NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

This is not going to end well.

*grabs chair, makes popcorn, watches with interest*

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.Hahahahahaha! :D

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.
Are you claiming we did not evolve from monkeys or are you claiming that evolution in itself is bunk?

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

No one believes that, so your lack of a point is moot.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys

Mmm, tasty strawman. Tastes like trollhouse cookies.

give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Why don't you give an argument that proves "evolution is a myth?" Then we could shoot holes in your "evidence" without having to waste time responding to a strawman.

i see your problem...

its a myth that evolution claims that man evolved from monkeys.

easy mistake to make when you learn science in church.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and have vestigial organs which serve no direct purpose, and in some cases are a minor hindrance (The appendix, for example, is horribly inefficient). This would imply that we shared a common ancestor.
Honestly, I haven't the time for this flamefest, and I doubt anyone else does either.

*pops some popcorn*

This is going to be gooooooooooooooood

I'd sit around and eat popcorn, but my SimCity needs tending to.

You guys shouldn't take this so seriously. Just kick back, relax, and have some popcorn! *spreads it around* :cool:

Is anyone else getting the impression that, if the OP was a seal, he'd dive into a shark-infested tank after covering himself in raw steaks?

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

We didn't.
Humans and apes are both descended from a common ancestor though.

You are the weakest link, goodbye! ;)

Evolved from monkeys? It's a common misconception.

We actually evolved from the Beatles; the Monkeys were just a knock-off for a telly programme.

Apparently it's Evolution Week on NS General...

Once again, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor.

*yawn*

Is anyone else getting the impression that, if the OP was a seal, he'd dive into a shark-infested tank after covering himself in raw steaks?Considering that he hasn't responded yet, maybe he's just someone that pours a bucket of blood into a shark pool to watch the frenzy?

Dear OP
Please reply. Little Timmy and myself are getting terribly cold. Winter is drawing in, and we need some flames to stave off the frostbite and wolves.
Yours sincerely
Eliza Threbblethwaite.

Evolved from monkeys? It's a common misconception.

We actually evolved from the Beatles; the Monkeys were just a knock-off for a telly programme.

Ooohhh, at least get it right: they were the Monkees!

And Davy was dreamy! Though not as dreamy as Paul.

Ooohhh, at least get it right: they were the Monkees!

And Davy was dreamy! Though not as dreamy as Paul.

Paul is overrated :p :D

Ooohhh, at least get it right: they were the Monkees!

And Davy was dreamy! Though not as dreamy as Paul.

Pah, how am I supposed to remember that? I'm more of a Stones fan.

Well, actually, humans did evolve from a type of monkey. Not directly, but rather all modern monkeys and all apes (including humans) share a common ancestor.

As for why to believe in this theory instead of the magic sky-faery hypothesis?

Well one is backed by an extensive fossil record, the other is backed by an old book saying a magic-faery blew on dirt and it became alive. If evolution sounds far-fetched, then magic should sound plan rediculous.

Pass the pop corn this way!

Well, actually, humans did evolve from a type of monkey. Not directly, but rather all modern monkeys and all apes (including humans) share a common ancestor.

???

So when you say 'humans did evolve from a type of monkey' you mean 'humans didn't evolve from a type of monkey'? Tsk. Tsk, SH.

Let me be the first to say 'common simian ancestor'.

Hmm... Didn't we have one of these yesterday? Surely we can just put together a quick post that summarizes the whole issue and sticky it so that we only get new issues?

Pass the pop corn this way!

*passes it*

Butter with your popcorn?

i see your problem...

its a myth that evolution claims that man evolved from monkeys.

easy mistake to make when you learn science in church.

Oh, man, the smug waves are too strong, I don't think I can respond to this, it's making my eyes water, aw, aw.

In all seriousness, I don't see why you had to even bring up the word "Church". The evolution debate doesn't have to center around religion, and the originator of the thread did not declare himself a theist.

Personally, I am a devout Protestant, and I am an agnostic when it comes to evolution. I have determined that evolution's rightness does not disprove God's existence, therefore in my mind whether it is true or not is fairly unimportant. However, I am for people being allowed to decide what their children learn, although whether that means dictating Public School Curriculum or merely increased homeschooling is another matter altogether.

We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and have vestigial organs which serve no direct purpose, and in some cases are a minor hindrance (The appendix, for example, is horribly inefficient). This would imply that we shared a common ancestor.
Honestly, I haven't the time for this flamefest, and I doubt anyone else does either.

How come humans aren't being born from apes today? We don't "share" DNA with monkeys. Anyone can claim a similarity, but that doesn't make it so. Ask some kind of sci-fi nerd to draw about 200 different imaginary creatures (much less than the number of species of animals). Chances are, that some of those species will have similiar characteristics, so anyone can say that this creature evolved from this other one, but in reality, both are distinct creatures drawn by some nerd. That is with 200 creatures, with millions of species in the world today, it is much more likely for species to be similiar, but that does not mean they evolved from one another. Why can't we see evolution taking place today. I believe in microevolution, which is changes within a species, but not macroevolution, in which new species are created. Besides, explain to me how original life began that everything supposedly evolved from. Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.

However, I am for people being allowed to decide what their children learn, although whether that means dictating Public School Curriculum or merely increased homeschooling is another matter altogether.

So would you support the right of parents to prevent any form of mathematics being taught to their children?

Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.

Proving a negative in science? Uh-huh.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

hohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohoho!
even santa believes in evolution. how do you think he got reindeers that could fly? natural selection, in case you're wondering.

How come humans aren't being born from apes today? We don't "share" DNA with monkeys. Anyone can claim a similarity, but that doesn't make it so. [etc.].

You do not understand.

And as I said earlier, it was the Beatles.

???

So when you say 'humans did evolve from a type of monkey' you mean 'humans didn't evolve from a type of monkey'? Tsk. Tsk, SH.

Let me be the first to say 'common simian ancestor'.

I mean it's misleading to claim humans didn't evolve from a form of archaic monkey. At some point in human ancestory there are monkeys. Creationists just like to misrepresent this, and act like it means we're claiming modern men evolved directly from modern monkeys.

Oh, man, the smug waves are too strong, I don't think I can respond to this, it's making my eyes water, aw, aw.

In all seriousness, I don't see why you had to even bring up the word "Church". The evolution debate doesn't have to center around religion, and the originator of the thread did not declare himself a theist.

Personally, I am a devout Protestant, and I am an agnostic when it comes to evolution. I have determined that evolution's rightness does not disprove God's existence, therefore in my mind whether it is true or not is fairly unimportant. However, I am for people being allowed to decide what their children learn, although whether that means dictating Public School Curriculum or merely increased homeschooling is another matter altogether.

hmmm i guess i admit that i am unaware of any groups who think that evolution is a myth who arent religious. where else does one learn false ideas about evolution rather than legitimate limitations to the theory?

if one were to end the teaching of evolution in schools because its a myth, what non religious explanation would we replace it with?

How come humans aren't being born from apes today?
Because humans don't "come from apes".
We don't "share" DNA with monkeys. Anyone can claim a similarity, but that doesn't make it so.
No, but in this case it is so.
Ask some kind of sci-fi nerd to draw about 200 different imaginary creatures (much less than the number of species of animals). Chances are, that some of those species will have similiar characteristics, so anyone can say that this creature evolved from this other one, but in reality, both are distinct creatures drawn by some nerd.
Are you saying that monkeys, apes and humans were invented by a sci-fi nerd? That's a pretty dodgy argument.
Besides, explain to me how original life began that everything supposedly evolved from.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation? You mean like a magical entity creating life out of nothing?

I forgot to answer the question about the useless organs. The appendix was recently found to help fight off infections. As for other organs, we are continually discovering new purposes for them.

I mean it's misleading to claim humans didn't evolve from a form of archaic monkey.

It is as true and meaningful to claim that humans evolved from a form of archaic human.

How come humans aren't being born from apes today?

Humans have never been "born from apes." Evolution takes many, many, many, many generations before speciation can occur.

We don't "share" DNA with monkeys.

Er...yes, actually, we do.

Anyone can claim a similarity, but that doesn't make it so.

True. Actually looking at DNA and seeing that, yep, those are the same genes coding for the same things makes it so.

Why can't we see evolution taking place today.

We can! For an extrememly easy example, ever heard of "bacterial resistance"? That's evolution in action.

I believe in microevolution, which is changes within a species, but not macroevolution, in which new species are created.

That's a bit like saying "I believe that if you take one step to the east, you'll have moved one foot, but that if you do so 1000 times in a row, you won't have moved 1000 feet." Many small changes add up to larger changes.

Besides, explain to me how original life began that everything supposedly evolved from. Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.

This is entirely and completely irrelevant to evolution. If you'd like to start a thread to discuss abiogenesis, do so, but it has no place in a thread about evolution.

The appendix was recently found to help fight off infections.

The appendix is a terrible organ. It's prone to getting infected itself. Tell me, if humans were "designed", why would the designer use an appendix to bolster their immune system, an organ already used for something else in other animals? Seems a bit inefficient to me.

I do enjoy a good Trollblerone every once in a while. Nothing beats Swiss chocolate.

And Santa got deer that could fly because he made a pact with the devil. Then he slipped off a roof and died. And all the deer went to hell. And his replacement made genetically engineered replacements and then attached rockets to their feet. Now the new Santa rides around on rocket-powered reindeer. Also, I'm immortal. I dare you to prove everything I just said wrong!

How come humans aren't being born from apes today? We don't "share" DNA with monkeys. Anyone can claim a similarity, but that doesn't make it so.

You've been misled, you, your mother, the pope, my neighbour, me, Fass, Jesus, Moses, Socrates, Oetzi the Iceman, GG Allin and Cheops were all apes. Humans are a variety of ape, therefore all humans are born from apes.

We don't "share" DNA with monkeys.
Er...yes, actually, we do.
They get it Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, we get it the other days. Apart from Sundays. The ants get it then.

That is with 200 creatures, with millions of species in the world today, it is much more likely for species to be similiar, but that does not mean they evolved from one another.They didn't evlove from one another. They evolved from common ancestors that no longer exist.

Why can't we see evolution taking place today.
We do. Adaptation is easily created in laboratories, and readily observed in some natural populations.

We can! For an extrememly easy example, ever heard of "bacterial resistance"? That's evolution in action.


Bacteria is just changing into different strands by way of natural selection (which I do believe in), but no new types of bacteria are being created. And as for your thing about abiogenesis, it does belong in a discussion about evolution, since everything would have had to evolve from some kind of origianl life. Ignoring relevant topics is not good science.

It is as true and meaningful to claim that humans evolved from a form of archaic human.

I don't disagree in the least. It all depends on your time-frame. Depending on where you're viewing from humans evolved from an archaic human, which came from an archaic bipedal ape, which came from an archaic chimp, which came from an archaic chimp/gorilla-like ape, which came from an archaic ape, which came from an archaic old-world monkey... all the way back to one celled life, if you'd like. :D

And as for your thing about abiogenesis, it does belong in a discussion about evolution, since everything would have had to evolve from some kind of origianl life. Ignoring relevant topics is not good science.

Initial creation of primordial life is not part of evolution. It may well be the case that some divinity stirred up the primal soup and passed a spark of life into it, and then let evolution take its course - that is not contrary to the theory.

