NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to my little knowledge, I would like to hear the support for evolution. Please cite sources, stay on the subject, explain your logic, and dont give websites as your proof (although you may cite them). Thank you.

we cannot prove evolution yet.that will take a weee bit more time.it is only the most probable truth,not the truth.isnt science fun? :p

First, are you trying to argue or are you trying to learn?

Point Proven (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

First of all, we have immense fossil records, that by carbon dating, we know to have lived millions of years ago, and millions of years apart.

Then, we have Adam And Eve. How could 6400 million people have descended of two individuals? It is genetically impossible (Inbreeding).

Then, we have modern proof that evolution occurs: You got bacterias that evolve to gain resistance against antibiotics. Rats and coacroaches do the same. You have butterflies in england, that due to the polution, changed colour of white to black, so that they could meld into the enviroment and avoid predators.


One can argue that a conscient force organized things, so that humanity could evolve. I will not discuss that, but one thing is certain: Things are here for alot more time than everything considered in the bible (or any religious book), and evolution is real.

I am trying to learn

Due to my little knowledge, I would like to hear the support for evolution. Please cite sources, stay on the subject, explain your logic, and dont give websites as your proof (although you may cite them). Thank you.
There is extensive evidence in the fossil record that shows the transition of one species into another. Examples include Ambulocetus, and Archaeopterix. Recently fethered dinosaur remains have been found as well.

We have observed the small steps that lead up to major evolutionary change, although we have not yet observed and documented the transition into a whole new species.

We know the mechanisms by which evolution can take place.

We never find modern animals fossilized along with animals which have been long extinct like trilobites and dinosaurs.

Given all that it's hard to beleive that all the animals were created as-is from the begining of life on earth.

it's already proven,
there is a sea somewhere or leak, where for some reason (no its not radio-active) the fish evolve really fast so in a matter of years a fish can alreayd be faster, than 3 years earlier and thats happening for about 70 years now
thats 1 proof, i could give you more

Where to begin? Where to begin? I guess by asking you if you know the basics, that is, if you know what terms like scientific method, hypothesis, experimentation, evidence, and theory mean. Because I don't want to start a long, long text and then find out you don't even know this.

Nylon Bug

Nylon is not found in nature. Bacteria that's able to hydrolyze the nylon wastewater was found a few decades after it was produced. The gene that does the hydrolysis could not have existed beforehand since nylon was not around.

Fossil evidence

Many fossils layered in patterns predicted by evolutionary theory have been found. Mammals aren't mixed with dinosaurs (except for the very earliest of which were around at the time).

DNA evidence

Related species have similar DNA. As you go back to ancestral relationships the DNA becomes less and less similar.

Endogenous retroviruses

Yes, I'm providing a link for this. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses) I don't feel like explaining it myself so I'm taking a shortcut.

Well now, it has been easily proven that evolution can be valid. Any creationists who would like to argue? :p :D

Due to my little knowledge, I would like to hear the support for evolution. Please cite sources, stay on the subject, explain your logic, and dont give websites as your proof (although you may cite them). Thank you.

before this gets going too far, what sort of thing would you hypothetically accept as being evidence in favor of evolution?

Due to my little knowledge, I would like to hear the support for evolution. Please cite sources, stay on the subject, explain your logic, and dont give websites as your proof (although you may cite them). Thank you.


I woke up this morning with horns and a tail and the ability to fly ... if that ain't evolution, I don't know what is! :D

do you believe in Evolution?
Do you believe in Gravity?

DNA evidence

Related species have similar DNA. As you go back to ancestral relationships the DNA becomes less and less similar.

Don't you mean 'more and more similar'?

time and again carbon dating has proved how wrong it is and even if it did work it only traces back 50,000 years tops which is for too short for evolution to have taken place.

do you believe in Evolution?
Do you believe in Gravity?

I'm not too sure about this whole "gravity" idea, actually.

Wait, what? Are we going to just find 150 years worth of biological research and post here? People spend entire careers working in specific fields of evolutionary theory, and we're supposed to know everything by heart?

time and again carbon dating has proved how wrong it is and even if it did work it only traces back 50,000 years tops which is for too short for evolution to have taken place.
Carbon dating has been proven "inaccurate", not wrong, when compared to other dating methods, like tree rings. However, this inaccuracy is known and is accounted for. Carbon dating can be calibrated with other methods when used in recent samples, plus give us a very good estimate when measuring older stuff, up to several million years old.

Don't you mean 'more and more similar'?

Um, no. Our DNA is something like 98% or more similar to chimpanzees. As you go back further and further in the phylogenetic tree you still see genetic similarities but they become less and less.

Evolution can't be proven. For one thing, it relies on carbon dating that has proven unreliable for anything older than 50,000,000 years. For another, it doesn't have enough evidence for it. For a third, the math doesn't support human evolution when one takes a look at the rate of evolution without one having to stretch things a bit. For a fourth, there is currently an arguement over how evolution works. For a fifth, there is the possibility that evidence disproving it will be found.

What science has is a theory that is currently supported by most of the evidence they have. There was also a computer experiment that showed the possibility of evolution, but there are questions now of exactly what speed of evolution it supported and if the experiment was accurate.

Give science a few decades to sort itself out and find more evidence. Then ask this question.

time and again carbon dating has proved how wrong it is and even if it did work it only traces back 50,000 years tops which is for too short for evolution to have taken place.

Err... carbon dating can trace back a lot further than that.
And I'd like do see evidence of how carbon dating has 'proved' evolution wrong. :rolleyes:

Um, no. Our DNA is something like 98% or more similar to chimpanzees. As you go back further and further in the phylogenetic tree you still see genetic similarities but they become less and less.

99%.

time and again carbon dating has proved how wrong it is and even if it did work it only traces back 50,000 years tops which is for too short for evolution to have taken place.

carbon dating isn't 'wrong'. It just has a range in which it can be applied (and i don't feel like looking it up). However the method itself can be used with isotopes of other elements that have a longer halftime and that thereby have other ranges in which they can be used. When these isotopes get used people often refer to the method as 'carbon dating' (allthough no carbon is involved).

For one thing, it relies on carbon dating that has proven unreliable for anything older than 50,000 years.

carbon dating isn't the only kind of radiometric dating available to us. we actually have a nice variety of choices when it comes to this, and they all fit together quite well. i like potassium-argon, myself

For another, it doesn't have enough evidence for it.

how much higher do we need to make ye olde mountain o' evidence exactly? we had enough evidence back in darwin's day. to say that we don't have enough today is absurd.

time and again carbon dating has proved how wrong it is and even if it did work it only traces back 50,000 years tops which is for too short for evolution to have taken place.
Fuck carbon dating. Look at the fossil evidence. Look at the genetic evidence.

carbon dating isn't the only kind of radiometric dating available to us. we actually have a nice variety of choices when it comes to this, and they all fit together quite well.

You must have been typing for about five minutes on this. If you hadn't been, you would have noticed I editted it. But they all still have a max range of effectiveness.

how much higher do we need to make ye olde mountain o' evidence exactly? we had enough evidence back in darwin's day. to say that we don't have enough today is absurd.

The mountain is actually a molehill. You have genetic data that could just be coincidence, fossil records with holes so big I could drive a semi through them, a rate of evolution among humans that doesn't quite match up, and the possibility the evidence is actually of something else. If it was absurd to say we don't have enough evidence, it would be a law instead of a theory. Anyone with a basic education in science would know that.

Evolution can't be proven. For one thing, it relies on carbon dating that has proven unreliable for anything older than 50,000 years.
It's not that it's unreliable for anything older than 50k, it's that the carbon 14 has broken down so much in that time that an older date cannot be given.

For another, it doesn't have enough evidence for it.
Then you haven't looked at the evidence. It possibly has more empirical evidence to support its claims than any other scientific theory!

For a third, the math doesn't support human evolution when one takes a look at the rate of evolution without one having to stretch things a bit.
Calculations? Figures used?

For a fourth, there is currently an arguement over how evolution works.
Yes, some of the mechanics for evolution are still in question but the general idea that speciation occurs over a given population through small genetic changes is fact.

For a fifth, there is the possibility that evidence disproving it will be found.
It's called falsifiability. If something found in the fossil records shows that evolution couldn't happen then the Theory would have been falsified. None has been found. EVERY scientific theory is falsifiable, part of what makes a theory, a theory.

The mountain is actually a molehill. You have genetic data that could just be coincidence,
That's a LOT of coincidence!

fossil records with holes so big I could drive a semi through them,
How about you drive that truck through this?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Just because we don't have fossils for EVERY SINGLE GENERATION of a species does NOT mean we can't use LOGIC to figure out exactly what happened! How much evidence do you think it takes to solve a murder? Do they need it videotaped to show each step the killer took to do his task?

a rate of evolution among humans that doesn't quite match up,
What?

and the possibility the evidence is actually of something else.
What else could it be? If someone came up with a better theory of the evidence then THAT theory would be the general consensus among scientists.

If it was absurd to say we don't have enough evidence, it would be a law instead of a theory. Anyone with a basic education in science would know that.
Theories don't become laws, anyone with a basic understanding of science would know that.

You must have been typing for about five minutes on this. If you hadn't been, you would have noticed I editted it. But they all still have a max range of effectiveness.

50 million won't help you. firstly because c-14 decay actually is ineffective at measuring beyond 40-50k years ago. secondly because we have a good number of radiometric dating methods that get us all the way back to the oldest things on earth. and when different methods are applied to the same things, they all agree (within a known margin of error) on the dates for them.

lead-lead, uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, lutetium-hafnium, and samarium-neodymium all can get us accurate dates from billions of years ago.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey
By: Spencer Wells

Read that book, watch the film. It was a requirement in my College biology class. I am positive it will tell you everything you need to know.

If it was absurd to say we don't have enough evidence, it would be a law instead of a theory. Anyone with a basic education in science would know that.

Anyone with a basic education would know the weight the word "theory" carries... Like the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of General Relativity, and the like. Theory describes an explaination for a set of data, and a law describes the actions themselves. A scientific theory can never become a law.

A lot of people here are forgetting the basic mechanics of evolutionary theory, too. Nearly everyone knows about natural selection but very few people understand genetic drift. The mechanics are proven; the only fallacies with the theory are potential timeframes and the like. While disagreeing with it in its present state is sensible, the actual mechanics of the theory are rather concrete.

