thoughts on evolution

It isn't; there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution. While a scientist would hesitate to use the word "fact" or "proven", the modern evolutionary synthesis of natural selection and genetics is about as close to it as anything gets.

Please don't spam the SCIENCE forum with your breathtakingly inane pastings from religious websites, troll. Thanks.

 

Yeah: All examples of kinds producing their own kinds - termed micro evolution, a.k.a. natural selection - termed by a christian - did you read my post?; Unless you're telling me that Black people and white people are two different kinds of animals....

We always see examples of micro-evolution (variations in a kind), and then are told over millions of years one kind can produce another because the differences get so big; Thats not science - noone has ever observed anything remotely close to that, despite pixies dodgy "science".

Finally Neanderthals had bigger brains... so much for us getting smarter!

 

Just like there isn't a challenge to the global warming myth at present? Thats their power to tell you there is a consensus, when there isn't. Don't just regurgitate facts if you don't bring anything but conjecture! Doesn't help anyone

 

Actually there are plenty of instances of observed speciation, mostly as a result of man-made selective breeding. Most instances will occur in nature over periods longer than a human lifetime and so are inferred from genetic information, but there are some well documented cases in the scientific literature where speciation has been observed and documented. Examples include domestic sheep, sticklebacks, fruit flies and plants such as evening primrose and maize.

Here's a nice summary of the current state of knowledge on the issue of speciation. The mechanisms are well understood and uncontroversial.
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

speciation? as in a wolf producing a dog? Like I said the bibilical argument is kinds; speciation is just micro evolution - Kinds have limits - which they cannot trangress (according to the bible); I want examples of macro evolution - monkeys to humans, or fish to bats, or bananas to shrimp - whatever; Please keep up

 

Speciation is macroevolution: the splitting of a species into distinct groups whose differences are great enough that they do not interbreed. If you have a look at the link I provided it will give you references to observed and documented cases in the scientific literature of species branching into distinct groups which can no longer interbreed.

 

I wonder if they could breed?

 

A good example of phenotypic variation creating a situation in which two types of dog can no longer physically interbreed, even if they could do so biologically (via artificial insemination, etc). They are biologically isolated from one another. If there were populations of both types left in the wild, over time we could observe seperate paths of 'microevolution' going on within both strains to the extent that the two would become entirely different species

 

Beautifully put. :cheers2:

 

i knew about that spitting from a same ancestor stuff already but thank you.
but what makes evolution? what is it? like my friend explained the VERY same thing you justed explained but also said that first were dinosuars then "evolution" did wrong in growing vERY BIG animals so then "evolution" decide to start again from mice( he said that we are very close to mice that why they test stuff on them) so after mice monkeys and so forth. but what is evolution? is it like gravity?

also for your assumption on the video ok ok its more like 1500 yrs old and they discover ] the dinosaur bones and there able to know how it looked like?? i can understand us now since we "evoluted" but them to do a pretty clear picture? come on.

 

Sorry, but this argument has already been settled to every educated person's satisfaction, and was done so generations ago. If you have something to add, submit it and get it published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or else STFU and stop wasting the time of other people.

I think this is a lie, not an example of ignorance. But it could be simple ignorance.

You haven't the foggiest clue what science is about, and I won't waste my time trying to teach someone who works so hard to not learn. Every day there are new studies confirming evolution. And there's never been one whose results are inconsistent with evolution.

You pretend there's something to debate, you raise an issue that's completely ridiculous, and because people laugh at you, you imagine yourself to have raised a topic that's still being debated. It's not. Sad, really.

People that fail to believe in the law of evolution usually do not understand what's asserted by it (e.g. "If I have a closed box on a shelf, how long do I have to wait for it to have a little bang in there and a universe created?"). Some just like playing Joe Moron, and for some twisted reason, enjoy annoying others with their stupidity.

 

Um - there isn't an issue with this from a creationists perspective; The common ancestor in both these animals was... wait for it...

A Dog...

Evolutions perspective is that these two animals over millions of years will then create two separate kinds of animals - this has just never been observed, and no data supports it. Its fine to believe that - but its not science...

By the way, from studying dogs and horses, what you usually find is that (although there is significant variation within kinds) the closer you get to the extremes of the variation, the boundaries of the kinds if you will, these breeds suffer more illness and disease, that causes them to die off. If left to nature, these two would dogs would both be dead in a few generations as neither is "hardy" enough - and its only because we support these breeds that they're still around at all. Natural selection always seems to tend towards the norm of the kind.

This is another reason why your argument of leaving these two for millienia will ensure that they die off, not flourish and "evolve".

 

Typical really - you say The truth is you're wrong; All the facts support evolution; Everyday studies support evolution, blah blah blah

But then you offer NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING - bit like dawkins; And let me tell you - if there wasn't anything to argue, then Dawkins, Gould and Morris should be best of friends;

Why don't you just keep quiet and let the adults talk, or are you slow in learning that I have to put this more simply for you??

 

Wooooow

Long dead? This problem lies in archeology

Perhaps the susceptibility of an individual to the negatively-resulting genetic mutations which cause death is an example of natural selection. Evolution is the result of natural selection due to the variances of the gene pool, but it doesn't have to be something that aids in survival, it could be something that keeps a certain part of the population from dying (in this example, those who aren't as susceptible to genetic mutations as others).