They didn't evlove from one another. They evolved from common ancestors that no longer exist.


We do. Adaptation is easily created in laboratories, and readily observed in some natural populations.

In fact, there's a thread on here regarding coca plants and adaption. ;)

In fact, there's a thread on here regarding coca plants and adaption. ;)

Adaptation is not the same thing. That is microevolution by natural selection which is accurate, but this thread is about macroevolution, which has to do with species changing into other species.

*passes it*

Butter with your popcorn?
Thank you very much.

*pulls up a chair*

The fur's starting to fly.

Bacteria is just changing into different strands by way of natural selection (which I do believe in), but no new types of bacteria are being created. And as for your thing about abiogenesis, it does belong in a discussion about evolution, since everything would have had to evolve from some kind of origianl life. Ignoring relevant topics is not good science.

"New types of bacteria" have certainly been created. It's somewhat more challenging to determine when speciation has occurred in asexual organisms, but laboratory populations of bacteria have diverged significantly enough for scientists to consider them separate species.

Ignoring relevant topics is not good science, but abiogenesis is not relevant. Evolutionary theory does not apply until life exists. It matters not one whit whether life spontaneously popped into existence, whether aliens from Alpha Centauri dropped life onto Earth, or whether God said, "Let there be primitive microorganisms." Evolution doesn't care.

hmmm i guess i admit that i am unaware of any groups who think that evolution is a myth who arent religious. where else does one learn false ideas about evolution rather than legitimate limitations to the theory?

if one were to end the teaching of evolution in schools because its a myth, what non religious explanation would we replace it with?

I think Evolution is most likely accurate, in large part, though there are holes in it here and there, so it shouldn't be treated with religious reverence like so many Sciencists (this is a made up word, by the way, not a misspelling of the word "Scientists") tend to.

I think it should be the theory taught in school, but I also think that the environment in which any slight criticism of scientific orthodoxy is treated as Heresy at best and Madness at worst has got to go. In other words, point out and stress that it is a theory, as yet not disproved, and that there are other theories which do not have to be named.

That way, parents can talk to their kids and maybe have them read some Intelligent Design books, or say "Study that to pass your test, but remember God did it all in Six Days" or whatever they want their kids to know, and their kids will be more receptive to what their parents want them to, while still absorbing the widely accepted but not infallible knowledge on the subject.

Both sides need to be a bit more reasonable, and the Sciencistas need to cut back on the condescension and disrespect of others' beliefs.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Adaptation is not the same thing. That is microevolution by natural selection which is accurate, but this thread is about macroevolution, which has to do with species changing into other species.

Like the Nylon Bug?

Initial creation of primordial life is not part of evolution. It may well be the case that some divinity stirred up the primal soup and passed a spark of life into it, and then let evolution take its course - that is not contrary to the theory.There are substantive and believable theories about how life was sparked that do not rely on any divinity. So called "chemical evolution" created long polymers. Organic compounds necessary for life can arise spontaneously (Miller's famous experiment) and lipid bilayer vesicles (basically, a cell membrane) also arise spontaneously when you agitate a medium containing phospolipids. All you need is a self-replicating RNA molecule (the original "ribozyme"), a few protein prosthetic groups, and off you go - natural selection does the rest.

How come humans aren't being born from apes today? We don't "share" DNA with monkeys.


Your entire argument is flawed as it derives from a misconception.
You didn't read a single post here and are obviously not interested in debate.

Bacteria is just changing into different strands by way of natural selection (which I do believe in), but no new types of bacteria are being created.
Brand new species don't pop out of nowhere. They evolve - through natural selection.

Ignoring relevant topics is not good science.

:confused: Ignoring evidence thats staring you right in the face isn't good science either.

Maybe you should have listened during science class? ;)

Sciencists (this is a made up word, by the way, not a misspelling of the word "Scientists")

Any chance of telling us what this word means, or are we meant to guess?

Adaptation is not the same thing. That is microevolution by natural selection which is accurate, but this thread is about macroevolution, which has to do with species changing into other species.
Speciation is simply a logical extention of selection within a species. there is no difference in the logic behind the two facts. How can you believe in adaptation within species and deny that speciation could occur through isolation and divergence in adaptations, for example?

Adaptation is not the same thing. That is microevolution by natural selection which is accurate, but this thread is about macroevolution, which has to do with species changing into other species.

Well, small changes tend to add up.

Besides, specisation has been demonstrated by splitting up populations of fruit flies, after several generations the two populations were no longer able to crossbred.

I'm lazy, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There are substantive and believable theories about how life was sparked that do not rely on any divinity. So called "chemical evolution" created long polymers...

Indeed, but they have little to do with the topic of the theory of evolution in species. I am pointing out that one does not need to provide an explanation of the very origins of life in order to put forward evolution as a theory of its changes and development through later time.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.http://www.bush-whacking.com/bush%20head%20smaller.jpg

"New types of bacteria" have certainly been created. It's somewhat more challenging to determine when speciation has occurred in asexual organisms, but laboratory populations of bacteria have diverged significantly enough for scientists to consider them separate species.


It is easy for someone to arbitrarily claim that something is a new species, but that does not mean that it is. Dogs, coyotes, and wolves are considered seperate species even though any breeder can tell you they are not. Many say that poodles aren't really dogs, but they are just as much of a canine as wolves are. Dog breeds come in vastly different varieties, but they are still the same species. If they can do it and make a baby dog, then they are both dogs. Humans and monkeys can't do that.

Indeed, but they have little to do with the topic of the theory of evolution in species. I am pointing out that one does not need to provide an explanation of the very origins of life in order to put forward evolution as a theory of its changes and development through later time.
Yeah, fair enough. I just find it silly that after going into all the trouble to show that evolution is a spontaneous, algorithmic, godless process, people often concede and ssay things like "But god could have sparked life in the first place" as a consolation prize to the poor creationists, simply because they don't know about current hypotheses regarding the origin of life.

Ach, do vee* really haff to discuss zis again?

Besides, I haff a monkey to show you:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/3headedmonkey.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/uebermann.gif

*@ Laerod: Hoffentlich stellt Dich dies jetzt zufrieden?

It is easy for someone to arbitrarily claim that something is a new species, but that does not mean that it is. Dogs, coyotes, and wolves are considered seperate species even though any breeder can tell you they are not. Many say that poodles aren't really dogs, but they are just as much of a canine as wolves are. Dog breeds come in vastly different varieties, but they are still the same species. If they can do it and make a baby dog, then they are both dogs. Humans and monkeys can't do that.

And since populations of Drosophila have ceased to be able to breed in the laboratory, that means that speciation has occured, and you are wrong.

I think Evolution is most likely accurate, in large part, though there are holes in it here and there, so it shouldn't be treated with religious reverence like so many Sciencists (this is a made up word, by the way, not a misspelling of the word "Scientists") tend to.

I think it should be the theory taught in school, but I also think that the environment in which any slight criticism of scientific orthodoxy is treated as Heresy at best and Madness at worst has got to go. In other words, point out and stress that it is a theory, as yet not disproved, and that there are other theories which do not have to be named.

That way, parents can talk to their kids and maybe have them read some Intelligent Design books, or say "Study that to pass your test, but remember God did it all in Six Days" or whatever they want their kids to know, and their kids will be more receptive to what their parents want them to, while still absorbing the widely accepted but not infallible knowledge on the subject.

Both sides need to be a bit more reasonable, and the Sciencistas need to cut back on the condescension and disrespect of others' beliefs.

In my humble opinion, of course.

so what you are saying is that the "dont learn science in church" remark i made that made you cringe was accurate. there ARE no other people who would make false claims about evolution.

i dont know how evolution is taught in most schools. if its not taught as the work-in-progress that it is, that should change. the religious aspects of creation are best handled by parents and their respective churches.

I am pointing out that one does not need to provide an explanation of the very origins of life in order to put forward evolution as a theory of its changes and development through later time.

in fact, if deity of choice poofed up a whole ecosystem fully formed somewhere right now, evolution would automatically start up as long as there was the mere possibility of variation and differential reproductive success.

Evolution is a myth. we were created by the great noodley appendage. He spend seven minutes on high, creating us from mere noddles.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

God came to me in a vision and told me. So there.

It is easy for someone to arbitrarily claim that something is a new species, but that does not mean that it is. Dogs, coyotes, and wolves are considered seperate species even though any breeder can tell you they are not. Many say that poodles aren't really dogs, but they are just as much of a canine as wolves are. Dog breeds come in vastly different varieties, but they are still the same species. If they can do it and make a baby dog, then they are both dogs. Humans and monkeys can't do that.The idea that one can define species by groups that cannot breed to produce viable young is completely biologically unsound. Many differnt species can interbreed to produce viable young (hybrid plants are extremely common). That's an extremely shallow understanding of what a species is. The issue of defining specis is one that is not trivial, and not at all clear.Defining species also depends on how reproduction occurs: many living things are selfers or asexual reproducers, elimination the concept of a 'gene pool' completely.
The best shot i can give at defining species are groups that have significant enough genetic differences that they usually do not interbreed in nature, be it due to isolation, physiological incompatibility, or behavioral incompatibility. this genetic difference can range from one allele to many, depending on their effect.

God came to me in a vision and told me. So there.

Can't argue with that. Unless you want to burn in hell.

Humans and monkeys can't do that.



No humans don't want to do that. are you suggesting that we procreate mith monkeys?(shudders and vomits several times.)

"New types of bacteria" have certainly been created. It's somewhat more challenging to determine when speciation has occurred in asexual organisms, but laboratory populations of bacteria have diverged significantly enough for scientists to consider them separate species.

Ignoring relevant topics is not good science, but abiogenesis is not relevant. Evolutionary theory does not apply until life exists. It matters not one whit whether life spontaneously popped into existence, whether aliens from Alpha Centauri dropped life onto Earth, or whether God said, "Let there be primitive microorganisms." Evolution doesn't care.

Well, small changes tend to add up.

Besides, specisation has been demonstrated by splitting up populations of fruit flies, after several generations the two populations were no longer able to crossbred.

I'm lazy, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

A male mastiff and a female poodle wouldn't be able to breed either (except artificially), but they are both dogs. Also, those fruit flies that couldn't breed were still both fruit flies. Everyone quit using laboratory examples since that is not a natural enviroment. They can't prove evolution, so they mess with animals in a lab using artificial means.

in fact, if deity of choice poofed up a whole ecosystem fully formed somewhere right now, evolution would automatically start up as long as there was the mere possibility of variation and differential reproductive success.

Yeah, that's one of the things that irks me about Creationism, not only is there assertion that evolution hasn't happened, but also the implicit premise that it wouldn't be allowed to happen. Heck, if God is responsible for rainbows, neutrons, aspidistras and pulsars, I can't see why He would object so much to the odd bit of speciation, if only to liven the place up.

God came to me in a vision and told me. So there.
touche

It is easy for someone to arbitrarily claim that something is a new species, but that does not mean that it is. Dogs, coyotes, and wolves are considered seperate species even though any breeder can tell you they are not. Many say that poodles aren't really dogs, but they are just as much of a canine as wolves are. Dog breeds come in vastly different varieties, but they are still the same species. If they can do it and make a baby dog, then they are both dogs. Humans and monkeys can't do that.

I've never heard any scientist (or anyone, in fact) claim that poodles are a separate species from other dogs. Nor have I heard anyone try to argue that humans and monkeys can breed. What on earth are you talking about?