If any thing the very existence of DNA (which of course cannot be disputed) is proof of evolution. For example you can look at human and Ape DNA and see the similarities of which are staggering proof? No then how about the very process by which DNA replicates itself by splitting during mitosis or meiosis that of coarse if the cause of evolution due to minute changes during this.

Evolution is still a theory but is defiantly correct, its just no ones given it the official Law of Evolution stamp yet.

Creationism is little more than elaborate ignorance.

Actually the theory of gravity is the law of gravity.
Law = proven theory

You have to admit seeing George Bush Jnr does make you doubt the theory of evolution.

yes he is rather inbred

You have to admit seeing George Bush Jnr does make you doubt the theory of evolution.

Evolution doesn't mean that all change is for the better. In fact, with more sociable creatures, the force of natural selection is drastically weakened.

Actually the theory of gravity is the law of gravity.
Law = proven theory

They've proven general relativity but it doesn't have the law stamp.

why couldn't god have used evolution when he created everything? there had to be a begining somewhere.

why couldn't god have used evolution when he created everything? there had to be a begining somewhere.
Yes, and that begining might very well had been a god. But until we find that god we can't simply say "well, god did it".

It's like digging in the ground. You don't know what you are going to find or how long it will take you to get to the other side (if there is another side), you simply keep on digging to find out.

Evolution is still a theory but is defiantly correct, its just no ones given it the official Law of Evolution stamp yet.

Creationism is little more than elaborate ignorance.

Actually the theory of gravity is the law of gravity.
Law = proven theory

no, laws and theories are different things. theories are explanations for a set of facts that imply predictions about as yet unobserved ones. laws are mathematical relations between facts without an explanation of why that relation holds.

and no theory can ever be proven - no law either for that matter. this is because they talk about all events in a given set of circumstances, including future events. and because of the nature of the universe and our temporally limited perspective, it is logically impossible to prove anything about the future.

why couldn't god have used evolution when he created everything? there had to be a begining somewhere.

Look into Theistic Evolution. Basically, God used Evolution to create life. Science doesn't address a supernatural being as it's beyond the scope of science to test anything not natural.

why couldn't god have used evolution when he created everything? there had to be a begining somewhere.

That runs against the divine origin hypothesis of the human species and it tends to make the egotistical humans in general uncomfortable to be aware of their shared lineage with the poo-flinging homonids. :D

you mean ensientiens when was this i thought there were still a few iffy points to it. Then again im only a Gcse physisit so :P

Evolution can't be proven. For one thing, it relies on carbon dating that has proven unreliable for anything older than 50,000,000 years. For another, it doesn't have enough evidence for it. For a third, the math doesn't support human evolution when one takes a look at the rate of evolution without one having to stretch things a bit. For a fourth, there is currently an arguement over how evolution works. For a fifth, there is the possibility that evidence disproving it will be found.

What science has is a theory that is currently supported by most of the evidence they have. There was also a computer experiment that showed the possibility of evolution, but there are questions now of exactly what speed of evolution it supported and if the experiment was accurate.

Give science a few decades to sort itself out and find more evidence. Then ask this question.
Evolution does NOT rely on carbon dating. It has plenty of evidence. Much more than creation. Enough so that most scientists regard it as a fact. The math argument is faulty. There are different ideas about how fast evolution takes place. For instance punctuated equilibrium models show evolution taking place in rapid spurts. The argument over how evolution works is only about whether it happens slowly or in short spurts. Not over the general genetic mechanisms or the larger shifts in genes in a population. There is a possibility evidence can be found against anything. Should we turn all the prisoners loose too?

You must have been typing for about five minutes on this. If you hadn't been, you would have noticed I editted it. But they all still have a max range of effectiveness.



The mountain is actually a molehill. You have genetic data that could just be coincidence, fossil records with holes so big I could drive a semi through them, a rate of evolution among humans that doesn't quite match up, and the possibility the evidence is actually of something else. If it was absurd to say we don't have enough evidence, it would be a law instead of a theory. Anyone with a basic education in science would know that.
The max range of effectiveness for some isotopes is measured in millions of years.

You have to admit seeing George Bush Jnr does make you doubt the theory of evolution.

Na, it's just proof that evolution doesn't neccesarily make things better. Why evolve brains when you can just evolve the ability to make people give you things out of pity?

"All those mean liberals are making fun of George for being stupid and incompotent, but being president is HARD. Vote for W. that'll show'em."

The max range of effectiveness for some isotopes is measured in millions of years.
And billions. Hell, the half-life of one isotope of uranium (I believe it's the stable isotope) is 4.5 billion years.

why couldn't god have used evolution when he created everything? there had to be a begining somewhere.
Do you work for the Roman Catholic Church? That's their take on it.

That runs against the divine origin hypothesis of the human species and it tends to make the egotistical humans in general uncomfortable to be aware of their shared lineage with the poo-flinging homonids. :D

i am a christian, and my religion believes that it doesn't really matter how it all was created, just that god did it. this awareness doesn't make me uncomfortable of my shared lineage. honestly, i think truth is truth, whether you arrive there from a spiritual path or through science. in the end you end up in the same place.

Due to my little knowledge, I would like to hear the support for evolution. Please cite sources, stay on the subject, explain your logic, and dont give websites as your proof (although you may cite them). Thank you.

The only thing that is being proven here is that you do not undrstand how science works. Evolution is a theory. It can never be proven, only supported or disproven.

The only thing that is being proven here is that you do not undrstand how science works. Evolution is a theory. It can never be proven, only supported or disproven.

A theory can be proven. Then it becomes a "law."

First of all, we have immense fossil records, that by carbon dating, we know to have lived millions of years ago, and millions of years apart.

Then, we have Adam And Eve. How could 6400 million people have descended of two individuals? It is genetically impossible (Inbreeding).

Then, we have modern proof that evolution occurs: You got bacterias that evolve to gain resistance against antibiotics. Rats and coacroaches do the same. You have butterflies in england, that due to the polution, changed colour of white to black, so that they could meld into the enviroment and avoid predators.


One can argue that a conscient force organized things, so that humanity could evolve. I will not discuss that, but one thing is certain: Things are here for alot more time than everything considered in the bible (or any religious book), and evolution is real.

Carbon Dating can only date back about 60,000 years ago. Not millions.

But none of those examples created new species.

A theory can be proven. Then it becomes a "law."

Incorrect.

Laws are, generally, mathematical frameworks through which one has to set theories. Some laws, such as Newton's first and third laws of motion, are based in geometry.

If any thing the very existence of DNA (which of course cannot be disputed) is proof of evolution. For example you can look at human and Ape DNA and see the similarities of which are staggering proof? No then how about the very process by which DNA replicates itself by splitting during mitosis or meiosis that of coarse if the cause of evolution due to minute changes during this.

Maybe God just used the same blueprint for all the different species.

It seems to me that the only scientific laws are those in Physics, maybe chemistry, that can be stated in mathematical equations. Does biology even have any laws?

Maybe God just used the same blueprint for all the different species.
If a god in it's infinite wisdom designed all the forms of life exactly as they are, why did he use the same blueprint? Just to confuse those he loves and lead them astray? Or are you a maltheist?

Wait, what? Are we going to just find 150 years worth of biological research and post here? People spend entire careers working in specific fields of evolutionary theory, and we're supposed to know everything by heart?
Yeah why not? Your just lazy

Carbon Dating can only date back about 60,000 years ago. Not millions.

But none of those examples created new species.

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

From 5.0 onward.

Fuck carbon dating. Look at the fossil evidence. Look at the genetic evidence.

What, the deformed humanoid type skulls, of which there have been as many fakes as 'authentics'? The different horse bones?

That all species use DNA? That DNA is similar in chimps and humans? Couldn't God have made it that way, why reinvent the wheel? You only need one type of blueprint. Chimps and humans are not all that different physically, so most of the DNA should be the same.

They've proven general relativity but it doesn't have the law stamp.
They haven't proven relativity. They've shown quite a bit of evidence for it, but hardly proven it. You have to realize something though; gravity in terms of physics is a somewhat limited concept. Relativity and evolution and grand unified fields are HUGE concepts that most likely will never be proven. The shear scope of topics they encompass is enough to scare away most.

Don't get me wrong, evolution is observable fact in the same way as gravity. The theories that describe how they function may change, the facts don't

Incorrect.

Laws are, generally, mathematical frameworks through which one has to set theories. Some laws, such as Newton's first and third laws of motion, are based in geometry.

From my text: "Law - a basic concept or mathematical relationship that is invariably found to be true."

Yup.

See: law of faunal succession, law of continuity

no really
proven theory equals law or so my dr. holding Aqa A level exam board marking teacher told me a while ago.
and funnily enough biology can at time be far more certain than chemistry and physics, due to that out of the three we have biolgy most sussed.

If a god in it's infinite wisdom designed all the forms of life exactly as they are, why did he use the same blueprint? Just to confuse those he loves and lead them astray? Or are you a maltheist?

So that science could study all these blueprints easier, maybe. Maybe because of an attitude of 'why reinvent the wheel?' Maybe just because he felt like it.

So that science could study all these blueprints easier, maybe. Maybe because of an attitude of 'why reinvent the wheel?' Maybe just because he felt like it.
so gods lazy ... got it

What, the deformed humanoid type skulls, of which there have been as many fakes as 'authentics'? The different horse bones?

That all species use DNA? That DNA is similar in chimps and humans? Couldn't God have made it that way, why reinvent the wheel? You only need one type of blueprint. Chimps and humans are not all that different physically, so most of the DNA should be the same.
What about the fact that dinosaur bones are never found in rock strata of the same age as mammals? What about the fossisl of species intermediate between two species? What about the fact that DNA has been observed to change from one generation to the next? Take two isolated populations of the same species. Over time (it helps to have some environmental stresses to weed the old versions out) each population will accumulate DNA changes the other population doesn't have. Eventually you have two different species. If a god set things up this way he had evolution in mind.

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

From 5.0 onward.

Interesting. I will have ot look into that. Thank you.