Needs source to be addressed

Well, for one, evolution isn't one species suddenly switching to another, it's a long chain of generations of a species which adapt in such a manner that they inherit traits suited for survival in a certain environment, usually one much different than the one their parent species lived in. The environment which forces adaptation, or natural selection, isn't simply limited to the physical environment (i.e. swamp, beach, forest, mountains, lakes, etc), but also to the local food chain, availability of food, competitiveness of mating and a whole plethora of other factors. Still, evolution to the point of an entire species becoming unrecognizable likely takes millions, not thousands of years, and probably longer for complex organisms. I doubt, however, that the horses, pigs and cows of today are genetic replicas of those that lived in the B.C.'s, especially because of the selective breeding they face as a result of domestication of use by humans (such as "milk" cows or better riding horses).

Writing hasn't been around forever, and most things written before then were likely destroyed at some point, you can't preserve things for so long.

The world can't support hundreds of billions of humans, and we don't reproduce quickly enough to populate the Earth that much either.

It isn't 'faulty' so to say. The method to carbon dating works like this: the radioactive isotopes in a given material have a particular rate of deterioration, called a half-life. Carbon dating measures the deterioration of isotopes based on their known half-life and how much remains in a sample, but can only tell us the age of a sample up to the half-life.

lawl


Despite the incredible BSery of the first few sites in the first post, I do enjoy reading what I have so far of this guy's idea on the 'laws of logic'; he doesn't seem ignorant and shares complex reasoning to a degree of deserving props for defending his views:

cont:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/23/feedback-logic-fails-atheism-again

 

Oh - I missed this post;

Its as proven as anything can possibly be, as any BRAINWASHED person will tell you.

Honestly, turn off the TV, and go do some reading for yourself; Look at the facts, look at the arguments on the interpretation on the facts and then tell me the statement you gave above.

 

Once one stops trying to give truth, the truth will find Him.

Speak in humility
And with the best of intent
Don no disguise

Love the gift of wisdom
And plant a tree
To provide the fruit of your toil

All will come
When ready they be
Time is the rose
That comes again without bidding

Harbor thine enemy
In the ravages of war
As he is thy kin and thy brother

Remain steadfast on the mountain
As the peak lies in wait
On each day of morrow

Is it not all part of God's divine plan?

Do you believe he will alter it just for you?

Perhaps we are meant to be fooled.

Perhaps there is no deception of truth.

There is no answer to unasked questions.

Ask, and taketh away.

Answer and replenish.

 

Brainwashing might not be the same thing as adhering to what is or may be becoming the more accepted view on reality by society; the 'evidence', reasoning (logical or emotional or "otherwise" whatever that may encompass) and beliefs you encounter are just a shift in the populace's understanding of what we are. Sucks that people feel the need to be right or wrong, but action and similar purpose demand agreement, and working together seems to require it.

Don't have to answer, but how old are you?

 

I'm curious, why do you think we are superior to animals? Are we not an animal form of life, last time I checked I wasn't a fruit, vegetable or mineral. That just leaves animal.

 

I don't have much time at this point to answer all these points, but:

----
This "problem" rests with archeology; I'd suggest that since archeology has come up with nothing, maybe biology better help them!
----
Quote->Perhaps the susceptibility of an individual to the negatively-resulting genetic mutations which cause death is an example of natural selection. Evolution is the result of natural selection due to the variances of the gene pool, but it doesn't have to be something that aids in survival, it could be something that keeps a certain part of the population from dying (in this example, those who aren't as susceptible to genetic mutations as others).

A This would point to preservation of the created Kinds, not evolutionary thought to new beneficial mutations introduced miraculously that would eventually spawn a new Kind
-----
Quote->Still, evolution to the point of an entire species becoming unrecognizable likely takes millions, not thousands of years, and probably longer for complex organisms
and
It (radioactive dating) isn't 'faulty' so to say. The method to carbon dating works like this: the radioactive isotopes in a given material have a particular rate of deterioration, called a half-life. Carbon dating measures the deterioration of isotopes based on their known half-life and how much remains in a sample, but can only tell us the age of a sample up to the half-life.

A Thats just my point - This world isn't millions of years old; We've made assumptions that we never knew if they were correct in the first place:
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/cse/cse_assumptions.htm

We've assumed in the face of evidence that the rate of decay is constant:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=73

And here is an even more interesting article on a dinosaur dated at 9,800 years:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Most don't even realise that radioactive dating methods are not the primary way to date dinosaurs or the age of the earth - its instead down to the geologic column; Quite happy to show how thats utterly false if you like;

My point is, stop making the assumption the world is million of years old - it isn't - thats the brainwashing! Ever since your first statement in the first class of science, you've been told this rubbish - and I used to believe it too.

quote -> The world can't support hundreds of billions of humans, and we don't reproduce quickly enough to populate the Earth that much either.

Thats absolute evolutionary rubbish; This world isn't overpopulated, not even close and could support much much much more; Do the maths for yourself buddy! Take the average height of a person to be 5"8', x 3" x 2", and multiply by 6.5billion. All these people could fit into the loch ness and all be drowned by it; We could all fit into a single state in the US with plenty of room. How many picture of nature are you presented with every day, where there are no people or settlements in the view; This lie is eugenics, and its caused by those who wish to maintain social dominance over you. Wake up please - we all depend upon it!

quote -> law
Who created the laws? Where did they come from? the laws of physics? chemistry? nature? etc; etc;

 

Aight I'll check it out in the morning man