Further, the definition for what constitutes a species is both complex and somewhat disputed among scientists. It is not so simple as "anything that can breed = same species." The ability to produce viable offspring is one of the key traits looked for in determining whether two individuals are of the same or different species, but it is not the only factor in making that determination.

A male mastiff and a female poodle wouldn't be able to breed either (except artificially), but they are both dogs.

Why not?

We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and have vestigial organs which serve no direct purpose, and in some cases are a minor hindrance (The appendix, for example, is horribly inefficient). This would imply that we shared a common ancestor.
Honestly, I haven't the time for this flamefest, and I doubt anyone else does either.

Don't you mean apes?

Why can't we see evolution taking place today.

We can. New species have evolved in out life time and have been documented.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/158550.stm

Any chance of telling us what this word means, or are we meant to guess?

People whose religion is Science. It was implied, perhaps it would have been more clearly so had I not clarified myself...

They can't prove evolution...

Well, duh. History and philosphy of science 101, here we come. You can't prove theories in science.

People whose religion is Science. It was implied, perhaps it would have been more clearly so had I not clarified myself...

Care to give an example of such a person who takes science as their religion?

Don't you mean apes?

I believe we also share the majority with monkeys, but yes, apes are closer. I used monkeys as the point of comparison because of the OP.

The OP is right. Mankind did NOT evolve! *throws poo at evolutionists*

Well, duh. History and philosphy of science 101, here we come. You can't prove theories in science.

Exactly, so why is it taught like fact?

Exactly, so why is it taught like fact?

Theories are as close as scientists ever get to fact. Theory in popular usage has a slightly different connotation than a scientific theory.

Exactly, so why is it taught like fact?
Because it's more or less as close as one can get.

Exactly, so why is it taught like fact?

It ain't. At least not in my school it weren't.

It ain't. At least not in my school it weren't.

let me guess your from kansass?

Theories are as close as scientists ever get to fact.

Nah: observations are a good deal closer, hypotheses a step up from observations, and then theories - but the fact that science works by a process of disproval complicates this simple summary.

A male mastiff and a female poodle wouldn't be able to breed either (except artificially), but they are both dogs. Also, those fruit flies that couldn't breed were still both fruit flies. Everyone quit using laboratory examples since that is not a natural enviroment. They can't prove evolution, so they mess with animals in a lab using artificial means.

You're funny.

It's true that we can't "prove" evolution. We also can't "prove" gravity. The scientific method does not permit one to "prove" anything true. (I love how every evolution thread involves explaining the exact same things over and over...)

Fruit flies that can't breed are, indeed, still both fruit flies, much as primates that can't breed (such as, say, humans and monkeys) are still both primates. What's your point?

Further, why on earth would we quit using laboratory examples? How is speciation not speciation just because it occurred in a particular building?

let me guess your from kansass?

Nope. NI. Where we were taught the theory of evolution.

Sadly our instruction in proper scientific method was somewhat lacking, and so I was at university before we tackled any notions of falsifiability. Shame.

so what you are saying is that the "dont learn science in church" remark i made that made you cringe was accurate. there ARE no other people who would make false claims about evolution.

No, that's twisting my words to a degree. There are sciencists (made up word again, eh?) who disagree with Evolution in whole or in part, take the discussion between Kholstein and others, for instance. There are scientific arguments against the overruling orthodoxy of Ironclad, hard-nosed Secular Scientists which you would have seemed to be endorsing, by opening an anti-religious tirade. In essence, you were declaring that all people with any belief other than yours are idiots, by your statement. And how that differs from a medieval inquisitor or Jerry Falwell is beyond me.

i dont know how evolution is taught in most schools. if its not taught as the work-in-progress that it is, that should change. the religious aspects of creation are best handled by parents and their respective churches.

Whenever I see the debate, the guy who supports evolution in schools takes it for granted that it is rock-hard fact, and that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot and should be ridiculed and harangued, and if they actually believe in God, then there's no reason in even thinking about what they have to say.

How come humans aren't being born from apes today? We don't "share" DNA with monkeys. Anyone can claim a similarity, but that doesn't make it so. Ask some kind of sci-fi nerd to draw about 200 different imaginary creatures (much less than the number of species of animals). Chances are, that some of those species will have similiar characteristics, so anyone can say that this creature evolved from this other one, but in reality, both are distinct creatures drawn by some nerd. That is with 200 creatures, with millions of species in the world today, it is much more likely for species to be similiar, but that does not mean they evolved from one another. Why can't we see evolution taking place today. I believe in microevolution, which is changes within a species, but not macroevolution, in which new species are created. Besides, explain to me how original life began that everything supposedly evolved from. Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.

Ugg. Okay, this is sophmoric understanding at best.

In DNA, a slight change in structure can have a profound effect. The structure of Ape DNA is quite different to humans, but close enough for us to have relation, as it is far closer to us than other animals. A human CANNOT be born as an ape, for the very process of reproduction dissallows it. FTHe most basic way to explain it is that you receive half of your DNA from your mother, half from your father. If both parents are human, you have two halves of human DNA to form one full strand of human DNA.

Also, let's not even get into the fact that we DID NOT evolve from apes, and that it wasn't a fast process. It took several millions of years to occur, and the line from proto primates to pre humans does reveal that as time progresses, our ancestors grew more and more human. It is not as though we came DIRECTLY from earlier primates and pre-apes(You saying we evolved from apes is blatantly wrong, as no one is claiming this), but instead it is an indirect relationship. Think of Homo Erectus as our great, great grand daddy, for instance. You didn't directly come from him, but you are distantly related.

Now then, onto the next part, as to not observing it today. Well, guess what, we do! It's happening all around us. It is hard to notice to the casual observer, as CHANGES DON'T HAPPEN IN A SINGLE GENERATION, but instead in a series of Generations. It takesmany generations for a certain trait to become dominate in a species, not one or two, but dozens, or hundreds. This is why we only truly notice evolution in animals with fast reproductive rates: Insects and small animals usually. It is difficult, if not impossible, to notice evolution in larger animals, such as Humans, due to longer generation periods.

Next, let's delve into micro and macro evolution. The thing is, they ARE THE SAME THING. Micro evolution is the system in which DNA structure slowly changes over time, in a basic sense, in a given population. Macroevolution is the process in which traits are aquired in a certain population over time, and in time a new species is created.

Now, let's delve a tad into this. What is it that gives us the traits we have? DNA. As DNA changes slightly, so does our appearance. Thus, as certain DNA traits change in a given population, then so will physical traits.

Now, let's go deeper. Let's have two groups for this(Really, there are often many population groups that branch out, but for this I'm only going with a Parent Group and an Contemporary group). Alright, so let's say that there is a Parent group and a contemporary group that although are similar in some ways, are very different in others, and cannot breed together due to the fact that the DNA is far to different. In essense, you have two different species. Now, in the Parent Group, a certain trait starts to become more dominant than others. This in turn would mean that the DNA for that trait would in turn be far more dominant. Now, evolution does not occur one trait at a time. Many traits can arise to dominance at once. And not only that but it is also never ending, so new traits are always arising. And thus, the DNA is always changing, and as DNA changes so do traits.

Now then, what makes a new species? Simply put, a new species occurs if the one specimen from the Parent Group and one from the Contemporary's cannot reproduce with one another, due to the fact that the change in DNA has caused two DNA structures which are to different to breed with one another.

The point: Micro and Macro evolution are the same thing. Micro evolution is the process behind macro evolution.

Finally, Evolution does not involve, in any way, shape, or form, Ambiogenesis, as they are two very different theories. Evolution only worries about how life changed after it began, not in ANY way with how life began. Disproving a way how life began does not disprove evolution in any way.

I'm going to save this, just so I can copy and paste every time these misunderstanding are brought up.

Because it's more or less as close as one can get.

In science, one is supposed to assume nothing until it can be proven. Evolutionists have said we evolved from some simpler life form and are now desperately trying to find something to support that claim instead of the other way around. That is a very unscientific method of doing things.

How come humans aren't being born from apes today?


Last I checked Beastiality was outlawed.

Can we breed with chimps? It's an interesting question but I don't think anybody will test it(ie test tube) since Religious people would go beserk.

It would be interesting as if it could be shown to be viable, we would have to redefine the chimps standing in things.


We don't "share" DNA with monkeys.

Actually we do. Just not as much as with the chimps. 98% of their dna is similar to ours. Amazing what happens with a 2% difference.


Anyone can claim a similarity, but that doesn't make it so.

Wow.


Ask some kind of sci-fi nerd to draw about 200 different imaginary creatures (much less than the number of species of animals). Chances are, that some of those species will have similiar characteristics, so anyone can say that this creature evolved from this other one, but in reality, both are distinct creatures drawn by some nerd. That is with 200 creatures, with millions of species in the world today, it is much more likely for species to be similiar, but that does not mean they evolved from one another.

Ok all that meant nothing.

Why can't we see evolution taking place today. I believe in microevolution, which is changes within a species, but not macroevolution, in which new species are created.


Don't you understand Macro evolution?

Besides, explain to me how original life began that everything supposedly evolved from. Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.

Abiogenisis is a different topic

The OP is right. Mankind did NOT evolve! *throws poo at evolutionists*

*catches, flushes down toilet, washes hands*

Exactly, so why is it taught like fact?

Because "theory" in science doesn't mean the same thing as "theory" in common parlance. A theory in science is something that has been tested and tested and tested and tested and tested and has passed every single one of those tests. There is no status in science higher than "theory." Gravity is a theory, just like evolution - do you dispute it, too?

Nah: observations are a good deal closer, hypotheses a step up from observations, and then theories - but the fact that science works by a process of disproval complicates this simple summary.I wouldn't say that hypotheses are closer to fact than theories as your sequence implies. Observations are a form of data - so yes, they are gathered from the real world. Models, phypotheses, and theories are all interpretations at various levels of substantiation.

In science, one is supposed to assume nothing until it can be proven.

No: in science one is meant to assume an unproven hypothesis and then go about finding ways of falsifying it.

Last I checked Beastiality was outlawed.

Depends on the country (or, in the U.S. and Australia, on the state).

In science, one is supposed to assume nothing until it can be proven.
False. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Proof does not exist in science.

Actually we do. Just not as much as with the chimps. 98% of their dna is similar to ours. Amazing what happens with a 2% difference.

sad really from 2 percent we can get people from hitler and jack the ripper to picaso, and bach.

Because I refuse to let this pass and also refuse to get myself sucked in as I do so many times before, my FAQ:

Basics of Evolution in Kindergarten Terms (http://rants.lackofoxygen.net/evolution.html) (minus the safety scissors)

sad really from 2 percent we can get people from hitler and jack the ripper to picaso, and bach.

Also Captain Caveman.

It is easy for someone to arbitrarily claim that something is a new species, but that does not mean that it is. Dogs, coyotes, and wolves are considered seperate species even though any breeder can tell you they are not. Many say that poodles aren't really dogs, but they are just as much of a canine as wolves are. Dog breeds come in vastly different varieties, but they are still the same species. If they can do it and make a baby dog, then they are both dogs. Humans and monkeys can't do that.