It seems to me that the only scientific laws are those in Physics, maybe chemistry, that can be stated in mathematical equations. Does biology even have any laws?

you could probably drag a couple out of 'descent with modification' - i think mendelian genetics had a few, iirc. you also have some for population growth vs food supply, and energy flow within an ecosystem, etc.

Interesting. I will have ot look into that. Thank you.

I live to serve, my friend =P

What, the deformed humanoid type skulls, of which there have been as many fakes as 'authentics'? The different horse bones?

That all species use DNA? That DNA is similar in chimps and humans? Couldn't God have made it that way, why reinvent the wheel? You only need one type of blueprint. Chimps and humans are not all that different physically, so most of the DNA should be the same.

No, not that all species use DNA. That we can actually trace the speciation of these animals using DNA. We can see the inactive genes still attached to our DNA that are active in other species. We can see exactly the points at which apes and monkeys and chimps and humans became seperate species. We can go back and see when the species lines for a bannana and a human became seperate. (Hint: We share 50% of our DNA with a bannana.)

What about the fact that dinosaur bones are never found in rock strata of the same age as mammals? What about the fossisl of species intermediate between two species? What about the fact that DNA has been observed to change from one generation to the next? Take two isolated populations of the same species. Over time (it helps to have some environmental stresses to weed the old versions out) each population will accumulate DNA changes the other population doesn't have. Eventually you have two different species. If a god set things up this way he had evolution in mind.

Ah, gradualism. So...1920s....

Isn't it built into the definition of a theory that you can use it to make predictions. If a theories predictions hold true then that supports it, if they turn out false the theory needs to be re-evaluated, and if you can't use it to make predictions it just plain isn't a theory.

Evolution has made a couple of predictions. The color changing moths in England for one. Another was the prediction that after the mass extinction that claimed the dinosaurs one would have found giant rodents, because the only reason we don't have them now is that evolutionary pressures keep them from evolving into tasty slow moving treats for cats. Then they found the fossil of a 9 foot guinea pig just as predicted.

You can't make a prediction with the idea that "God did it." Creationism could only be a theory if there was a story in the Bible that listed all of the animals that God is reputed to have created. Then if there were any that we did not know of, we could predict that they would be found or fossils of them would.

As it is, the only predictions we can make based on the Bible are flat out wrong. For example the Bible says that the world is a flat rectangle (shaped like a tabernacle) with only four big rivers. Once we went up into space we could see, with the naked eye, that the world is a sphere.

What, the deformed humanoid type skulls, of which there have been as many fakes as 'authentics'?

name these alleged fakes. i can think of one, maybe two. i've personally seen at least a dozen rather complete pre-homo sapiens skulls. you want pictures or something?

a rate of evolution among humans that doesn't quite match up,
I think that can be explained because at some point in time Humans where faceing extinction so the need to evolve or be extinct meant that it happend faster. Im saying this from memory of what I've heard so I could be putting 2 memories together, but it makes sence god damn it!

Ah, gradualism. So...1920s....
I oversimplified for the sake of berevity. I'm a punctuated equilibrium guy.

I think that can be explained because at some point in time Humans where faceing extinction so the need to evolve or be extinct meant that it happend faster. Im saying this from memory of what I've heard so I could be putting 2 memories together, but it makes sence god damn it!
Yup it does ... increased natural pressures drive the "weeding" out process faster (if it is easier to die it rases the bar on what is required to stay alive ... less people passing that bar ... only the best of the best make it on to bread)

Yup it does ... increased natural pressures drive the "weeding" out process faster (if it is easier to die it rases the bar on what is required to stay alive ... less people passing that bar ... only the best of the best make it on to bread)
And in smaller populations a genetic difference gets spread to a larger percentage of that group faster rather than being drowned out.

no really
proven theory equals law or so my dr. holding Aqa A level exam board marking teacher told me a while ago.

well, they were wrong. you cannot prove a theory. it is impossible. you cannot prove a law either. it is also impossible. induction cannot give us proof - and unless someone solves the problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) we might not actually have a logical reason to think it even gives us reason to gain confidence in a theory's explanatory power.

No, not that all species use DNA. That we can actually trace the speciation of these animals using DNA. We can see the inactive genes still attached to our DNA that are active in other species. We can see exactly the points at which apes and monkeys and chimps and humans became seperate species. We can go back and see when the species lines for a bannana and a human became seperate. (Hint: We share 50% of our DNA with a bannana.)
So thats why a voice told me "in the beginning there was a bannana".

So thats why a voice told me "in the beginning there was a bannana".

"In the beginning, God created the Banana, and he saw that it was good. He then proceedeth to hump thee, and banana splits were thus borne."

To the original poster:

What are your thoughts so far?

well, they were wrong. you cannot prove a theory. it is impossible. you cannot prove a law either. it is also impossible. induction cannot give us proof - and unless someone solves the problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) we might not actually have a logical reason to think it even gives us reason to gain confidence in a theory's explanatory power.

I think I'll trust my textbooks on this one.

I think I'll trust my textbooks on this one.

what do your textbooks have to say? because this is really basic philosophy of science stuff, essentially known since the whole project got off the ground.

Maybe God just used the same blueprint for all the different species.

Species is just a matter of percentages. Any two organisms, even of the same species, will have a certain amount of genetic variance. The greater the variation the harder it is to concieve fertile offspring.

Until recently it was thought that a mule could would be infertile because horses and donkies are different species, and then a couple of years ago a mule got pregnant. The same was thought to be true of the offspring of tigers and lions.


Once a branch of related species begin to specialize, like big hunting cats, variation begins to slow down, there is a narrow range of survivablity. You're pretty much limited to strong cats, stealthy cats, fast cats, and patient cats. But in an environment where competative pressures are low and you have an unspecialized animal, like an island with nothing but rats and bugs, you can have all sorts of variation. Grazing rats, hunting rats, tree-climbing fruit-eating rats, foraging root-eating rats, and eventually big small-rat-eating rats. Once these traits become pronounced it will become harder and harder for these rats to interbreed until eventually they look like a different species. But even at that, there is no clear-cut line at which they become different species. It's the sort of thing that becomes clear in hindsight.

well, they were wrong. you cannot prove a theory. it is impossible. you cannot prove a law either. it is also impossible. induction cannot give us proof - and unless someone solves the problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) we might not actually have a logical reason to think it even gives us reason to gain confidence in a theory's explanatory power.

yes, but we will also never be able to prove that 2+2=4 (if you really feel like you can prove it, pm me ;) ). When there is enough evidence, a theory might be taken as a fact, just like we take as a fact that 2+2=4. It won't be exactly true, but we can do as if it was. Just like what we are doing for 2+2=4, and since now it has never been proven wrong either ;)

Species is just a matter of percentages. Any two organisms, even of the same species, will have a certain amount of genetic variance. The greater the variation the harder it is to concieve fertile offspring.

Until recently it was thought that a mule could would be infertile because horses and donkies are different species, and then a couple of years ago a mule got pregnant. The same was thought to be true of the offspring of tigers and lions.


Once a branch of related species begin to specialize, like big hunting cats, variation begins to slow down, there is a narrow range of survivablity. You're pretty much limited to strong cats, stealthy cats, fast cats, and patient cats. But in an environment where competative pressures are low and you have an unspecialized animal, like an island with nothing but rats and bugs, you can have all sorts of variation. Grazing rats, hunting rats, tree-climbing fruit-eating rats, foraging root-eating rats, and eventually big small-rat-eating rats. Once these traits become pronounced it will become harder and harder for these rats to interbreed until eventually they look like a different species. But even at that, there is no clear-cut line at which they become different species. It's the sort of thing that becomes clear in hindsight.
What about social cats? It seems to me that if housecats got smarter and more social they could take down prey the size of a small deer.

I think I'll trust my textbooks on this one.

I wouldn't if I were you. They're notoriously inaccurate.

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/miscon.html

I guess I believe in guided evolution or something. All the evidence for evolution has already been presented; the analogous structures that become less similar the older the specimen et cetera. But I don't think something like us Homo sapiens can be created by a global sized game of Yahtzee.

What about social cats? It seems to me that if housecats got smarter and more social they could take down prey the size of a small deer.
Yeah, but do they need to?

Maybe God just used the same blueprint for all the different species.

Species is just a matter of percentages. Any two organisms, even of the same species, will have a certain amount of genetic variance. The greater the variation the harder it is to concieve fertile offspring.

Until recently it was thought that a mule could would be infertile because horses and donkies are different species, and then a couple of years ago a mule got pregnant. The same was thought to be true of the offspring of tigers and lions.

(...)

Don't waste your time, creation is a valid theory since, for exemple, noone can prove that the universe wasn't created 10 seconds ago, and our memories have been hacked, God putted false fossiles, etc. If God is almighty, he can do anything. Creation is a valid theory. Only, it is supported by no fact, therefore is only a religious idea, and should not be treated in a science class in my opinion.

Yeah, but do they need to?
Only if they run out of mice.

Due to my little knowledge, I would like to hear the support for evolution. Please cite sources, stay on the subject, explain your logic, and dont give websites as your proof (although you may cite them). Thank you.

You do realize that websites are useless in this, right? For true scientific support, you have to go to the source, scientific papers. And most of those are not available (at least not for free) through the internet. I would suggest going to the library.

I wouldn't if I were you. They're notoriously inaccurate.

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/miscon.html

Graduate level texts?

Only if they run out of mice.
Or human slaves to feed them.

Don't waste your time, creation is a valid theory since, for exemple, noone can prove that the universe wasn't created 10 seconds ago, and our memories have been hacked, God putted false fossiles, etc. If God is almighty, he can do anything. Creation is a valid theory. Only, it is supported by no fact, therefore is only a religious idea, and should not be treated in a science class in my opinion.
No, you are wrong. One can speculate on anything, but science is based on observation and logic. If god can do anything then let him build a rock so heavy he can't lift it. Omnipotence is self contradictory, and therefore impossible. Theories MUST be supported by fact. A theory is an explanation that fits all the available evidence and can be used to make predictions. Creationism is imaginitive speculation.

yes, but we will also never be able to prove that 2+2=4 (if you really feel like you can prove it, pm me ;) ). When there is enough evidence, a theory might be taken as a fact, just like we take as a fact that 2+2=4. It won't be exactly true, but we can do as if it was. Just like what we are doing for 2+2=4, and since now it has never been proven wrong either ;)

actually, we can prove with absolute certainty that 2+2=4. as long as we agree on what the terms mean, then it is an inescapable conclusion that 2+2=4. in fact, it is definitionally true, as are all math proofs.

math is deductive, science is inductive. deduction gets you proof, induction gets you probably (even assuming that the universe is such that induction will continue to work in the future).

