -- because when I see a watchmaker, I infer a watchmaker's parents.

If you need to postulate a Creator to make something like a cell, why don't you need to postulate a meta-Creator to make the Creator? And a meta-meta-Creator to make the meta-Creator? And a meta-meta-meta-Creator to...? and so on and so forth. How can you believe in something as complex as a Creator of the Universe which doesn't require a Creator of its own, but refuse to believe that a cell could not arise from an amalgamation of ever-simpler forms without a Creator to put them together?

One of the many interesting things about the universe is that order seems to be implicit. Random activity gives rise to structure, spontaneously. Now, some people see this as evidence for intelligence behind and within the fabric of the universe. However, it could also be mere chance. It could be that this is just the way the laws of physics happened to fall out of the Big Bang: after all, if order was not implicit in the universe, then increasingly complex structures would not form, would not produce living things, would not evolve over billions of years, and would not give rise to sentient creatures such as ourselves who could look out at the universe and wonder about where all the implicit order came from.

Now there's something you don't see here everyday - someone admitting they were wrong...

Heh, I'm not afraid to admit it. Everyone makes mistakes. I'm just one of the few on an internet forum that has no problem acknowledging it (once I realize it) so as not to make myself look more like an ass :fluffle:

This is very simple.

Members of a species are born with mutations that make them fitter for their environment. Therefore they breed more. Eventually, through enough mutations, a group of creatures is sufficiently different to their ancestors that they can be classed as a new species (i.e. unable to reproduce with their ancestors, or if they could, the offspring would be infertile).

lets see
big bang: there was some incalcuable sized super dense matter, some chain reaction occured that caused it to explode, sending off chunks of matter in all directions, these become solar systems and stars and planets and etc

creation: some unmeasurable, unimaginable, unseen entity created everything from NOTHING.


what asinine trip. "i believe in a creator because blah blah blah is complex blah" how sad.you believe in a creator because you are too simpel to just ACCEPT, wow its complex because that is what it became to continue working correctly. it can easily evolve complexity. Occam's Razor, god is a pointless, useless variable for hte feeble minded. all teh christians and other religions are just like "cant you just accept god did it" that is a stupid question and argument because god is an extra facotr, cant you just accept its like that because it IS


There are many people who believe in God AND embrace science, you generalize. Science and God only become mutually exclusive when you bring organized religions into the equation. Organized religions were created by men not God, but that's an entirely new discussion. :)

My personal belief in a God does not conflict with my acceptance of quite a bit of the evolutionary model. I do however, have a big problem with the big bang.

Matter does not come from nothing if you believe in the laws of science. The most plausible big bang theory assumes that the matter created came from tremendous energy. However, energy also cannot come from nothing. So, scientists theorize that our universe repeatedly collapses to nothing (or just energy) and then expands (explodes back into matter). Fine, but in order for this to occur there had to be original energy or original matter. Neither can just pop into existence according to the laws of science. Where did the original matter or original energy come from?

I have to say, it seems a bit comical for someone to judge someone's "blind acceptance" to an idea of a creator that apparently makes no sense, while at the same time judging them for not "blindly accepting" an equally nonsensical idea. Asking questions and challenging theories is what intelligent people do. Dismissing one person's improvable theory because it disagrees with your own improvable theory, or scares you...well lets just say it would make a good cornerstone for yet another organized religion. :)

If you can't get something from nothing, where did God come from?

Personally, I believe the initial energy that formed matter existed for all time. I.e. there was no point in time where it did not exist, therefore no need for it to have been created.

it is far too complex to have simply "evolved".

Maybe it complexly evolved, then. :rolleyes:

The complexity is due to the amount of time spent evolving.

Besides, humans are also very flawed as a design.

Matter does not come from nothing if you believe in the laws of science. The most plausible big bang theory assumes that the matter created came from tremendous energy. However, energy also cannot come from nothing. So, scientists theorize that our universe repeatedly collapses to nothing (or just energy) and then expands (explodes back into matter). Fine, but in order for this to occur there had to be original energy or original matter. Neither can just pop into existence according to the laws of science. Where did the original matter or original energy come from?

I have to say, it seems a bit comical for someone to judge someone's "blind acceptance" to an idea of a creator that apparently makes no sense, while at the same time judging them for not "blindly accepting" an equally nonsensical idea. Asking questions and challenging theories is what intelligent people do. Dismissing one person's improvable theory because it disagrees with your own improvable theory, or scares you...well lets just say it would make a good cornerstone for yet another organized religion. :)

Something can come from nothing (http://members.tripod.com/thegreatlearning/vaccum-physics.htm)

Anyone read The Blind Watchmaker (by Richard Dawkins)? I'm only about half way through, but so far it's given me perfectly clear, understandable explanations of the processes involved in evolution, and how seemingly 'designed' organs etc can come from accumulations of small, random mutations. Read this plus Hawking's Brief History of Time, and you never have to believe in God again! Hurrah!

exactly. but that is exactly what you believe no? the big bang theory...it makes no sense at all. that is how you explain everything right? I mean there had to be something form all of these atoms to develop from correct?"Energy". Now under the standard model of particle physics you can't create matter without creating an equal amount of antimatter. But there have been experiments with results that violate the symmetry (conservation) laws of the standard model. So while there is no physics that explains the overabundance of matter in the universe (compared to antimatter), there is evidence to suggest that it is possible to create matter from energy.
Now the big bang theory has been oversold. It explains a great many observations in terms of simpler presuppositions, which is what any good theory does. It explains the cosmic microwave background (including the patterns in the background), the amounts of Hydrogen and Helium, galactic redshifts, the large scale structure of the universe, and why galaxies that are very far away look differently from nearby galaxies. So there is very strong evidence that the current universe evolved from a very different universe. But what is not expained is those initial conditions. The big bang does not explain "everything", nor the existance of the universe.

I believe in a creator, because just one cell is far to complex to have ever evolved. each and every cell is carefully constructed. how could that have happened without somone to create it? how could it have happened just over time?Mutation coupled with selection. Mutation gives you gradual change, and selection gives that change direction. And the end result is that you get a gradual refinement of the design towards a design that's better at reproducing itself[1], as that is the direction that natural selection applies.
[1]What constitutes Darwinian fitness is actually a subtle matter. For instance an organism doesn't have to reproduce itself to pass on its genes, as it's not the only holder of its genes.
A great number of complex structures have been explained through gradual refinement from very simple structures. And some have not. Ribosomes I believe are one of the structures that have not, but I'm no expert. Try talkorigins.org, the've got a fairly large collection of such theories, along with evidence for the occuring.

not quite...micro evolution may change a few very tiny things, over a very long time, but it is not macro-evolution. there is no complete fossil record...actually it is very far from complete...how can a mixture of gases "evolve" into the billions of different living cells that make up the human body? I have taken some pretty advanced classes in college dealing with the human body... it is far too complex to have simply "evolved".

Ohhhh ok.

Then if the body did not evolve, why the appendix?

So what schoold did you take these classes and for that matter what classes?