Actually, there's a number of species that are capable of crossbreeding (jackels, grey wolves, dogs, red wolves, Algonquin wolves and coyotes can all crossbreed between each other easily), grey wolves and coyotes generally tend to not crossbreed, red wolves and coyotes tend to be more open to the idea. Then again the concept of species is somewhat artificial itself.

Only idiot rednecks say poodles aren't dogs, anyone with a brain knows they are. ;)

As for humans and monkeys, not likely, we're too far seperated. Humans and chimps might work, but you'd need to find people willing to test it, and personally, I'd be afraid of a chimp trying to unpeel me. :(

A male mastiff and a female poodle wouldn't be able to breed either (except artificially), but they are both dogs. Also, those fruit flies that couldn't breed were still both fruit flies. Everyone quit using laboratory examples since that is not a natural enviroment. They can't prove evolution, so they mess with animals in a lab using artificial means.

Actually a female poodle should be fine with it, a female toy poodle... well, what's that joke about duct taping hamsters?

The fruit flies that could no longer crossbreed were both fruit flies, different species of fruit flies however. As for 'artificial', all they did was seperate them, and the only way to record and test their theory was doing it in a lab, that's the best you're going to get.

Ugg. Okay, this is sophmoric understanding at best.

In DNA, a slight change in structure can have a profound effect. The structure of Ape DNA is quite different to humans, but close enough for us to have relation, as it is far closer to us than other animals. A human CANNOT be born as an ape, for the very process of reproduction dissallows it. FTHe most basic way to explain it is that you receive half of your DNA from your mother, half from your father. If both parents are human, you have two halves of human DNA to form one full strand of human DNA.

Also, let's not even get into the fact that we DID NOT evolve from apes, and that it wasn't a fast process. It took several millions of years to occur, and the line from proto primates to pre humans does reveal that as time progresses, our ancestors grew more and more human. It is not as though we came DIRECTLY from earlier primates and pre-apes(You saying we evolved from apes is blatantly wrong, as no one is claiming this), but instead it is an indirect relationship. Think of Homo Erectus as our great, great grand daddy, for instance. You didn't directly come from him, but you are distantly related.

Now then, onto the next part, as to not observing it today. Well, guess what, we do! It's happening all around us. It is hard to notice to the casual observer, as CHANGES DON'T HAPPEN IN A SINGLE GENERATION, but instead in a series of Generations. It takesmany generations for a certain trait to become dominate in a species, not one or two, but dozens, or hundreds. This is why we only truly notice evolution in animals with fast reproductive rates: Insects and small animals usually. It is difficult, if not impossible, to notice evolution in larger animals, such as Humans, due to longer generation periods.

Next, let's delve into micro and macro evolution. The thing is, they ARE THE SAME THING. Micro evolution is the system in which DNA structure slowly changes over time, in a basic sense, in a given population. Macroevolution is the process in which traits are aquired in a certain population over time, and in time a new species is created.

Now, let's delve a tad into this. What is it that gives us the traits we have? DNA. As DNA changes slightly, so does our appearance. Thus, as certain DNA traits change in a given population, then so will physical traits.

Now, let's go deeper. Let's have two groups for this(Really, there are often many population groups that branch out, but for this I'm only going with a Parent Group and an Contemporary group). Alright, so let's say that there is a Parent group and a contemporary group that although are similar in some ways, are very different in others, and cannot breed together due to the fact that the DNA is far to different. In essense, you have two different species. Now, in the Parent Group, a certain trait starts to become more dominant than others. This in turn would mean that the DNA for that trait would in turn be far more dominant. Now, evolution does not occur one trait at a time. Many traits can arise to dominance at once. And not only that but it is also never ending, so new traits are always arising. And thus, the DNA is always changing, and as DNA changes so do traits.

Now then, what makes a new species? Simply put, a new species occurs if the one specimen from the Parent Group and one from the Contemporary's cannot reproduce with one another, due to the fact that the change in DNA has caused two DNA structures which are to different to breed with one another.

The point: Micro and Macro evolution are the same thing. Micro evolution is the process behind macro evolution.

Finally, Evolution does not involve, in any way, shape, or form, Ambiogenesis, as they are two very different theories. Evolution only worries about how life changed after it began, not in ANY way with how life began. Disproving a way how life began does not disprove evolution in any way.

I'm going to save this, just so I can copy and paste every time these misunderstanding are brought up.

DNA does not change. There are billions of possible combinations of genes that can occur, but over time the number of possible combinations decrease as certain ones are eliminated through natural selection. So therefore new traits do become more dominant in the species or group within the species, but no DNA has been changed. Those combinations were always possible within the species, but the odds have just gotten better. Mutations are possible, but in every case mutations are harmful to the creature and never help. Mutations in many cases are deadly, and even when they are not, the mutated creature is more likely to die out through natural selection.

In science, one is supposed to assume nothing until it can be proven.

No, one is not. Again, you cannot. prove. things. true. according. to. the. scientific. method. Please, please try to understand this.

Evolutionists have said we evolved from some simpler life form and are now desperately trying to find something to support that claim instead of the other way around. That is a very unscientific method of doing things.

Yay, you made me laugh again. Well done! This is so patently absurd it's not even worth addressing.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

As I'm sure has already been mentioned, evolutionary theory as it relates to humans does not imply that man evolved from monkeys. The concept is that man evolved from the same ancestor as primates, which would account for similarities --DNA, behaviour, etc.--between primates and humans. Thus, the search for the missing link is the pursuit of that ancestor from which both modern monkeys and modern man are theoretically descended.

Other than that, I agree with your premise.

Because "theory" in science doesn't mean the same thing as "theory" in common parlance. A theory in science is something that has been tested and tested and tested and tested and tested and has passed every single one of those tests. There is no status in science higher than "theory." Gravity is a theory, just like evolution - do you dispute it, too?

Gravity is not a theory. It's a law.

Gravity is not a theory. It's a law.

no such thing as gravity. its intelligent falling.

Gravity is not a theory. It's a law.

Scientific laws are just statements of what usually happens. Nothing more, nothing less.

Gravity is not a theory. It's a law.
You have no idea of scientific procedures and reasoning, do you?

no such thing as gravity. its intelligent falling.

hee. heh.

Scientific laws are just statements of what usually happens. Nothing more, nothing less.

"usually happens"? Have you ever seen anything fall upwards?

It is easy for someone to arbitrarily claim that something is a new species, but that does not mean that it is. Dogs, coyotes, and wolves are considered seperate species even though any breeder can tell you they are not. Many say that poodles aren't really dogs, but they are just as much of a canine as wolves are. Dog breeds come in vastly different varieties, but they are still the same species. If they can do it and make a baby dog, then they are both dogs. Humans and monkeys can't do that.

So if species is a reproductive seperation what do you do about Ring Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)?

Ring Species in short are a string of related species that can all interbreed at all stages except those most distant.

So if the path was over a north south line the most northerly species can breed with the ones a little to the south and those southerly neighbours can breed with their neighbours a little further to their south.. but the furthest southerly species can not breed with their most northerly cousins...

They can share genetic material by passing it all the way down the chain but can not share it directly.

Isn't that pretty good evidence of micro evolution leading to macro evolution..

Species from no species.....

I think you would be hard pressed to think of a better example for showing macro evolution.... and there it is in nature for all to see...

DNA does not change. There are billions of possible combinations of genes that can occur, but over time the number of possible combinations decrease as certain ones are eliminated through natural selection. So therefore new traits do become more dominant in the species or group within the species, but no DNA has been changed. Those combinations were always possible within the species, but the odds have just gotten better. Mutations are possible, but in every case mutations are harmful to the creature and never help. Mutations in many cases are deadly, and even when they are not, the mutated creature is more likely to die out through natural selection.

My opposible thumbs disagree.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

You evolved from monkeys. The rest of the human population evolved from a common ancestor.

"usually happens"? Have you ever seen anything fall upwards?

It can be observed, for instance in a falling aircraft. Utterly irrelevant, though.

Well, there are arguements for both points.

From monkey's:
We share sooo much DNA
We have itty bitty tail bones
We have so many simmilarities

Not:
We also have DNA almost the same as rats, did we evolve from them?

But the second one has less points, so you loose. :p

DNA does not change. There are billions of possible combinations of genes that can occur, but over time the number of possible combinations decrease as certain ones are eliminated through natural selection. So therefore new traits do become more dominant in the species or group within the species, but no DNA has been changed. Those combinations were always possible within the species, but the odds have just gotten better. Mutations are possible, but in every case mutations are harmful to the creature and never help. Mutations in many cases are deadly, and even when they are not, the mutated creature is more likely to die out through natural selection.

...

And this explains it all.

You have no understanding of DNA, and how it can "change". Note, I said DNA structure in a POPULATION. It does not change in a single specimen(Normally, as it can happen, but is rare), but the overall DNA structure changes in DNA in a population over time, through changes in the certain Alleles in DNA over generations. Note the word generations.

For an understanding of species, I suggest to go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Also, as to mutations, I believe you have a misunderstanding of what mutation refers to. It is not something that just pops up, or is harmful in anyway. A mutation, simply put, is a certain trait that arises in a population. Infact, most mutations are neutral, have no noticeable effect whatsoever. There really is no such thing as a harmful mutation, nor a good mutation. There are mutations, however, which are more beneficial to a populations environment, which in turn means that those with that trait have a higher chance of REPRODUCTION, which in turn means that this given trait has a higher chance of arises in subsequent populations derived from this group.

Really, you do not understand evolution in the least, and it shows.

Scientific laws are just statements of what usually happens. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, they are statements of what always happens. Regardless of how you look at things, some force holds us to the Earth, draws things towards its center, hold objects in orbit. We call this force "gravity"--its existence cannot be refuted. It simply is. Gravitational theory comes into play when we start measuring this force and assuming it always operates in the same way as what we have observed.

"usually happens"? Have you ever seen anything fall upwards?

Balloons?

"usually happens"? Have you ever seen anything fall upwards?

No, but I am open to the possibility that I might encounter such a thing in the future (leaving aside the fact that we define 'downwards' as the way things fall). I am similarly open to the possibility that the sun might not rise tomorrow. Such new pieces of data would necessitate a re-examination of currently accepted scientific theories, and would hopefully lead to their reformulation in expressions closer in accordance with the actual laws of nature (if such laws do in fact exist).

Welcome to the wonderful world of science.

No, that's twisting my words to a degree. There are sciencists (made up word again, eh?) who disagree with Evolution in whole or in part, take the discussion between Kholstein and others, for instance. There are scientific arguments against the overruling orthodoxy of Ironclad, hard-nosed Secular Scientists which you would have seemed to be endorsing, by opening an anti-religious tirade. In essence, you were declaring that all people with any belief other than yours are idiots, by your statement. And how that differs from a medieval inquisitor or Jerry Falwell is beyond me.


it wasnt twisting your words, it was declaring that i had won the point because you didnt address it. you didnt even try to come up with another group beyond a religious one that would claim that evolution is bunk.

my original statement was, in effect, declaring that anyone who thought that evolution teaches that man evolved from monkeys to be too ignorant to debate the issue.

and they are. if you are going to make claims about how evolution is wrong you need to have a clue as to what the theory of evolution IS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kohlstein :
DNA does not change. There are billions of possible combinations of genes that can occur, but over time the number of possible combinations decrease as certain ones are eliminated through natural selection. So therefore new traits do become more dominant in the species or group within the species, but no DNA has been changed. Those combinations were always possible within the species, but the odds have just gotten better. Mutations are possible, but in every case mutations are harmful to the creature and never help. Mutations in many cases are deadly, and even when they are not, the mutated creature is more likely to die out through natural selection.