What about social cats? It seems to me that if housecats got smarter and more social they could take down prey the size of a small deer.

Environmental pressures. There's no reason for cats to become more social and smarter to take down prey the size of a deer. There's plenty of mice and squirrels for them to eat in the wild. If there weren't any more mice or chipmunks or any other small animals for them to eat, or the ones that did still exist became too clever and fast for cats to catch then they might start to work in teams to kill oppossums and small racoons. This would probably start out as mother cats teaching their young to hunt, then sybling teams would remain together longer instead of getting tired of each other and wandering off in different directions the way that they do now. They already have social instincts, this would give them reason to hone them.

Eventually environmental pressures would drive cats to stay in larger and larger groups of larger and larger cats to take down larger and larger stronger prey. Oppossums, racoons, badgers, small dear. You'd end up with something very much like lions. But evolution occurs only in response to environmental pressure.

But none of this would happen if all of the small rodents that cats feed on died off in a single generation. Cats wouldn't have the time to make the adjustment. If cats were lucky they'd evolve into smaller cats foraging for bugs and shrews until fat lazy chipmunks replenished their numbers, but otherwise they'd go extinct.

Well, a lot of people are putting forward the case for evolution, so I thought I'd quickly put forward the argument for creationism.

"Because that's how God says it happened. Are you calling him a liar?"

That that, Charles Darwin.

i havnt read the middle of the sections of posts but I am a believer. I find it hard to accept that we were once all monkeys and now we have the internet and all the trappings of modern technology without divine intervention.

Well, a lot of people are putting forward the case for evolution, so I thought I'd quickly put forward the argument for creationism.

"Because that's how God says it happened. Are you calling him a liar?"

That that, Charles Darwin.

Anecdote is no proof in a discussion of science.

You do realize that websites are useless in this, right? For true scientific support, you have to go to the source, scientific papers. And most of those are not available (at least not for free) through the internet. I would suggest going to the library.

A good list of what's available...but like Dem said, you have to pay for a good number of them.
http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Geo/Geologie/GeoJournals.html

I believe there to be enough evidence of evolution being the truth about how the human race began to exist. I wonder that has the evolution of the human race stopped, as the strongest individuals no longer get more children than the weaker.

i havnt read the middle of the sections of posts but I am a believer. I find it hard to accept that we were once all monkeys and now we have the internet and all the trappings of modern technology without divine intervention.
Well, you don't really have to accept anything. The evidence is simply there, much like the Earth moves around the Sun. Whether you take it or leave it won't change a thing.

i havnt read the middle of the sections of posts but I am a believer. I find it hard to accept that we were once all monkeys and now we have the internet and all the trappings of modern technology without divine intervention.

You think that the universal porno machine supports the case for God's master plan being the driving force in creation?

for the sake of arguement i would just like to throw in that while evolution can explain what happened, it will never, and can never explain the why. This is were the religious and scientific communities really clash when there isn't need. Science can only observe what has occured and try to explain the mechanism by which things happen (that have already happened)- its based on observation. Religion, on the other hand, tells the why behind these happenings. It is the realm of the unseen and unobservable. In my mind, evolution can occur, it is a valid theory. But, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in God (I in fact do). I believe He is the orchestrator of all those great selective events that have shaped our world into what it is today. Science does a wonderful job of telling us about our surroundings, God gives those surroundings significance. I guess you could call me a creavolutionist :)

I believe there to be enough evidence of evolution being the truth about how the human race began to exist. I wonder that has the evolution of the human race stopped, as the strongest individuals no longer get more children than the weaker.
Our survival doesn't depend on our adaptation anymore, since we can now adapt the environment to suit us. In modern societies even the more disadvantaged individual gets a chance at survival and propagating his genes.

Maybe that's why people are getting dumber. Or so it seems to me. :)

Nah, maybe it's just too much TV.

Thing is I guess I just dont buy the whole evolution story, there has got to be something else, something beyond that which science can appreciate and explain. Science holds many keys such as theories and hypotheses but ultimately religion has the answers. I believe that there can be both science and religion, in fact many early scientists were monks (not monkeys).

You think that the universal porno machine supports the case for God's master plan being the driving force in creation?

i thought that much was obvious. the internet is proof that god loves us and wants us to waste endless hours looking at porn and having inane arguments on various forums.

i havnt read the middle of the sections of posts but I am a believer. I find it hard to accept that we were once all monkeys and now we have the internet and all the trappings of modern technology without divine intervention.
Apes use tools too. We are smart apes. We make better tools.

I believe there to be enough evidence of evolution being the truth about how the human race began to exist. I wonder that has the evolution of the human race stopped, as the strongest individuals no longer get more children than the weaker.
Humans may be in the process of speciation. (Very eary stage) We have two strategies for ensuring the survivial of the offspring. Strategy one is have kids at a young age and have as many as possible. Some will survive to breed. Strategy two is have kids late in life so you can give them more resources and pass on more knowledge. These kids are healthier and have the tools to ensure survival to breeding age.

Apes use tools too. We are smart apes. We make better tools.
yes we are smart but i do not think that we are smart purely of our own evolution. we are smart because something intended us to be.

Graduate level texts?

Yes, errors occur in graduate level texts too.
They tend not to be broad categories of errors like the lower grade books because if enough people who write graduate level textbooks think something inaccurate then who's left to correct them? It's generally assumed at the graduate level of study that if you're reading them then you're going to do some independent study which may conflict with your textbooks. That's the nature of graduate level work, you're working with the evolving nature of the field no longer standing on the shoulders of impassive giants. Given that, the occasional isolated error is not really a problem.

yes we are smart but i do not think that we are smart purely of our own evolution. we are smart because something intended us to be.
You beleive that, and that's your right. I'm just saying that we can see intelligence in other species. I don't see the need to say our intelligence, which is quantitatively, not qualitatively different from a chimp's, has some special purpose.

Anecdote is no proof in a discussion of science.

I'm sorry, was I meant to be proving something? I thought people were just throwing their hats into the ring and proving nothing much. Of course, if anyone here has conclusively proved this argument one way or another, let us know. We should alert the media.

I believe there to be enough evidence of evolution being the truth about how the human race began to exist. I wonder that has the evolution of the human race stopped, as the strongest individuals no longer get more children than the weaker.

Brute strength is no longer the factor in our society that is selected for.

There was an interesting article a few years ago about how the "alpha male" is no longer the strong one, but is more likely to be a nerdy smart guy successful in business.

An excellent book that deals with this issue is The Blind Watchmaker by Michael Talbot. One logical conclusion of the book: Creationism is extremely unlikely.

yes we are smart but i do not think that we are smart purely of our own evolution. we are smart because something intended us to be.

Yes, the god of cats needed the perfect servants to build shelterd homes with internal toilets and house an infinite supply of food for cats. The perfect servant would think that it's doing all of this willingly.

Since no evolutionary explanation explains how it is possible for an animal to respond to environmental pressures by adopting cats into their nests and feeding them then it must be due to the interference of the cat god. The Egyptians figured this out once, but Bastet wasn't interested in the prayers of the jumped up monkey servants of her children so the cult dissolved.

You beleive that, and that's your right. I'm just saying that we can see intelligence in other species. I don't see the need to say our intelligence, which is quantitatively, not qualitatively different from a chimp's, has some special purpose.
I see where you are coming from here and I realise that its easy to be sceptical about the existence of God and that he has a special purpose for us. I just feel that as we Humans are the dominant race on the planet and have all the benefits society can afford, as well as the hardships, that there has to be a design which is being followed. Dont get me wrong im from the UK and im not an evangelist and dont force my beliefs on others but I feel that there is a deeper meaning to life and you just need to find it. I dont even go to church, worship is in your own heart and I believe that a force that inspires such emotion that religion does, in such a supposedly intelligent race such as humans, has to have some substance.

Thing is I guess I just dont buy the whole evolution story, there has got to be something else, something beyond that which science can appreciate and explain. Science holds many keys such as theories and hypotheses but ultimately religion has the answers. I believe that there can be both science and religion, in fact many early scientists were monks (not monkeys).

Here's the question though:

When your religious book which you know to occasionally contain blatant errors says "X happened this way," but all the scientific data points to "Actually, it happened this way," which do you believe.

Creationsists believe the latter. They ignore evidence and make stupid assumptions (much like those who once wanted to prove the geocentric theory of the universe did) in order to prove something that doesn't need proving to be religious anyways. Much of the Bible is metaphorical, and there are two separate creation stories anyways - why shouldn't that part be metaphorical.

Scientists believe the former. If all empirical data points to a specific theory, that is the most correct theory at the time. If it happens to conflict with a religious text, the religious text was wrong - now let's figure out why. In this case, it would be that the primitive peoples telling the stories didn't know better.

i thought that much was obvious. the internet is proof that god loves us and wants us to waste endless hours looking at porn and having inane arguments on various forums.


hahahahahahahahaha!

he must love us quite a bit!

Here's the question though:

When your religious book which you know to occasionally contain blatant errors says "X happened this way," but all the scientific data points to "Actually, it happened this way," which do you believe.

Creationsists believe the latter. They ignore evidence and make stupid assumptions (much like those who once wanted to prove the geocentric theory of the universe did) in order to prove something that doesn't need proving to be religious anyways. Much of the Bible is metaphorical, and there are two separate creation stories anyways - why shouldn't that part be metaphorical.

Scientists believe the former. If all empirical data points to a specific theory, that is the most correct theory at the time. If it happens to conflict with a religious text, the religious text was wrong - now let's figure out why. In this case, it would be that the primitive peoples telling the stories didn't know better.
Again point taken, a lot of The Bible, as you say is metaphorical and it is my personal belief that much of the old testament is designed to be a guide on the way that man should live rather than a historical timeline of events.

An excellent book that deals with this issue is The Blind Watchmaker by Michael Talbot. One logical conclusion of the book: Creationism is extremely unlikely.That's a fantastic book. I read that as part of my Religious Studies A-level, many moons ago when A-levels MEANT something...

I could recommend some pretty inaccessible science books here, but I won't. Instead I'll recommend something which puts all the highbrow stuff alluded to in this thread into layman's terms: both of the Science of Discworld books are pretty good, and easy to understand. They treat the issue as if they were looking at our universe from the outside, which is an interesting and useful perspective. In fact, they even have a term for the inaccuracies in textbooks - "lies to children to help them understand"

Evolution (basically changes that effect the genetic make up of a breeding group) is a proven fact, and the theory of evolution is highly probable.

Our survival doesn't depend on our adaptation anymore, since we can now adapt the environment to suit us. In modern societies even the more disadvantaged individual gets a chance at survival and propagating his genes.
I disagree, firstly our ability to control our enviroment occured as a result of adaptions and so is a form of adaption, ergo if we depend on enviromental adaptation, then we are dependent on the adaptations that suited us for enviromental adaptation. Secondly our enviromental control is not complete, and if it were, I suspect that would not be a long lasting status. Evidently we are part of our own enviroments which further complicates the idea of enviromental control...

Again point taken, a lot of The Bible, as you say is metaphorical and it is my personal belief that much of the old testament is designed to be a guide on the way that man should live rather than a historical timeline of events.

Good, then you are most likely not a Creationist. =)

Yes, the god of cats needed the perfect servants to build shelterd homes with internal toilets and house an infinite supply of food for cats. The perfect servant would think that it's doing all of this willingly.

Since no evolutionary explanation explains how it is possible for an animal to respond to environmental pressures by adopting cats into their nests and feeding them then it must be due to the interference of the cat god. The Egyptians figured this out once, but Bastet wasn't interested in the prayers of the jumped up monkey servants of her children so the cult dissolved.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour. Im no scientist but I doubt cats have enough room in their survival domianated brain for any theological beliefs.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour. Im no scientist but I doubt cats have enough room in their survival domianated brain for any theological beliefs.
Dogs and cats both have theological ideas.

Dogs: My owner feeds me, shelters me, protects me, and cares for me. He must be god.

Cats: My owner feeds me, shelters me, protects me, and cares for me. I must be god.

Dogs and cats both have theological ideas.

Dogs: My owner feeds me, shelters me, protects me, and cares for me. He must be god.

Cats: My owner feeds me, shelters me, protects me, and cares for me. I must be god.
Lol I like ur take on the cat/dog differences but that isnt theology, thats common sense.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour. Im no scientist but I doubt cats have enough room in their survival domianated brain for any theological beliefs.

No, puns are, with scatology as a close second. Mocking foolishness is the highest form of humor.

The sarcasm in my post was well invited by a sentimental attachment to the Strong Anthropic principle. Just because something happened is no reason to think that it was meant to happen. I was trying to point out how egocentric the idea is that the evolution of human intelligence can be understood, in a causal sense, as being for the purpose of having intelligent humans.

Even if there is a purpose to human intelligence it could be nothing more noble than an agent of mass extinction to promote continued diversity now that space is running out of species-killing meteors. Of course it could also be the planets way of preventing another species killing meteor, but to think that it has to be either because it could be is just ridiculous.

Ridiculous in the classical sense. ie. Deserving of ridicule. So I ridiculed.

Perhaps the purpose for human existance is to pollute the environment enough to pave the way for the evolution of the true chosen species.

Perhaps the purpose for human existance is to pollute the environment enough to pave the way for the evolution of the true chosen species.


Interesting statement... I have little doubt that there are people who walk the earth that are virtually immune to the effects of carbon monoxide.

It's not that it's unreliable for anything older than 50k, it's that the carbon 14 has broken down so much in that time that an older date cannot be given.

There are other methods, which I was including in that.

Then you haven't looked at the evidence. It possibly has more empirical evidence to support its claims than any other scientific theory!

Then you don't count the atom bomb as evidence for Relativity? There's nothing like using it to build a weapon that proves it as working. Einstein's equation can point to massive nuclear stockpiles, while evolution can point to a bunch of bones, some genetic data, and a bunch of people who think it is such.

Calculations? Figures used?

Meh. I figured this one would come to bite me on the ass.

One of the problems with evolution is attempts to mathematically prove it. The last one I saw covered suggested humans shouldn't have evolved yet. I don't exactly have the equations on hand, as I'm not that good with math.

Yes, some of the mechanics for evolution are still in question but the general idea that speciation occurs over a given population through small genetic changes is fact.

Not necessarily true. Some genetic changes happen rapidly, in a few cases through massive changes, though usually only to the single-celled creatures.

It's called falsifiability. If something found in the fossil records shows that evolution couldn't happen then the Theory would have been falsified. None has been found. EVERY scientific theory is falsifiable, part of what makes a theory, a theory.

And what makes a law to be such is it is considered proven, either by empirical evidence in the old days or mathematics these days.

well, they were wrong. you cannot prove a theory. it is impossible. you cannot prove a law either. it is also impossible. induction cannot give us proof - and unless someone solves the problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) we might not actually have a logical reason to think it even gives us reason to gain confidence in a theory's explanatory power.

A law is proven when it can be mathematically shown to be true. In the rarest case a law may be proven by physical evidence, but that is so unlikely it is no longer considered.

The max range of effectiveness for some isotopes is measured in millions of years.

Then what the hell do you think the figure 50,000,000 represents? Two thousand?

That's a LOT of coincidence!

Hey, I never said I believed it, just that it's a possibility. I support evolution.

How about you drive that truck through this?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Easily. That is not a complete timeline of evolution and the amount of necessary genetic changes is too large for it to match the scale of change measured today.

Just because we don't have fossils for EVERY SINGLE GENERATION of a species does NOT mean we can't use LOGIC to figure out exactly what happened! How much evidence do you think it takes to solve a murder? Do they need it videotaped to show each step the killer took to do his task?

Logic is fallible. Logic proved the giant squid doesn't exist, and yet they know that is false now.

What?

The rate of evolution in the fossil record of humans is too fast compared to the known rate. That has been one of the biggest challenges to pop up lately, but it's still a minor one easily explained away.

What else could it be? If someone came up with a better theory of the evidence then THAT theory would be the general consensus among scientists.

Exactly my point: At this time, the evidence points to it and we can't find another theory that works better. But that still doesn't mean that, in the future, we won't find it to be false and use a different theory.

Theories don't become laws, anyone with a basic understanding of science would know that.

A theory can become a law when mathematically proven and all other possibilities are exhausted. Math is how Neuton turned his hypothesis about motion into a theory and then three laws.

50 million won't help you. firstly because c-14 decay actually is ineffective at measuring beyond 40-50k years ago. secondly because we have a good number of radiometric dating methods that get us all the way back to the oldest things on earth. and when different methods are applied to the same things, they all agree (within a known margin of error) on the dates for them.

lead-lead, uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, lutetium-hafnium, and samarium-neodymium all can get us accurate dates from billions of years ago.

Thus, the same point complained about with Carbon Dating as a pure system (I was including all of the ones I know about in it): Reliability. On the evolutionary scale, even 10 years could mean the difference between chimps or gorillas. When looking that far into the past, minor changes become huge rapidly.

I still want to know what the person who started this thread thinks about the responses.

Einstein's equation can point to massive nuclear stockpiles, while evolution can point to a bunch of bones, some genetic data, and a bunch of people who think it is such.

Replace "a bunch of people who think it is such" with "scientists who have derived the idea from the bones, genetic data, and experiments with single-celled organisms."

And what makes a law to be such is it is considered proven, either by empirical evidence in the old days or mathematics these days.

But even a scientific law is still a theory. It is simply one that has stood the test of time. Even a law can be disproven with a single experiment.

Easily. That is not a complete timeline of evolution and the amount of necessary genetic changes is too large for it to match the scale of change measured today.

Making the assumption that the scale of change measured today (which includes DNA repair mechanisms and checking mechanisms which, themselves, would have had to evolve) is the same as it has always been (even before such mechanisms were not yet evolved) would not make for a good theory.

Exactly my point: At this time, the evidence points to it and we can't find another theory that works better. But that still doesn't mean that, in the future, we won't find it to be false and use a different theory.

And/or modify it to fit new data. Absolutely true.

A theory can become a law when mathematically proven and all other possibilities are exhausted. Math is how Neuton turned his hypothesis about motion into a theory and then three laws.

All three of which fall flat on the quantum scale and are thus not actually laws.

1) Comparative Anatomy: Organs and bone structures in drastically different animals hold common facets, and common structures.
Ex: A whales "Fin" in reality holds a series of bones exactly analogous to those in our hand, complete with 3 piece fingers.

2) Vestigial Structures: Bones, organs, etc that are not needed by the organism, yet are still there. Tonsils, appendixes' and others are examples of this.

3) Comparitive Embryology: Embryos of many species (fish, human, bird, reptile) all go throug the same stages in common relative to the total time required for developement.

4) Comparative Physiology: Enzymes are shared in common by many animals, with all mammals sharing many hormones as well.

5) Taxonomy: All organisms can be classified into separate kingdoms, genus', etc. This shows that there is a definite relationship between certain groups of animals.

6) Biogeography: Isolated species (Kangaroos, Dodo birds, etc) have no resemblance to creatures in areas that are more easily accessible. Totally different paths of development.

7) Genetics: Gene mutation, miosis and mitosis, and the basic uniformity of genetic codes show an integral relationship between all living things.

8) Paleontology: Fossil Record is very powerful, despite some holes, but are still constantly being filled.

Genetic Drift (gene pools changing), Mutations, Migration, Natural Selection and other factors show evolution to almost definitely be the truth.





And all that information can come straight out of any half-decent biology textbook.


EDIT: Also, just to destroy a seemingly common misconception: Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. That means that if you had as little as 64 carbons (real numbers would be in thousands) that you could possibly date, then that sample would last over 700,000 years, by itself. C-14 is a very good tool for dating.

Replace "a bunch of people who think it is such" with "scientists who have derived the idea from the bones, genetic data, and experiments with single-celled organisms."




I was at a seminar last year where a visiting prof. was explaining his theory about the evolution of coral...and when someone asked him a critical question, he said "I didn't mention that because it's very damaging to my case."