Ahe-he-hem. I am guessing you read this somewhere and decided to act smart by showing this off on the boards, eh?

Um may I ask a question? Where did the evolutionary cycle originate from? What is the definitive link between man and primate? Why is it that we cannot re-make, if you will, the evolutionary cycle? I'm genuinely speaking out of curiosity.

No, they are statements of what always happens. Regardless of how you look at things, some force holds us to the Earth, draws things towards its center, hold objects in orbit. We call this force "gravity"--its existence cannot be refuted. It simply is. Gravitational theory comes into play when we start measuring this force and assuming it always operates in the same way as what we have observed.

You are operating under the assumption that we have had sufficient time to accumulate a totality of data such that we can state in no case can x occur - in other words that we have observed all possible instances of things falling.

So if species is a reproductive seperation what do you do about Ring Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)?

Ring Species in short are a string of related species that can all interbreed at all stages except those most distant.

So if the path was over a north south line the most northerly species can breed with the ones a little to the south and those southerly neighbours can breed with their neighbours a little further to their south.. but the furthest southerly species can not breed with their most northerly cousins...

They can share genetic material by passing it all the way down the chain but can not share it directly.

Isn't that pretty good evidence of micro evolution leading to macro evolution..

Species from no species.....

I think you would be hard pressed to think of a better example for showing macro evolution.... and there it is in nature for all to see...

This simply means that they have been misclassified. They should be considered a single species. I understand that sometimes different animals within a species can't breed with each other since varieties and other factors affect things, but as long as they maintain the same genetic pattern (not necessarily genetic traits) in their chromosne structure, then they remain a part of the same species.

In science, one is supposed to assume nothing until it can be proven. Evolutionists have said we evolved from some simpler life form and are now desperately trying to find something to support that claim instead of the other way around. That is a very unscientific method of doing things.

Two slight problems.

First, in science, you are actually trying to disprove something. If one cannot, it is generally held as more or less true(although never as 100% true by any true scientists).

Second, Evolutionists didn't come up with evolution, and then look for evidence. Darwin used his observations to construct his theory. You assumption on this is false.

Um may I ask a question? Where did the evolutionary cycle originate from?

What is an 'evolutionary cycle'?

This simply means that they have been misclassified. They should be considered a single species.

Even though the individuals from one end of the ring can't breed with individuals from the other end?

This is becoming diffrent useless arguements, soon the origonal debate will be forgotten...

First, in science, you are actually trying to disprove something. If one cannot, it is generally held as more or less true(although never as 100% true by any true scientists).

We are skating dangerously close to the logical positivist paradox here.

Gravity is not a theory. It's a law.

"Law" is an obsolete term for theory.

DNA does not change. There are billions of possible combinations of genes that can occur, but over time the number of possible combinations decrease as certain ones are eliminated through natural selection. So therefore new traits do become more dominant in the species or group within the species, but no DNA has been changed. Those combinations were always possible within the species, but the odds have just gotten better. Mutations are possible, but in every case mutations are harmful to the creature and never help. Mutations in many cases are deadly, and even when they are not, the mutated creature is more likely to die out through natural selection.

What on earth gives you the idea that mutations are harmful in every case?

A standard technique in molecular biology it to take a strain of identical bacteria and mutate them then look for bateria that survive/perform better than the original wild type. Great for improving antibiotics etc...

Mutations swing both ways I am afraid.

"Positive" mutations are being made every day... probably one being created right now.

No, but I am open to the possibility that I might encounter such a thing in the future (leaving aside the fact that we define 'downwards' as the way things fall). I am similarly open to the possibility that the sun might not rise tomorrow. Such new pieces of data would necessitate a re-examination of currently accepted scientific theories, and would hopefully lead to their reformulation in expressions closer in accordance with the actual laws of nature (if such laws do in fact exist).

Welcome to the wonderful world of science.

Right, so I suppose NASA should just leave gravity out of their calculations and be open to the possibility that gravity might not always work.

Mutations are harmful? What about the finches! On that island somewhere or other! With the diffrent beaks! I think we all know that they would die without their beaks changing.

Quote:
DNA does not change. There are billions of possible combinations of genes that can occur, but over time the number of possible combinations decrease as certain ones are eliminated through natural selection. So therefore new traits do become more dominant in the species or group within the species, but no DNA has been changed. Those combinations were always possible within the species, but the odds have just gotten better. Mutations are possible, but in every case mutations are harmful to the creature and never help. Mutations in many cases are deadly, and even when they are not, the mutated creature is more likely to die out through natural selection.

There is one of your big misunderstandings... mutations are not in every case harmful. To quote from Wikipedia, "Mutations create variation in the gene pool, and the less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate, resulting in evolutionary change. "

Um may I ask a question? Where did the evolutionary cycle originate from? What is the definitive link between man and primate? Why is it that we cannot re-make, if you will, the evolutionary cycle? I'm genuinely speaking out of curiosity.

Several reasons.

First off, we did not evolve from any current species, thus we do not have a correct ancestor to work off of.

Secondly, the environment has changed greatly.

Third, pure luck, really. Some populations died off that may have had different traits that had nothing to do with how beneficial those traits were to the environment. I.E., disease, animals attacks, or "warfare" if you will among given populations of humans, whose traits did not affect in any way the probability of that happening.

In order to even have a chance for this to reoccur, we would need several things:

A correct specimen from one of our ancestors.

An environment which at the time is EXACTLY the same as it was before, and changes EXACTLY as to how it has changed up until now.

If you wanted humans to arise out of the primates, however, the exact series of events would have to occur for us to arise, at all.

Also, one must always remember, that there is no goal to evolution. Humans are not the highest evolved animal, and this notion is hard to lose. Humans are simply part of the most recent evolutionary line, and overall population.

Mutations are harmful? What about the finches! On that island somewhere or other! With the diffrent beaks! I think we all know that they would die without their beaks changing.
Galapagos Islands.

Right, so I suppose NASA should just leave gravity out of their calculations and be open to the possibility that gravity might not always work.

No, as the theory of gravity (or possibly the theory of general relativity) is probably the best predictive tool they currently possess. It may very well be incomplete or inaccurate, but to ignore it would be foolish.

The nub of the matter isn't that gravity might not always work, but rather that it might not work the way we think it does.

Um may I ask a question? Where did the evolutionary cycle originate from? What is the definitive link between man and primate? Why is it that we cannot re-make, if you will, the evolutionary cycle? I'm genuinely speaking out of curiosity.
Humans are primates...

Galapagos Islands.

Right, it was that or Madagascar. Kinda ruins an arguement when you don't know all the info.

Ok, Kohlstein and everyone who's talking about gravity: Get back to the Evolution. We're not here to debate "falling upwards". You can debate about the definition of the word "Theory" but pleeeeease use some more examples. You're all getting off topic with that thing.

You are operating under the assumption that we have had sufficient time to accumulate a totality of data such that we can state in no case can x occur - in other words that we have observed all possible instances of things falling.

And yet things fall. Thus, we can label this fact--that things fall--as being the "law of gravity." All possible instances of things "falling" would still be the result of this force, what we have termed gravity, and thus subject to the law. The theory of gravity begins to label and measure and differentiate between forms of falling. So regardless of how things fall, they still fall, and gravity is what we have called this falling.

We are skating dangerously close to the logical positivist paradox here.

Well, the thing is, although Evolution has not been disproven yet, it is still possible to disprove. Thus, it is usually regarded as the best explanation, but not the only explanation.

Kinda ruins an arguement when you don't know all the info.

You're kind of new here, aren't you? I'll let you into the secret rule of NSGeneral:

Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Use this knowledge wisely, my child.

You're kind of new here, aren't you? I'll let you into the secret rule of NSGeneral:

Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Use this knowledge wisely, my child.

With that knowledge I am ready to cry myself to sleep.

And yet things fall. Thus, we can label this fact--that things fall--as being the "law of gravity." All possible instances of things "falling" would still be the result of this force, what we have termed gravity, and thus subject to the law. The theory of gravity begins to label and measure and differentiate between forms of falling. So regardless of how things fall, they still fall, and gravity is what we have called this falling.

You could, but it'd be a gross misuse of the word "law" as it applies to science, since "law" does not mean that. It's an obsolete term. What you call a "law" is called a fact in science.

I know two things about science:

1. If I step off a cliff, I fall down.
2. Poodles did not exist 1,000,000 years ago (or even 6,000 years ago).

Well, the thing is, although Evolution has not been disproven yet, it is still possible to disprove. Thus, it is usually regarded as the best explanation, but not the only explanation.

Yeah, my point however was that the scientific method of falsifiability is not itself falsifiable, and was drawing a parallel to the logical positivists and their key rule of verifiability - which, of course, was not itself verifiable and so described itself as either false or meaningless.

And yet things fall. Thus, we can label this fact--that things fall--as being the "law of gravity." All possible instances of things "falling" would still be the result of this force, what we have termed gravity, and thus subject to the law. The theory of gravity begins to label and measure and differentiate between forms of falling. So regardless of how things fall, they still fall, and gravity is what we have called this falling.

Well, depends on how far you want to go. The argument can be said that "We have only observed that all tests done so far have shown falling, thus the statement is made that everything falls. However, we have yet to test all things falling, in all conditions, thus it cannot be stated that all things necessarily fall, only everything we have yet to observe."

But that's more of a phylosophical statement, I suppose.

And yet things fall. Thus, we can label this fact--that things fall--as being the "law of gravity." All possible instances of things "falling" would still be the result of this force, what we have termed gravity, and thus subject to the law. The theory of gravity begins to label and measure and differentiate between forms of falling. So regardless of how things fall, they still fall, and gravity is what we have called this falling.

That is just far too much of a hodge-podge to go into closely: first you call the force which causes falling to be gravity, and then you call the act of falling gravity.

Yeah, my point however was that the scientific method of falsifiability is not itself falsifiable, and was drawing a parallel to the logical positivists and their key rule of verifiability - which, of course, was not itself verifiable and so described itself as either false or meaningless.

I think you made that all up...

:p

They didn't evlove from one another. They evolved from common ancestors that no longer exist.

Yes, a very clever arguement from the evolutionists as soon as the monkey-man theory was disproved. And that darned missing link that just would never turn up.. Still, some creative thinking and you end up with TWO branches on the same tree.. Clever. And UNprovable, and if you can't disprove it, you can't prove it either.. Still at least that way it stays firmly in the box labelled hypothosis :D

We do. Adaptation is easily created in laboratories, and readily observed in some natural populations.

Adaption, yes. Evolution, as in the creation of new genetic material from old, no. Your pepper moths, or which ever other example you want to bring to the table does not show evolution. They show adaption. Bringing to the fore some ALREADY existing genetic material and NOT the creation of new DNA.

At least stay consistant within your terms...

Right, so I suppose NASA should just leave gravity out of their calculations and be open to the possibility that gravity might not always work.

no. If gravity stopped "working" nothing would be attached, and everything would drift apart on a molecular level.

now, for refutable proof for evolution, try this: Relgion is mans way of explaining things he cannot explain with science. take volcanoes for example, the Greeks thought they were caused by fire breathing monsters, yet now we know that they are caused by moltent rock forcing it's way to the surface.

another thing: if god created the world, who created god? according to the bible, god is all powerful, yet if something created god, he is not as powerful as his creater, so no god can exist.