The point is, academics often discard or ignore data that does not fit in with their initial idea/theory. See: My thesis.

Failures don't get published.

Replace "a bunch of people who think it is such" with "scientists who have derived the idea from the bones, genetic data, and experiments with single-celled organisms."

They're still people, they still think it is such. Besides, I like my uncaring version better.

But even a scientific law is still a theory. It is simply one that has stood the test of time. Even a law can be disproven with a single experiment.

It depends on the experiment. But, generally, this is true.

Making the assumption that the scale of change measured today (which includes DNA repair mechanisms and checking mechanisms which, themselves, would have had to evolve) is the same as it has always been (even before such mechanisms were not yet evolved) would not make for a good theory.

There's no evidence to the contrary, which is why science needs to find far more evidence than it has. Once we have enough evidence from a short enough time-scale, we can compare genetic changes of fossils back then to genetic changes today to see if the rate is constant or not.

All three of which fall flat on the quantum scale and are thus not actually laws.

Einstein's theory doesn't apply to the local scale either. The three are still considered laws, but they are considered to be laws only in the local scale. A mere modification and they still apply.

for the sake of arguement i would just like to throw in that while evolution can explain what happened, it will never, and can never explain the why. This is were the religious and scientific communities really clash when there isn't need. Science can only observe what has occured and try to explain the mechanism by which things happen (that have already happened)- its based on observation. Religion, on the other hand, tells the why behind these happenings. It is the realm of the unseen and unobservable. In my mind, evolution can occur, it is a valid theory. But, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in God (I in fact do). I believe He is the orchestrator of all those great selective events that have shaped our world into what it is today. Science does a wonderful job of telling us about our surroundings, God gives those surroundings significance. I guess you could call me a creavolutionist :)

You may well choose to call yourself a creavolutionist. In this day and age, for the moment at least, you have the right to do so.

However, in the not too distant past the very ideas that you have espoused would have meant you were labelled very differently - as a heretic. Chap called Galileo had similar difficulties re astronomy.

Science is replacing religion as the explanation for what occurs in the universe.

You may choose to believe in both if you wish, but it appears to me to be an uneasy and ultimately untenable compromise.

Perhaps you could ask why a benevolent God, using evolution as a mechanism, would allow the creationist idea to be portrayed as his own work.
Perhaps he was misquoted?

Or if God actually did use some form of creationist "magic", why he would then bother to confuse mankind by leaving all these incredible "hints" like DNA and the fossil record around? Some form of mice-in-maze puzzle perhaps?

Your mistake is to believe that the question of "why" is valid in and of itself, and therefore requires an answer.

Sometimes the most valid response to a child asking "why" is to simply say "because".

I was at a seminar last year where a visiting prof. was explaining his theory about the evolution of coral...and when someone asked him a critical question, he said "I didn't mention that because it's very damaging to my case."

The point is, academics often discard or ignore data that does not fit in with their initial idea/theory. See: My thesis.

Failures don't get published.
If they leave out evidence damaging to their case in a peer reviewed publication they will be quickly corrected and their reputation will be damaged. Funny how creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed journals.

I was at a seminar last year where a visiting prof. was explaining his theory about the evolution of coral...and when someone asked him a critical question, he said "I didn't mention that because it's very damaging to my case."

The point is, academics often discard or ignore data that does not fit in with their initial idea/theory. See: My thesis.

Failures don't get published.

Need I repeat myself?

Anecdotes prove nothing, mostly because it is about a single person or small group's views, but also because they could be completely made up.

The rate of evolution in the fossil record of humans is too fast compared to the known rate. That has been one of the biggest challenges to pop up lately, but it's still a minor one easily explained away.

what known rate is this that you keep going on about? change in allele frequencies over time does not have, nor require, a set pace. and minor changes in genotype can cause large changes in phenotype. so basically, huh?

A theory can become a law when mathematically proven and all other possibilities are exhausted. Math is how Neuton turned his hypothesis about motion into a theory and then three laws.

you cannot use math to prove that in the future two bodies will always attract each other with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. you just can't. go ahead and try, it is logically impossible.

anyway, a law is a presumed universal relation between a set of facts. a theory is an explanation for the facts. theories don't become laws. ever. however, laws often become parts of theories.

and you cannot ever rule out all other possible hypotheses. for every hypothesis you can make a near infinite many more that are absolutely identical to it except for one minor detail somewhere.

Thus, the same point complained about with Carbon Dating as a pure system (I was including all of the ones I know about in it): Reliability. On the evolutionary scale, even 10 years could mean the difference between chimps or gorillas. When looking that far into the past, minor changes become huge rapidly.

radiometric dating is utterly reliable. in order for it not to be, the universe would have to be so drastically changed that we couldn't even exist. reliability is not precision, nor does the existence of a known margin of error hurt reliability. due to the nature of our current instruments and radioactive decay itself, the farther back we go the less precise our absolute dates become. but so what? your claim that 10 years would be important when looking at evolutionary change over enormous tracks of time is utterly laughable. in what way could it possibly matter if a particular homo habilis lived 2.1 million years ago or 2,099,983 years ago? more precise dates are nice, and will give us a better understanding of exactly when certain things occured. but that's just details once we know the approximate ages of things and the order they occured in.

I was at a seminar last year where a visiting prof. was explaining his theory about the evolution of coral...and when someone asked him a critical question, he said "I didn't mention that because it's very damaging to my case."

And he should be fired - as this is a completely unethical act.

The point is, academics often discard or ignore data that does not fit in with their initial idea/theory. See: My thesis.

You left out data? You are unethical as well. If you actually got a degree, it should be stripped from you. If I had your name and location, I would contact your school myself.

Failures don't get published.

How can someone who claims to have a thesis say something so very stupid?

Question about radiometric dating:

We assume that a given isotope will decay at a constant given rate. In a nuclear reactor they are made to decay faster. What if the remains are buried in soil high in radioactive material (Thorium is very common). Would the extra neutrons kicking around cause faster decay?

Einstein's theory doesn't apply to the local scale either.

the hell it doesn't.

Think of it this way. No matter how many times you jump of a building, you are NEVER going to grow wings, the idea is absolutely insane!!!!!

There's no evidence to the contrary, which is why science needs to find far more evidence than it has. Once we have enough evidence from a short enough time-scale, we can compare genetic changes of fossils back then to genetic changes today to see if the rate is constant or not.

Actually, the fact that more complicated organisms have more complicated mechanisms for DNA repair is evidence. Before said mechanisms were around, the rate of mutation would have been much faster.

Another form of evidence is the simple fact that, in multi-cellular life, a mutation has to affect the sex cells to be passed on. Thus, the rate of mutations that are passed on necessarily slows down in such life.

Einstein's theory doesn't apply to the local scale either. The three are still considered laws, but they are considered to be laws only in the local scale. A mere modification and they still apply.

Wrong. Quantum physics applies to all known phenomena, including the local scale. The problem is that it is very difficult to work with. Thus, since Newtonian physics provides pretty good results at the local scale and is infinitely easier to explain and use, we use it.

Think of it this way. No matter how many times you jump of a buildind, yopu are NEVER going to grow wings, the idea is absolutely insane!!!!!
What if you don't jump off of buildings, but out of trees. Perhaps to snag birds passing underneath. A lot of folks get hurt, but a kid born with strong, light bones is really good at it. Maybe one of his descendants has thin flaps of skin under his armpits and between his fingers that let him control his drop slightly. Now your species is on the way to evolving flight.

Think of it this way. No matter how many times you jump of a building, you are NEVER going to grow wings, the idea is absolutely insane!!!!!

*pat on the head* That's right! Now go back to playing with your dollies...

What if you don't jump off of buildings, but out of trees. Perhaps to snag birds passing underneath. A lot of folks get hurt, but a kid born with strong, light bones is really good at it. Maybe one of his descendants has thin flaps of skin under his armpits and between his fingers that let him control his drop slightly. Now your species is on the way to evolving flight.

Well done Joey P, but, my father worked down a mine when he was younger, all his life he picked away at that rock, his fathers did before that probably, and before that our fathers farmed the land. But are we born with super muscles to do these kinds of jobs, no. Are we any better at the jobs, no.

Well done Joey P, but, my father worked down a mine when he was younger, all his life he picked away at that rock, his fathers did before that probably, and before that our fathers farmed the land. But are we born with super muscles to do these kinds of jobs, no. Are we any better at the jobs, no.
If the guys who worked the hardest had more kids that lived then over a long time, or in the case where the hardest workers had the only surviving offspring, you would see stronger muscles in that population. Humans, however, have achieved much more with their minds than their muscles in terms of ensuring their offspring's survival. I bet you would easily win a game of checkers vs. austrolopithicus. Over Long periods of time we evolved stronger minds.

Well done Joey P, but, my father worked down a mine when he was younger, all his life he picked away at that rock, his fathers did before that probably, and before that our fathers farmed the land. But are we born with super muscles to do these kinds of jobs, no. Are we any better at the jobs, no.

Has it been 100's or 1000's of generations? No.

Was your ability to breed altered by how large your muscles are? No.

Think of it this way. No matter how many times you jump of a building, you are NEVER going to grow wings, the idea is absolutely insane!!!!!

That's not quite the mechanism at work.

Rather, imagine that if all of those who did believe that jumping off buildings would allow them to grow wings did so in an attempt to prove the theory.

Their inevitable demise would do wonders at "cleaning out the gene pool" - now THAT's evolution in action.

Or, on a more simple but everyday basis - ask why it is that bacteria become resistant to antiobiotics - a relatively very recent business as there were no antiobiotics a century ago - are new bacteria being "created" - or are those with a resistance to the antiobiotic becoming the major population as those without resistance succumb - again, THAT's evolution in action.

Ok you win, But I just cant belive that I would grow wings, but I supose we are talking millions of years so, maybe....

Ok you win, But I just cant belive that I would grow wings, but I supose we are talking millions of years so, maybe....
You wouldn't. Your descendants might given enough time and the right mutations. Perhaps they would just become impact-resistant. Whatever it takes to breed the next generation.

Darwin, Charles. Wrote a little book called "The Origin of Species".

Read it.

Until I can find the equations I have been talking about, I am bowing out of this one. It bugs me to not be able to instantly provide a link to what I am talking about.

And, guys, try to come to a conclusion as to how laws ans theories interact amongst yourselves. It appears there are different ideas of how they work.

Back to Darwins theory of evolution, survival of the fittest or the most intelligant.

Back to Darwins theory of evolution, survival of the fittest or the most intelligant.
Fittest just means you can make the most babies that will live long enough to make babies of their own. It doesn't imply strength or intelligence, but it can use them to better the odds of successful reproduction.

it seems to me that a lot of people look at evolution the wrong way. Evolution is not you changing to fit a problem. Evolution comes from mistakes in copying dna. These mistakes can be benificial. If they are, then they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation. Evolution is natural selection weeding out the weaker genes, and the stronger ones getting passed onto the next generation.

Ok my questions are answered and my beliefs changed. Thanks.
It is certianly more easy to believe than the bible.

Ok my questions are answered and my beliefs changed. Thanks.
It is certianly more easy to believe than the bible.
No shit? someone actually changed their mind in NS?

Fittest just means you can make the most babies that will live long enough to make babies of their own. It doesn't imply strength or intelligence, but it can use them to better the odds of successful reproduction.Not true.

Fittest also means you are best able to survive, for one reason or another, and do so longer, and therefore have more/longer opportunity to place your own personal genes in the gene pool more frequently.

It could be strength, intelligence, camoflauge, size, natural longevity, better suited to find food, have a thicker layer of fat for warmth...whatever provides you a better chance of survival, and thereby a better chance to reproduce and pass on that trait/those traits.

No shit? someone actually changed their mind in NS?
I believe we must lock and archive this thread now.

Not true.

Fittest also means you are best able to survive, for one reason or another, and do so longer, and therefore have more/longer opportunity to place your own personal genes in the gene pool more frequently.

It could be strength, intelligence, camoflauge, size, natural longevity, better suited to find food, have a thicker layer of fat for warmth...whatever provides you a better chance of survival, and thereby a better chance to reproduce and pass on that trait/those traits.
Right you live longer, breed more, and make more babies. Either that or ensure that the few babies you have will live long enough to breed and will have a strong chance of doing it successfully. That's our preferred strategy.

Ok my questions are answered and my beliefs changed. Thanks.
It is certianly more easy to believe than the bible.Evolution and the bible are not mutually exclusive. The bible says that God created all living things. The fact that it says he(she?) did it in 6 days is, by some, considered poetic license or simply a way to organize thoughts. Or, you can work on the assumption that a "day" for God is several million (or more) of our years long.

So - God created EVERYTHING - and did so, with respect to living things, using a process he/she devised that we have "discovered" and call evolution.

The Rise of Population Genetics


The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law

The mutational theory of evolution proposed by DeVries, Bateson, and their contemporaries was accepted by most of the prominent geneticists at the turn of the century, and led to public testimonials that "Darwinism was dead."

But, like Mark Twain, reports of its death were greatly exaggerated. In the second decade of the 20th century, three other researchers, again working separately and mostly unbeknownst to each other, proposed a theory that would eventually lead to the re-establishment of natural selection as the prime mover of evolution.







As described in the reading, G. H. Hardy, Wilhelm Weinberg, and William Castle all proposed a mathematical theory that describes in detail the conditions that must be met for evolution to not occur. This theory, often called the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law, lays out the conditions that must be met for there to be no changes in the allele frequency in a population of interbreeding organisms over time.


Recall Mendel's definition of alleles: different gene forms that produce different forms of a trait. In the context of evolution, alleles are what code for the phenotypes that change over time in an evolving population.


Therefore, changes in the alleles present in a population will produce changes in the phenotypes present in that population. This, in a nutshell, is the genetic definition of evolution: changes in allele frequency in a population over time.

Conditions for Maintaining a Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium:

What Hardy, Weinberg, and Castle all realized is that for allele frequencies to not change in a population, five conditions must be met:


There must be no mutations (i.e. alleles cannot change into other, different alleles)


There can be no gene flow (i.e. individuals cannot enter or leave the population)


The population must be very large (i.e. random changes cannot alter allele frequences)


Survival must be random (i.e. there can be no natural selection)


Reproduction must be random (i.e. there can be no sexual selection)

To visualize why these five conditions must be met for evolution to not occur

To visualize why these five conditions must be met for evolution to not occur, consider a population of 50 flowers in which there are two alleles for one gene controlling flower color:


R = red flowers
r = white flowers


Consider further a population in which 25 of the flowers are homozygous for red flowers (i.e. RR) and 25 of the flowers are homozygous for white flowers (i.e. rr). This means that the frequency of the two alleles in this population are equal:


R = red flowers = 0.5 = 50%
r = white flowers = 05. = 50%


Now, let's see what will happen if the flowers are allowed to randomly interbreed (i.e. exchange alleles with each other). We can model this by imaging that all of the alleles are thrown together into a pile, and then they are randomly drawn out two at a time to form the genotypes for 50 new flowers. What would the new distribution of allele frequencies and genotype frequencies be after this happens?

To figure out what will happen, consider the probabilities of drawing different combinations of red and white alleles (you can imagine them as red and white marbles if you wish). There are a total of 100 alleles in the population: 50 red and 50 white. Therefore, for each allele that is drawn, the probability of choosing a red is 50% and the probability of choosing a white is also 50%. These choices are independent of each other, so the probability of choosing pairs of alleles becomes:


RR = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25 red flowers
Rr = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25 red flowers
rR = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25 red flowers
rr = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25 white flowers


Notice what has happened: we have gone from a population in which one half of the flowers are red and one half are white, to a population in which three-fourths of the flowers are red and one-fourth are white. It looks like red flowers (i.e. the dominant phenotype) is becoming more common, while the white flowers (i.e. the recessive phenotype) is becoming less common, and therefore red flowers should eventually completely replace white flowers.

However, notice a crucial point: none of the alleles has disappeared; they have simply been redistributed. Therefore, if the five conditions list earlier for a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium have been met (i.e. no mutations or gene flow, large population, and random survival and reproduction), then every time this exercise is repeated from now on, the same genotype frequencies (and therefore the same phenotype frequencies) will be obtained:


RR = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25 red flowers
Rr = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25 red flowers
rR = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25 red flowers
rr = 0.5 X 0.5 = 0.25 white flowers


Therefore, there will be no change in allele frequency in the population over time, and therefore evolution will not have occurred.

I want to hear one good creationist argument.
Please. I mean, there's got to be a reason to deny straight facts and common sense. Lemme hear it. Why do you deny evolution?

Therefore, there will be no change in allele frequency in the population over time, and therefore evolution will not have occurred.

Implications of the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law:

So what? All the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law seems to say is that there are conditions under which evolution can't happen? Aren't we interested in those conditions in which evolution can happen? Yes, but notice what the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law gives us: it outlines exactly what processes are essential to prevent evolution, and therefore by negation shows us how evolution can happen.

That is, if any of the five conditions for maintaining a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium are not met, then evolution must be occurring. And, of course, virtually none of these conditions is never permanently met in any known natural population of organisms:


Mutations occur at a slow but steady rate in all known populations


Many organisms, especially animals, enter (immigration) and leave (emigration) populations


Most populations are not large enough to avoid random changes in allele frequencies


Survival is virtually never random


Reproduction in organisms that can choose their mates is also virtually never random

Therefore, according to the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law, evolution must be occurring in virtually every population of living organisms. It is, in other words, as inescapable as gravity.

Back to Darwins theory of evolution, survival of the fittest or the most intelligant.


that is a tutalogy, intelligence is under fitness

its like saying the black chair is dark

Darwin, Charles. Wrote a little book called "The Origin of Species".

Read it.


no evolutionist today beliefs what Darwin said, he believed that characteristics would blend.


Evolutionist today owe alot to him, but its like studying Thomas Malthus (sp?) on economics, its outdated

Not true.

Fittest also means you are best able to survive, for one reason or another, and do so longer, and therefore have more/longer opportunity to place your own personal genes in the gene pool more frequently.

It could be strength, intelligence, camoflauge, size, natural longevity, better suited to find food, have a thicker layer of fat for warmth...whatever provides you a better chance of survival, and thereby a better chance to reproduce and pass on that trait/those traits.



no... you are wrong. fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce more and most often among your own kind.

Question about radiometric dating:

We assume that a given isotope will decay at a constant given rate. In a nuclear reactor they are made to decay faster. What if the remains are buried in soil high in radioactive material (Thorium is very common). Would the extra neutrons kicking around cause faster decay?

To be honest the technical side is not really my cup of tea, so I dont suggest that my comments are very authoritive, however so far as I understand yes, dates can be effected by fluctuations in various enviromental components, and that is why callibrated dates are seen as being 'quite likely' where as uncallibrated dates are seen as merely 'plausable'. For instance one can callibrate a date by taking samples of petrified contemporary (to the sample you are dating) wood and analysing it to make sure that calculations take into account enviromental fluctuations in atmospheric carbon levels (which can be deduced from tests on the pretrified wood). I understand (and admittedly my understanding is not particularly authoritive in this area) that there are quite a few callibrating methodologies available to scientists that can be used to 'callibrate' dates and ensure that calculations take into account variables such as fluctuations in atmospheric carbon levels.

I for one want to know how far creationist beliefs go.

1. Do you accept that all creatures have genes that determine their entire being? This has been proven.

2. Do you accept that genetic makeup is passed down in allelles to offspring? This is easy also.

3. Do you accept that there is always going to be some variance, however minute, in these offspring?

4. Therefore, the creatures with the genes that make it most likely to reproduce will, on a large scale, reproduce more. This is common sense.

5. These creatures will therefore pass their respective traits onto their offspring. This is basicaly #2.

6. This all means that the genes passed down vary, and that the variations best suited to reproduction have a higher incidence than those that don't. This is called "evolution".

I for one want to know how far creationist beliefs go.

1. Do you accept that all creatures have genes that determine their entire being? This has been proven.

2. Do you accept that genetic makeup is passed down in allelles to offspring? This is easy also.

3. Do you accept that there is always going to be some variance, however minute, in these offspring?

4. Therefore, the creatures with the genes that make it most likely to reproduce will, on a large scale, reproduce more. This is common sense.