And yet things fall. Thus, we can label this fact--that things fall--as being the "law of gravity." All possible instances of things "falling" would still be the result of this force, what we have termed gravity, and thus subject to the law. The theory of gravity begins to label and measure and differentiate between forms of falling. So regardless of how things fall, they still fall, and gravity is what we have called this falling.

we have exactly the same amount of evidential support for thinking that gravity always operates in a way that can be approximated by ye olde inverse square law, and that gravity has and will work that way until march 19th, 2037 (at which point it will work on more of an inverse square root law).

I think you made that all up...

:p

don't mind him, he's got a philosophy degree

Why is it that we cannot re-make, if you will, the evolutionary cycle? I'm genuinely speaking out of curiosity.You can, sort of. Evolution is directionless - that is, it isn't linearly moving to some sort of peak of perfection. Complex adaptations are often lost subsequently if they are no longer advantageous, creating reduced, simple froms of previously more complex organisms. This is extremely common in animal and plant evolution. The fact that it seemingly hasn't occured in humans is arbitrary dumb luck.

hmmm i guess i admit that i am unaware of any groups who think that evolution is a myth who arent religious. where else does one learn false ideas about evolution rather than legitimate limitations to the theory?

if one were to end the teaching of evolution in schools because its a myth, what non religious explanation would we replace it with?

Nay, not for its mythical quality but for the incompetence of dogmatic church officials who neither have 1)a base of experience or information in scientific study nor 2)a base of experience or information in their religious study.

Ahh....anyone want some Hot Tamales? I'm a little sick of popcorn.

*throws up, passes hot tamales*

no. If gravity stopped "working" nothing would be attached, and everything would drift apart on a molecular level.

no, down there it's all electro-magnetics and strong and weak nuclear forces

You can, sort of. Evolution is directionless - that is, it isn't linearly moving to some sort of peak of perfection. Complex adaptations are often lost subsequently if they are no longer advantageous, creating reduced, simple froms of previously more complex organisms. This is extremely common in animal and plant evolution. The fact that it seemingly hasn't occured in humans is arbitrary dumb luck.

Humans haven't adapted? Are you DAFT man??? In Africa people's skin is darker for more sun protection. In Asia people are frequently short, in Germany they are frequently tall. We have adapted to wear we live as well. If you live in Antarctica for a year, than move to ohio you will be walking around in winter in shorts and a tee. THis is because you adapt to the climate of Antarctica.

don't mind him, he's got a philosophy degree

I know what you're thinking. Did she study six years or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a Philosophy/Scholastic Philosophy/Continental Philosophy degree, the most powerful degree in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?

I blame two groups of people for discussions like this. The arrogant bigots in the churches and the arrogant bigots in science. Yay, arrogant bigots.

All science says is what allegedly COULD have happened. However natural/irrational it might seem, wouldn't an omnipotent God be able to carry it out?

Is it "omnipotent" or "omnivorous?" I forget...

Humans haven't adapted? Are you DAFT man??? In Asia people are frequently short, in Germany they are frequently tall.

Are we to believe that the Germans became taller because they were eating from the tops of trees, while the Asians foraged in the undergrowth?

As far as I was aware evolution is still just a theory at current. Those scientists are still working hard on it, they've managed to gather plenty of information(fossil records, DNA analysis, laboratory specimen observations) on the vast spectrum of life that inhabits this planet. Bearing in mind that the human race has been trying to answer one of the big questions(Where do we come from?) for a very long time. The theory of evolution has only been kicking around for the past 300 hundred years, religion has been around for millennia, so basically it's not even out of nappies yet by comparison. You need to give them some more time to finalise their research, change is a universal constant and it was there before us and it'll be there long after we successfully achieve our own extinction. The modern synthesis of evolution is briefly summarised here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html) if you'd like some more substantial reading material other than someone's hot air.

The arguement for evolution is considerably complex and I simply don't have the time or inclination to fill three entire pages in this thread with my own text explaining each and every single point, it would take me all night and most of tommorrow. Therefore I ask that you present your evidence that evolution is indeed a myth, though I consider your task greater than mine. It is far easier in the extreme to prove that something exists, than to try and prove that something doesn't exist, by virtue of the fact that you'd have to investigate everything and everywhere to prove a negative or absence of evolution. Good luck and yes you will need it.

Humans haven't adapted? Are you DAFT man??? In Africa people's skin is darker for more sun protection. In Asia people are frequently short, in Germany they are frequently tall. We have adapted to wear we live as well. If you live in Antarctica for a year, than move to ohio you will be walking around in winter in shorts and a tee. THis is because you adapt to the climate of Antarctica.
He meant that humans have not gone from more complex to simple, in our observations.

I know what you're thinking. Did she study six years or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a Philosophy/Scholastic Philosophy/Continental Philosophy degree, the most powerful degree in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?

I believe luck is really just how could you are at snatching oportunities when they arise. Personaly, I'm ok.

Yes, a very clever arguement from the evolutionists as soon as the monkey-man theory was disproved. And that darned missing link that just would never turn up.. Still, some creative thinking and you end up with TWO branches on the same tree.. Clever. And UNprovable, and if you can't disprove it, you can't prove it either.. Still at least that way it stays firmly in the box labelled hypothosis :D I'm not sure what you're getting at here, to be quite honest. could you clarify without assuming that I know what you're talking about?

Adaption, yes. Evolution, as in the creation of new genetic material from old, no. Your pepper moths, or which ever other example you want to bring to the table does not show evolution. They show adaption. Bringing to the fore some ALREADY existing genetic material and NOT the creation of new DNA.

At least stay consistant within your terms...Again, adaptation within a species uses the exact same logic as speciation from divergence. "evolution" is a general term which encompases poth processes.
I have no idea what you mean by "the creation of new DNA". I presume you mean different/new DNA sequences that code for new protein products. Mutatuion and selection (which can be observed on a macro-level by adaptation) is the exact mechanism by which "new" DNA is created, to use your terminology. If you're concerned about the creation of physically larger genomes with more genes in them, increase or decrease in chromasome number, as well as replications and deletions of genes in the genome occur by chance regularly (though not commonly) due to mistakes in the replication cycle. These occurances could have been a source for redundance in the genome, then increasing the chances for mutation without detrimental effects, and more "new" sequences. Hope this helps.

You can, sort of. Evolution is directionless - that is, it isn't linearly moving to some sort of peak of perfection. Complex adaptations are often lost subsequently if they are no longer advantageous, creating reduced, simple froms of previously more complex organisms. This is extremely common in animal and plant evolution. The fact that it seemingly hasn't occured in humans is arbitrary dumb luck.

Actually, if you go down the ancestory line, we have adapted a great deal, moreso than many other species, I suppose.

It is often more difficult to notice, however, as humans have a paricularily long generation period, which in turn means it takes much longer for traits to be aquired from one generation to the next.

He meant that humans have not gone from more complex to simple, in our observations.

Wouldn't becoming simpler be a bad thing?

"hey, how do I eat again?"

"Gee, I dunno. It's one of these 7 holes, we'll get lucky eventualy"

Or am I off?

He meant that humans have not gone from more complex to simple, in our observations.

Neither do most species... Odd.

Are we to believe that the Germans became taller because they were eating from the tops of trees, while the Asians foraged in the undergrowth?

Nobody expects German Giraffes!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4bhFTWqJPJ4

The link above proves the theory of evolution.

Still, some creative thinking and you end up with TWO branches on the same tree.. Clever.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, to be quite honest. could you clarify without assuming that I know what you're talking about?

It seems to me that Lydardia is implying that trees only ever have a single branch. Perplexing to say the least, from both a botanical and an etymological perspective.

He meant that humans have not gone from more complex to simple, in our observations.check. Though one can argue that we have lost some "complex" characters that earlier ancestors probably had, like more acute senses of smell, tails, etc.

Nobody expects German Giraffes!

Our chief veapon is... etc... etc...

no. If gravity stopped "working" nothing would be attached, and everything would drift apart on a molecular level.

now, for refutable proof for evolution, try this: Relgion is mans way of explaining things he cannot explain with science. take volcanoes for example, the Greeks thought they were caused by fire breathing monsters, yet now we know that they are caused by moltent rock forcing it's way to the surface.

another thing: if god created the world, who created god? according to the bible, god is all powerful, yet if something created god, he is not as powerful as his creater, so no god can exist.

Molecules would drift apart? Have you never studied basic chemistry? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! What about dipole-dipole attractions, hydrogen bonds, polarity?

"Religion is mans way of explaining things he cannot explain with science." Are you kidding me? So, in your words, theories which "explain" things in science, EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT BE VERIFIED MUST BE RELIGION.

There is one God and no one created Him. He was, is, and will be. That's what it is. If anyone created Him, he wouldn't be omnipotent or the most powerful. With your description, you may just as well have described a monkey.

If they can do it and make a baby dog, then they are both dogs. Humans and monkeys can't do that.

Horse and donkeys can breed.

So can lions and tigers.

Your analogy is false.

Actually, if you go down the ancestory line, we have adapted a great deal, moreso than many other species, I suppose.

It is often more difficult to notice, however, as humans have a paricularily long generation period, which in turn means it takes much longer for traits to be aquired from one generation to the next.What I meant was that humans have not experienced dramatic adaptive reduction. For example, there few-celled blobs with very few features, no digestive systems, and no nerves that are actually highly reduced derived flatworms, not earlier-branched relatives.

It seems to me that Lydardia is implying that trees only ever have a single branch. Perplexing to say the least, from both a botanical and an etymological perspective.

hah!

You could, but it'd be a gross misuse of the word "law" as it applies to science, since "law" does not mean that. It's an obsolete term. What you call a "law" is called a fact in science.

As I understand it, it is. Would you care to provide an alternate explanation/definition?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4bhFTWqJPJ4

The link above proves the theory of evolution.

southpark...i do need some popcorn.

southpark...i do need some popcorn.

"And then that squirrel had butsex with that monkey creating a retard baby"

Horse and donkeys can breed.

So can lions and tigers.

Your analogy is false.
Yes, they can have offspring, however, these offspring are always infertile, and can never have offspring of their own.

What I meant was that humans have not experienced dramatic adaptive reduction. For example, there few-celled blobs with very few features, no digestive systems, and no nerves that are actually highly reduced derived flatworms, not earlier-branched relatives.

why would we need to adapt at all at this point? The moment the first neanderthal thought to himself "me no need claws to defeat sabertooth tiger, me can poke it with sharp stick" that was kinda the end for human's need to adapt to suit it's enviornment...

Yes, they can have offspring, however, these offspring are always infertile, and can never have offspring of their own.

False. Mules, ligers, and tigons have been fertile in several cases.

Yes, they can have offspring, however, these offspring are always infertile, and can never have offspring of their own.

Poor impotent ligers.

Yes, they can have offspring, however, these offspring are always infertile, and can never have offspring of their own.

So what about the incredibly rare, but still occuring, fertile mules?

why would we need to adapt at all at this point? The moment the first neanderthal thought to himself "me no need claws to defeat sabertooth tiger, me can poke it with sharp stick" that was kinda the end for human's need to adapt to suit it's enviornment...
Actually, they were taught how to do that by a giant black monolith that came down from space.