5. These creatures will therefore pass their respective traits onto their offspring. This is basicaly #2.

6. This all means that the genes passed down vary, and that the variations best suited to reproduction have a higher incidence than those that don't. This is called "evolution".


:fluffle: you would like Hardy-Weignberg

Why does evolution theory and creationism have to be mutually exlusive? Because nim witted religious whackos insist on interpreting every tiny thing in the bible/torah/quran/vedas etc. as literal fact rather than analogy.

So the Bible says the world has been around x amount of years, and science proves it's been around longer, who gives a rats ass? Science still doesn't have an explanation for WHY we are here, or what started the evolutionary process rolling.

The bible says god created the universe in 6 days thousands of years ago, science says there was a big bang billions of years ago. Well, science doesn't explain why the big bang happened, how it was set in motion.

So if God created the universe with a big bang billions of years ago, knowing full well that billions of years later the cooling gasses of a forming star would coalesce into a planet that after millions of years and several cataclysmic climate changes, meteor impacts, etc would be suitable for humans to evolve on, isn't that a fantastic and great and awe inspiring revelation? Why is the blow for blow version of creation in the bible or other religious text any more impressive a way for god to have created the universe than what I just described?

People who interpret religious texts literally need to have their heads examined. These are the very same people who, by the way, wind up declaring jihad's and blowing themselves up using passages from holy texts to justify their actions.

Moral of the story is that if there is a God, it's just as amazing if he created the universe billions of years ago in the big bang or if he snapped his fingers thousands of years ago to do the same friggin thing.

no... you are wrong. fitness is defined as the ability to reproduce more and most often among your own kind.no...you are wrong. fitness is defined as having a trait or traits that enable you to survive long enough to reproduce more and most often among your own kind.

that is a tutalogy, intelligence is under fitness

its like saying the black chair is dark
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

Yawn.

no evolutionist today beliefs what Darwin said, he believed that characteristics would blend.


Evolutionist today owe alot to him, but its like studying Thomas Malthus (sp?) on economics, its outdated

Ahh so you know what they all think?

Have you read both books?

no...you are wrong. fitness is defined as having a trait or traits that enable you to survive long enough to reproduce more and most often among your own kind.

And both of you are ignoring the idea of altruism. You don't have to reproduce to increase the fitness of the group, which is more important than individual reproduction in most social animals.

One argument I have heard from the Creationists is that there have been many 'out of place' artefacts found. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the story of the battery in geode?

And both of you are ignoring the idea of altruism. You don't have to reproduce to increase the fitness of the group, which is more important than individual reproduction in most social animals.
not in terms of selection, however. selection acts ONLY on individuals, not on a group. fitness is not determined by the success of a group, but rather by the success of an individual at getting its own genes into the next generation. now, this does modify the definitions of fitness being given, since the individual does not have to personally reproduce in order to get its genes passed on; for example, a sibling shares as much genetic material with you as your child would, so helping your siblings survive can be evolutionarily sufficient for average fitness.

remember everybody, it is NOT merely reproduction rate that determines fitness, it is ability to get your genes into the next generation. if you pump out 20 kids and none survive to reproduce then you have lower fitness than somebody who has just 1 kid but that kid lives to have 1 kid of their own.

One argument I have heard from the Creationists is that there have been many 'out of place' artefacts found. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the story of the battery in geode?

Pointing our possible inconsistencies within one theory does not prove your own. You have to demonstrate proof that your idea is better, not just attack the other.

Don't get me wrong. I am an evolutionist, and I think Creation Science is BS. I just honestly don't know how to counter stupid arguments like the one I just brought to your attention.

not in terms of selection, however. selection acts ONLY on individuals, not on a group. fitness is not determined by the success of a group, but rather by the success of an individual at getting its own genes into the next generation. now, this does modify the definitions of fitness being given, since the individual does not have to personally reproduce in order to get its genes passed on; for example, a sibling shares as much genetic material with you as your child would, so helping your siblings survive can be evolutionarily sufficient for average fitness.

remember everybody, it is NOT merely reproduction rate that determines fitness, it is ability to get your genes into the next generation. if you pump out 20 kids and none survive to reproduce then you have lower fitness than somebody who has just 1 kid but that kid lives to have 1 kid of their own.True - and further, even if you manage to get your genes into the next generation, if there is not at least some slight change, then while your genes move on, you are not contributing to evolution, which requires change.

True - and further, even if you manage to get your genes into the next generation, if there is not at least some slight change, then while your genes move on, you are not contributing to evolution, which requires change.
Actually that's only true if your chosen reproductive methodology is results in an exact duplication of your all your genetic material and only your genetic material......aside from technological barriers in most places in the world cloning of human beings is currently illegal.... ;)

What if you don't jump off of buildings, but out of trees. Perhaps to snag birds passing underneath. A lot of folks get hurt, but a kid born with strong, light bones is really good at it. Maybe one of his descendants has thin flaps of skin under his armpits and between his fingers that let him control his drop slightly. Now your species is on the way to evolving flight.

Currently existing mammals actually demonstrate how this could happen.
Cats have flaps of skin between their front and hind legs that help them fall out of trees safely. That and their reflexes.
Flying squirrels are clearly a species that benifited enough from them that they became useful not only from jumping from trees to the ground, but from one tree to another.
In all likelyhood, bats evolved from a flying squirrel-like animal that was pushed to the periphery of the forest and needed to glide even better than the flying squirrel until eventualy it didn't even need the trees.

None of this would ever be likely to have an effect on the evolution of a human like animal. They'd wear clothes.

You wouldn't (grow wings from jumping out of a tree). Your descendants might given enough time and the right mutations. Perhaps they would just become impact-resistant. Whatever it takes to breed the next generation.

Of course this would require throwing your kids from successivly greater heights until some of them start dying and then making sure that the survivors do the same with their kids. Which they almost certainly won't since they'll remember the horror of you throwing their baby brother off the roof.

You'd probably also have to find a neighboor who's willing to try this with you and make sure that your kids reproduce with his. All of that selection on your part won't be very useful if the kids just end up reproducing with non-impact resistent kids.

Bad analogy, this... jumping off trees/buildings will evolve nothing, because it's too big of a jump from no-jumping to successful-jumping.

Now, if humans moved to the mountains and needed to climb, probably over several thousand generations they'd get more agile, more flexible, more impact-resistant.

No chance of anything remotely like wings evolving from what we currently have as hands though - they're too specialized, too un-suited for even helping in flight/falling.

Ahh so you know what they all think?

Have you read both books?

He's right. Darwinism went out several decades ago.

And he should be fired - as this is a completely unethical act.


No. He chose not to address a problem he has not worked out. You obviously know nothing about academia.


You left out data? You are unethical as well. If you actually got a degree, it should be stripped from you. If I had your name and location, I would contact your school myself.


Oh, no! My advisor would laugh at you.

I have not left out anyhing. I do however, gloss over details in a portion I could not get to conform - my refraction analysis is a bit fudged because of bad data.


How can someone who claims to have a thesis say something so very stupid?

So naive

If they leave out evidence damaging to their case in a peer reviewed publication they will be quickly corrected and their reputation will be damaged. Funny how creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed journals.

People who review the work of others are very busy. Furthermore, writers are careful not to state anything that is "false." Much like Moore's films.

Creationism is not a science, so I imagine there aren't any peer-reviewed journals.

No. He chose not to address a problem he has not worked out. You obviously know nothing about academia.

That's not what you said. You said he "left out data because it was damaging to his case." Thus, it is still unethical. The proper way to do it, which I have seen at numerous conferences, is to state "this was an interesting result we have not yet worked out... Perhaps someone in the audience might have an idea..."

And I have quite a good idea of how academia works - currently being a part of it.

Oh, no! My advisor would laugh at you.

I have not left out anyhing. I do however, gloss over details in a portion I could not get to conform - my refraction analysis is a bit fudged because of bad data.

Same thing. If your experiments don't work properly, you either find data that isn't screwed up, or you throw them out entirely.

If your advisor has taught you to be an unethical dick, then your advisor should be out of a job as well.

So naive

I'm sorry that I haven't been around shitty scientists like the ones you apparently hang out with. Those that I have been around, at several schools and at numerous conferences, don't say things like "I left that out because it was damaging to the point I was trying to make, which means my point is probably wrong" or allow their graduate students to fudge data to make a point that is probably wrong.

Hmm... what kind of presentation or conference is being talked about?

If it's a scientist talking about his work to nonscientists/scientists not in the field/in general not someone who is interested in the fine details of his work but just the overall picture - then I can definitely see how he would gloss over the finer points of proving/disproving his theory to give the overall picture, including glossing over problems in the data.

If it's an academic presentation to his peers, who are evaluating his work on its scientific merit, then lying about data is unethical and should get the scientist banned.

Due to my little knowledge, I would like to hear the support for evolution. Please cite sources, stay on the subject, explain your logic, and dont give websites as your proof (although you may cite them). Thank you.
No websites?
Ok, buy this month's National Geographic. (Nice marketing trick, that cover.)

An excellent book that deals with this issue is The Blind Watchmaker by Michael Talbot. One logical conclusion of the book: Creationism is extremely unlikely.
It's by Richard Dawkin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393315703/104-3965122-2618363?v=glance

so is "Climbing Mount Improbable", quite successfully propagating the same point.

Hmm... what kind of presentation or conference is being talked about?

If it's a scientist talking about his work to nonscientists/scientists not in the field/in general not someone who is interested in the fine details of his work but just the overall picture - then I can definitely see how he would gloss over the finer points of proving/disproving his theory to give the overall picture, including glossing over problems in the data.

If it's an academic presentation to his peers, who are evaluating his work on its scientific merit, then lying about data is unethical and should get the scientist banned.

The discussion was both about a scientist at a conference talking about his work to other scientists and leaving something out that was "damaging to his case", as well as the other poster stating point blank that he had fudged data on his thesis. In other words, they should both be stripped of their degrees and laughed out of science.

The discussion was both about a scientist at a conference talking about his work to other scientists and leaving something out that was "damaging to his case", as well as the other poster stating point blank that he had fudged data on his thesis. In other words, they should both be stripped of their degrees and laughed out of science.
Exactly. I was appalled at that, and I don't see how you can justify ignoring evidence.