False. Mules, ligers, and tigons have been fertile in several cases.
Well blow me down!

I'll revise my statement. In most cases they are inviable.

why would we need to adapt at all at this point? The moment the first neanderthal thought to himself "me no need claws to defeat sabertooth tiger, me can poke it with sharp stick" that was kinda the end for human's need to adapt to suit it's enviornment...Yeah, the topic of modern Human evolution is interesting. I really do not know much about it, but it would seem that our invention of tools and technologies has reduced the rigor of the natural selection process. We are still absoloutly vulnerable to many selective pressures however.

That is just far too much of a hodge-podge to go into closely: first you call the force which causes falling to be gravity, and then you call the act of falling gravity.

Because things fall, gravity exists. We assume there is a force--but as that force is theoretical, we state that things fall, and this is what we define as gravity. Whether it is an effect or an action is exactly the debate at hand.

People who have any faith-based anti-evolutionary argument please do me a favor.

If you don't have a fact based argument including 1)the Bible and 2)actual scientific studies, please, just please, do not make any more posts. You just make anyone with a valid argument from that point of view look very stupid.

Let people who have something to say that's meaningful and based in biblical, rational fact speak for you.

Yes, they can have offspring, however, these offspring are always infertile, and can never have offspring of their own.

O RLY?

a 15-year-old ligeress at Munich Zoo produced a li-liger after mating with a lion.

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers2.html

Several female mules have produced offspring when mated to a purebred horse or ass. Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules

In India, a tigon named Rudhrani, born in 1971, was mated to an Asiatic lion called Debabrata and produced 7 li-tigons in her lifetime

People who have any faith-based anti-evolutionary argument please do me a favor.

If you don't have a fact based argument including 1)the Bible and 2)actual scientific studies, please, just please, do not make any more posts. You just make anyone with a valid argument from that point of view look very stupid.

Let people who have something to say that's meaningful and based in biblical, rational fact speak for you.

So everything written in the Bible is set fact?

Yeah, the topic of modern Human evolution is interesting. I really do not know much about it, but it would seem that our invention of tools and technologies has reduced the rigor of the natural selection process. We are still absoloutly vulnerable to many selective pressures however.

Let us not forget that a few tens or even hundreds of thousands of years are still pretty much a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.


______________

Forgive me if that wasn't the most persuasive post, but I'm currently distracted by the myriad mathematical possibilities of cross-breeding tigons, ligers and mules. What the hell would you call their offspring? Tigaligamus?

Well blow me down!

I'll revise my statement. In most cases they are inviable.

also untrue.

Male tigons and ligers have never been shown to be fertile.

FEMALE tigons and ligers on the other hand typically always are fertile, or at least, with no less frequency then their parent species.

Mules have fertility much more rarely, and again only females.

Actually, they were taught how to do that by a giant black monolith that came down from space.

Unfortunately, I think Rev. Jesse Jackson is going back to where he came from.

We're screwed.:D

Actually, they were taught how to do that by a giant black monolith that came down from space.

That sounds oddly familiar...

This is starting to be like an old, favourite movie: You've seen it before many times, the ending is still the same, but you keep on watching it anyway.

People who have any faith-based anti-evolutionary argument please do me a favor.

If you don't have a fact based argument including 1)the Bible and 2)actual scientific studies, please, just please, do not make any more posts. You just make anyone with a valid argument from that point of view look very stupid.

Let people who have something to say that's meaningful and based in biblical, rational fact speak for you.

how about I just dismiss the entire bible as fake and move on from there?

Because things fall, gravity exists. We assume there is a force--but as that force is theoretical, we state that things fall, and this is what we define as gravity. Whether it is an effect or an action is exactly the debate at hand.

Yes, but the real question is whether that force always acts in the same way throughout time and throughout the cosmos, and whether any human formulation that we may label 'the law of gravity' accurately describes such action.

also untrue.

Male tigons and ligers have never been shown to be fertile.

FEMALE tigons and ligers on the other hand typically always are fertile, or at least, with no less frequency then their parent species.

Mules have fertility much more rarely, and again only females.
I'm giving up on this one, I obviously don't know enough on the topic to argue it.

That sounds oddly familiar...
2001: A Space Odyssey.

Horse and donkeys can breed.

So can lions and tigers.

Your analogy is false.

No, your grasp of the situation is insufficient.

Horses and Donkeys can breed to make Mules, which are unfortunately sterile and cannot breed with other mules to make more mules...

Lions and Tigers can breed to make Ligers, which, while being pretty damn cool, are sterile.

There are Dolphins that breed with Porpoises to make... I don't think they gave THOSE a technical term, but those are sterile too.

That's kinda the key to determining what makes a new species. If interbreeding takes place, but the offspring is itself incapable of further interbreeding, then the two creatures are considered of separate species.

Now, while it might be physically impossible to achieve naturally, it is quite possible for a Great Dane to have puppies resulting from impregnation by chihuahua... and against all logic, it would be possible for those poor poor poor... poor... poor poor poor creatures to make more puppies of their own with a poodle or a labrador or another chihuahua...

Edited: Looking a tad further, it is noted that various examples defy the norm and can achieve genetic viability for further procreation, but such was commonly discussed as the exception to the rule.

I think it should be the theory taught in school, but I also think that the environment in which any slight criticism of scientific orthodoxy is treated as Heresy at best and Madness at worst has got to go. In other words, point out and stress that it is a theory, as yet not disproved, and that there are other theories which do not have to be named.

That way, parents can talk to their kids and maybe have them read some Intelligent Design books, or say "Study that to pass your test, but remember God did it all in Six Days" or whatever they want their kids to know, and their kids will be more receptive to what their parents want them to, while still absorbing the widely accepted but not infallible knowledge on the subject.
While we're at it, we can also stress that electricity, gravity, nuclear fusion and that superman capes don't allow you to fly are also theories, as yet not disproved and that there are other theories out there.

That way, all the simpletons out there who don't understand the scientific meaning of the word 'Theory' can hug radioactive isotopes in their sleep, bathe with electric bar heaters and jump off tall buildings yelling "Ich bin der ubermensch!".

Are we to believe that the Germans became taller because they were eating from the tops of trees, while the Asians foraged in the undergrowth?

Yeah! They evolved from a different kind of monkey.. Opps, can't say that. They evolved down a different path from the "common ancestor"

:D

we have exactly the same amount of evidential support for thinking that gravity always operates in a way that can be approximated by ye olde inverse square law, and that gravity has and will work that way until march 19th, 2037 (at which point it will work on more of an inverse square root law).

Everything falls. That is an observation, or an instance, of gravity. It does not change; thus, it is a law.

Our definition of the mechanisms that cause gravity may be affected, but gravity stays constant--it exerts a force, or is the exertion of a force, that is irrefutable.

why would we need to adapt at all at this point? The moment the first neanderthal thought to himself "me no need claws to defeat sabertooth tiger, me can poke it with sharp stick" that was kinda the end for human's need to adapt to suit it's enviornment...

yeah, because clearly there was no selective pressure from then on...

So everything written in the Bible is set fact?

I didn't qualify the Bible. I believe it is factual. I also believe in evolution.

People who claim christianity and like/dislike evolution (note that i do not say "agree") do either school of thought a disservice by presenting a poorly developed argument.

how about I just dismiss the entire bible as fake and move on from there?

Heh, if you did that I'd have to call you my best friend hence-forth.

rofl

Everything falls. That is an observation, or an instance, of gravity. It does not change

does this hold after march 19th, 2037? demonstrate how you know this.

I didn't qualify the Bible. I believe it is factual. I also believe in evolution.

People who claim christianity and like/dislike evolution (note that i do not say "agree") do either school of thought a disservice by presenting a poorly developed argument.

Just curious... How can you believe in Genesis and Evolution at the same time?

No, your grasp of the situation is insufficient.

Horses and Donkeys can breed to make Mules, which are unfortunately sterile and cannot breed with other mules to make more mules...

Lions and Tigers can breed to make Ligers, which, while being pretty damn cool, are sterile.

There are Dolphins that breed with Porpoises to make... I don't think they gave THOSE a technical term, but those are sterile too.

That's kinda the key to determining what makes a new species. If interbreeding takes place, but the offspring is itself incapable of further interbreeding, then the two creatures are considered of separate species.

Now, while it might be physically impossible to achieve naturally, it is quite possible for a Great Dane to have puppies resulting from impregnation by chihuahua... and against all logic, it would be possible for those poor poor poor... poor... poor poor poor creatures to make more puppies of their own with a poodle or a labrador or another chihuahua...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introgression
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/introgression_faq_2006.html

I am leaving now, have fun with this.

No, your grasp of the situation is insufficient.

Horses and Donkeys can breed to make Mules, which are unfortunately sterile and cannot breed with other mules to make more mules...

Ah, but not all mules/hinnies are truly sterile - there have been cases of fertile mules/hinnies who have been able to reproduce with horses or donkeys.

Let us not forget that a few tens or even hundreds of thousands of years are still pretty much a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.


______________

Forgive me if that wasn't the most persuasive post, but I'm currently distracted by the myriad mathematical possibilities of cross-breeding tigons, ligers and mules. What the hell would you call their offspring? Tigaligamus?Absoloutly.

Also, i have no idea why everyone fires off the inevitable mule arguments and postulations. Look no further than your local garden centre for hundreds of examples of very alive, very viable inter-species crosses. People neglect plant evolution to their detriment. I did not understand speciation well until this year when I had to take a course in seed plant taxonomy. Plants offer a much more diverse range of organisms (including asexual, selfing, polyploid-speciations, and outcrossers) than the conventional mammals people seem obsessed with.

Lions and Tigers can breed to make Ligers, which, while being pretty damn cool, are sterile.
Actually female Ligers can reproduce.

incidently, a Liger is a cross between a male lion and a female tiger. female lion/male tiger x is called a Tigon. Oddly enough, Tigons are dwarfs (around 1/2 the size of a lion), whereas Ligers are giants (up to twice the size of a tiger).

No, your grasp of the situation is insufficient.

Horses and Donkeys can breed to make Mules, which are unfortunately sterile and cannot breed with other mules to make more mules...

Lions and Tigers can breed to make Ligers, which, while being pretty damn cool, are sterile.

There are Dolphins that breed with Porpoises to make... I don't think they gave THOSE a technical term, but those are sterile too.

That's kinda the key to determining what makes a new species. If interbreeding takes place, but the offspring is itself incapable of further interbreeding, then the two creatures are considered of separate species.

Now, while it might be physically impossible to achieve naturally, it is quite possible for a Great Dane to have puppies resulting from impregnation by chihuahua... and against all logic, it would be possible for those poor poor poor... poor... poor poor poor creatures to make more puppies of their own with a poodle or a labrador or another chihuahua...


Don't make me quote myself, i hate it.

but what the hell.....

O RLY?



a 15-year-old ligeress at Munich Zoo produced a li-liger after mating with a lion.

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers2.html



Several female mules have produced offspring when mated to a purebred horse or ass. Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules



In India, a tigon named Rudhrani, born in 1971, was mated to an Asiatic lion called Debabrata and produced 7 li-tigons in her lifetime

It is POSSIBLE that liger/tigon offspring are also fertile, however there haven't been enough ti-ligers, li-ligers, ti-tigons and li-tigons bread to know for sure.

...but gravity stays constant--it exerts a force, or is the exertion of a force, that is irrefutable.

How do you know this?

You can, sort of. Evolution is directionless - that is, it isn't linearly moving to some sort of peak of perfection. Complex adaptations are often lost subsequently if they are no longer advantageous, creating reduced, simple froms of previously more complex organisms. This is extremely common in animal and plant evolution. The fact that it seemingly hasn't occured in humans is arbitrary dumb luck.

Actually it is kind of repeatable... its only preliminary but it looks reasonably convicing http://news.com.com/Is+evolution+predictable/2100-11395_3-6074543.html

Actually female Ligers can reproduce.

incidently, a Liger is a cross between a male lion and a female tiger. female lion/male tiger x is called a Tigon. Oddly enough, Tigons are dwarfs (around 1/2 the size of a lion), whereas Ligers are giants (up to twice the size of a tiger).

yeah I remember reading that. I think it's because of the genetic code that triggers a stop in growth is on the female lion and the male tiger, which means tigons get a double dose of this growth slowing genes, making them smaller.

Ligers being from male lions and female tigers do not get it at all, and ligers do, in fact, continue to grow their entire lives, growing to the point that their bodies can no longer support themselves, unless given hormone therapy to some extent to halt their growth.

Actually female Ligers can reproduce.

incidently, a Liger is a cross between a male lion and a female tiger. female lion/male tiger x is called a Tigon. Oddly enough, Tigons are dwarfs (around 1/2 the size of a lion), whereas Ligers are giants (up to twice the size of a tiger).
Well that parts not odd... I believe how it works is that in lions the gene for growth hormone is expressed in the males, and in tigers in the females... so Ligers get a double dose and Tigons don't get it at all.

Well, there are arguements for both points.

From monkey's:
We share sooo much DNA
We have itty bitty tail bones
We have so many simmilarities

Not:
We also have DNA almost the same as rats, did we evolve from them?

But the second one has less points, so you loose. :p

Actually, we also share a common ancestor with rodents, that is to say primates and rodents are more closely related then say... dogs and rodents, or dogs and primates.

Actually it is kind of repeatable... its only preliminary but it looks reasonably convicing http://news.com.com/Is+evolution+predictable/2100-11395_3-6074543.htmlCool, but I don't see how it relates to the point I ws making. By "directionless" I meant that there isn't an ultimate peak of complexity all evolution is setting it sights on, but rather, that selction just goes with the flow, regardless of whether it leads to reduction or elaboration.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

I AGREE with You100%.

yeah, because clearly there was no selective pressure from then on...

pressure? yes, there has been pressure. There has also however been a way to circumvent or defeat that pressure.

Once we learned to start using tools to increase our survival, we started with our ability to alter our enviornments to suit us, not changing to survive in the enviornment.

Certainly there's an evolutionary pressure to favor those with a lot of body hair here in cold cold boston, but that pressure doesn't affect our development. Why would it? We wear heavy clothes and heat our homes. We are able to do so with such total efficiency that even those of us totally unsuited for cold weather can survive in it with minimal effort.

By "directionless" I meant that there isn't an ultimate peak of complexity all evolution is setting it sights on, but rather, that selction just goes with the flow, regardless of whether it leads to reduction or elaboration.

Some effectively random shit happens, sometimes things fuck up and die.

I AGREE with You100%.

Is it odd that we have had three brand new people arguing against evolution, the first two of which have recently logged off, or is it just me?

pressure? yes, there has been pressure. There has also however been a way to circumvent or defeat that pressure.

Once we learned to start using tools to increase our survival, we started with our ability to alter our enviornments to suit us, not changing to survive in the enviornment.

and this ability just showed up fully formed with no possibility of improvement?

This is not going to end well.

*grabs chair, makes popcorn, watches with interest*

LOL:D

This is not going to end well.

*grabs chair, makes popcorn, watches with interest*

*brings beer*

and this ability just showed up fully formed with no possibility of improvement?

Big Black Monolith!

Some effectively random shit happens, sometimes things fuck up and die.Yeah! the most succinct summation of all evolution goes like this: "shit happens"

I mean, when you think of it, the vast majority of things that have ever lived are now dead because shit happened.

Once we learned to start using tools to increase our survival, we started with our ability to alter our enviornments to suit us, not changing to survive in the enviornment.

Did we not alter our environment to suit ourselves before we picked up tools?

A male mastiff and a female poodle wouldn't be able to breed either (except artificially), but they are both dogs. Also, those fruit flies that couldn't breed were still both fruit flies. Everyone quit using laboratory examples since that is not a natural enviroment. They can't prove evolution, so they mess with animals in a lab using artificial means.

Of course a male mastiff and a female poodle could breed together. If they can make a shepadoodle, they can make a moodle. ;)

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/shepadoodle.htm

and this ability just showed up fully formed with no possibility of improvement?

I was being facitious of course. Obviously our intelligence has evolved as much as say...sharp claws and fangs may have in other animals.

At some point however we stopped needing to evolve because we have been able to overcome that selective pressure without it.

It is unlikely human beings will continue to evolve (mutate yes, but not evolve) is there not likely to be any change in climate that we can not counter that will at the same time not result in our near total devastation as a species.

Actually, we also share a common ancestor with rodents, that is to say primates and rodents are more closely related then say... dogs and rodents, or dogs and primates.

The fact that all animals HAVE DNA is not proof, but result of common derived ancestry, which must date all the way back to THE first single-cell organism.

Cool, but I don't see how it relates to the point I ws making. By "directionless" I meant that there isn't an ultimate peak of complexity all evolution is setting it sights on, but rather, that selction just goes with the flow, regardless of whether it leads to reduction or elaboration.

Yeah .. oops.. that wasn't really appropriate to your post.. was more for the fellow who thought that no new genes were being formed and the fellow who thought that mutations could only be negative.. Here we have a set genetic pool being altered without sexual reproduction and being able to better survive its environment... and not only that but its able to do it in a semi consistent way.

But your right it wasn't that relevant to your post :( so sorry about that.

I was being facitious of course. Obviously our intelligence has evolved as much as say...sharp claws and fangs may have in other animals.

At some point however we stopped needing to evolve because we have been able to overcome that selective pressure without it.

It is unlikely human beings will continue to evolve (mutate yes, but not evolve) is there not likely to be any change in climate that we can not counter that will at the same time not result in our near total devastation as a species.

i'm not sure what you mean by 'evolve' such that we aren't doing it right now.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

LOL!

:D :D :D

Gravity is not a theory. It's a law.

*sigh*

A "law" is an archaic and practically meaningless term in science. The best definition might be something like "a theory which happens to feature a mathematical equation." Gravity is a theory, I promise you. Ask any actual scientist. The theory of universal gravitation is no better established and no more "proven" than the theory of evolution.

The theory of universal gravitation is no better established and no more "proven" than the theory of evolution.

In fact, it's less well established. Seriously.

Overwhelming scientific evidence as opposed to a bunch of assholes sitting around thinking of 'deep things' that some dude alledgedly said 500 years before they started writing them down.

The bible is the world's bestselling work of fiction.

Just curious... How can you believe in Genesis and Evolution at the same time?

The Bible agrees with what science says. Genesis is simply misinterpreted by biased closeminded people that do not believe in the one thing that could justify any theory religiously: God is omnipotent.

First, created existence and matter (Gen 1:1-2)

The two necessary things for any creational theory.

Second, God made light and night/day (Gen 1:3-5)

Makes sense with big bang. Here, anyway, matter must have existed before energy but there isn't any energy without matter to begin with. As far as night and day, it doesn't seem like it means anything more than that there can be light, there can be absence of light.

Third, made earth's atmosphere (Gen 1:6-8)

Heat from the sun and chemical reactions taking place created the ozone and all of the levels of the atmosphere. Hence, the separation of waters of the sky and surface.

Fourth, made land (Gen 1:9-10)

The earth is mainly aqueous and probably covered with mostly water. The tectonic plate theory explains that shifting plates and magma would eventually rise in some places and displace water there thusly making land masses.

Fifth, made vegetation (Gen 1:11-13)

Plants would have been more suited to a primarily water bound environment, and also, these are all starting off as simple organisms. Plants are easy like that.

Sixth, made the sun. (Gen 1:14-18)

Made the sun after light? Not necessarily. The earth just wasn't in orbit around the sun. The colossal force that must have been the big bang would definitely have not ended the inertia of the planets and stars. What resistance is void in space going to present for a heavenly body of mass? None.

Seventh, you get your non-human animals. (Gen 1:19-25)

These are just the ones that predate humanity, though. This is just THE creation, not continued adaptation. "Creation" here means the time between nothingness and the creation of man. Most animals probably evolved to whatever they were before himans came around. It's just what God defined as human. So that... (continued in next thing)

Eighth, made man (Gen 1:26)

...all of the semi-human and apelooking humans we've found thus far are not necessarily human, except whichever one's God called Adam and Eve. The ones that are spread around the continents, however, seem to be justifiable. They are descendants of Adam and Eve, but realize that the entire human polpulation narrows down in the flood (down to Noah and his family).

The operative belief here is that God is omnipotent. He is not constrained by time here, so the signs and markings of a millenia could have been produced in one day.

If the extremely long lives seem absurd, remember this: God created man in his likeness. God is eternal and humans were supposed to be eternal. The reason people die of "old age" is called apoptosis. Cells of organisms will only reproduce so many times. Apoptosis nowadays tends to kick in anywhere from 100 to 120 years of age, thousands of years after creation, but right after the fall apoptosis had only just been in place.

Once again, all back to the idea that God is omnipotent.

The Bible agrees with what science says.
...
Sixth, made the sun. (Gen 1:14-18)

Made the sun after light? Not necessarily. The earth just wasn't in orbit around the sun. The colossal force that must have been the big bang would definitely have not ended the inertia of the planets and stars. What resistance is void in space going to present for a heavenly body of mass? None.

heh

Just got here and read the last few pages....But what does mules and other hybrids have to do with evolution? That is intrabreeding not interbreeding. That has never been part of the theory.

When evolution talks of interbreeding it is between closely related relatives. Such as father-daughter brother-sister, etc. A few individuals become isolated and breed with whats available. This is also what happens when humans artificially isolate a trait and form a new breed of cattle or dog. The individuals with the trait that is wanted are interbred to isolate that trait, those without the desired trait are removed (castrated). Then close interbreeding between closely related individuals takes place until all offspring have the desired trait. A new breed is created. If those individuals would remain isolated for thousands of years enough changes can take place and be preserved by interbreeding of close relatives to make breeding with the original species impossible or infertile.

Eighth, made man (Gen 1:26)

...all of the semi-human and apelooking humans we've found thus far are not necessarily human, except whichever one's God called Adam and Eve. The ones that are spread around the continents, however, seem to be justifiable. They are descendants of Adam and Eve, but realize that the entire human polpulation narrows down in the flood (down to Noah and his family).


Isn't Inbreeding both considered morally and counter-productive to evolution?

That minor point aside, I do agree that the Bible is not mutually exlusive to evolution.

yeah, that sort of threw me off the first time i read that, but it makes sense with context, as many things do.

it still all goes into theory and the belief that God is omnipotent, but i'm getting tired of saying that.