[Discussion] Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Nobel]

This is a silly question life doesnt follow one concrete path

Finally someone who got a sense of creation. Evolution has no limits, no direction, no path, its simply lives.

OT: I cant deny it or accept it, i am forced to run unconsciously. The writings on the wall cannot be more simple...

 

[demon of the leaf]

To me it dont matter because honestly no one can be 100% certain we will find bones which can tell only some of the story but not of how and why these mutations happend the most that matters is the future and making it better for future generations so that they can make it better for the next and so on and so forth

 

[The Great Second Hokage]

God I'm late to the party on this post but Its worth pointing out if someone hadn't already that the theory of evolution and evolution itself are 2 separate things.

 

[Pyro NB]

I believe in it....

 

[FreakensteinAG]

God I'm late to the party on this post but Its worth pointing out if someone hadn't already that the theory of evolution and evolution itself are 2 separate things.

They are? Unless you're talking about an umbrella dictionary definition for evolution, of course. . .

To me it dont matter because honestly no one can be 100% certain we will find bones which can tell only some of the story but not of how and why these mutations happend the most that matters is the future and making it better for future generations so that they can make it better for the next and so on and so forth

While nothing in science is 100% certain (that would defeat the purpose of science in the first place; there must always be room for error and improvements), we can still use mathematics and tools to provide accurate explanations as to why mutations and Speciation occurred.

1. First we use radiometric dating to figure out at what age the bones are (Potassium-Argon is great for anything older than 100K years). Then we radiometrically date the earth around the fossil. This gives us a clue as to the environment of the organism's location.

2. When we know the date of the bones of the organism, we will know at what point on the evolutionary timeline the organism is in relation to its cousins.

3. We take a sample of that bone and extract the DNA from it. Using that DNA, we map the Genome of that organism. We compare that genome with the genome of other organisms to see how similar/different they are to one another. If this organism is very similar to another species, yet younger than it, we can say that this organism is a descendant of this species. When comparing the environment of the ancestor to the environment of the descendant, we can say "Oh, this mutation occurred and served as an advantage to the species, causing that species to survive and reproduce longer and more often."

 

[Multiply]

They are? Unless you're talking about an umbrella dictionary definition for evolution, of course. . .



While nothing in science is 100% certain (that would defeat the purpose of science in the first place; there must always be room for error and improvements), we can still use mathematics and tools to provide accurate explanations as to why mutations and Speciation occurred.

1. First we use radiometric dating to figure out at what age the bones are (Potassium-Argon is great for anything older than 100K years). Then we radiometrically date the earth around the fossil. This gives us a clue as to the environment of the organism's location.

2. When we know the date of the bones of the organism, we will know at what point on the evolutionary timeline the organism is in relation to its cousins.

3. We take a sample of that bone and extract the DNA from it. Using that DNA, we map the Genome of that organism. We compare that genome with the genome of other organisms to see how similar/different they are to one another. If this organism is very similar to another species, yet younger than it, we can say that this organism is a descendant of this species. When comparing the environment of the ancestor to the environment of the descendant, we can say "Oh, this mutation occurred and served as an advantage to the species, causing that species to survive and reproduce longer and more often."

@Bold, I think I know someone who would like to rebut these claims.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Howard]

@Bold, I think I know someone who would like to rebut these claims.

You must be registered for see images

Just watched the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye again earlier and realized what was so familiar about the way Bored38 was talking. All he needed to do was say "observational science and experimental science aren't the same thing, let's define science and evolution" and it would have been a spot on impersonation.

 

[The Great Second Hokage]

They are? Unless you're talking about an umbrella dictionary definition for evolution, of course. . .



While nothing in science is 100% certain (that would defeat the purpose of science in the first place; there must always be room for error and improvements), we can still use mathematics and tools to provide accurate explanations as to why mutations and Speciation occurred.

1. First we use radiometric dating to figure out at what age the bones are (Potassium-Argon is great for anything older than 100K years). Then we radiometrically date the earth around the fossil. This gives us a clue as to the environment of the organism's location.

2. When we know the date of the bones of the organism, we will know at what point on the evolutionary timeline the organism is in relation to its cousins.

3. We take a sample of that bone and extract the DNA from it. Using that DNA, we map the Genome of that organism. We compare that genome with the genome of other organisms to see how similar/different they are to one another. If this organism is very similar to another species, yet younger than it, we can say that this organism is a descendant of this species. When comparing the environment of the ancestor to the environment of the descendant, we can say "Oh, this mutation occurred and served as an advantage to the species, causing that species to survive and reproduce longer and more often."

Evolution is the act of gradually changing over time for better or worse. That is a fact no denying it. Its been studied and continues to be studied everyday. The theory of evolution is the the study of the Mechanisms that we believe evolution uses to change a species such as mutation and natural selection. Those mechanisms are up for debate for sure.

 

[Fearmonger]

No. There is only proof of micro-evolution. A dog changing fur color is not the same as it sprouting an entirely new limb or something of the like (which has yet to be observed).

 

[The Great Second Hokage]

No. There is only proof of micro-evolution. A dog changing fur color is not the same as it sprouting an entirely new limb or something of the like (which has yet to be observed).

Macro evolution takes place over thousands of years...it is being studied everyday. A small example would be the tribe of elephants in africa where males are born without the ability to grow tusks....poachers don't see the need to kill them unless they can get ivory so they aren't being touched. Those elephants will live on. This is a classic example of evolution.

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

Evolution >>>>>>>> Fairy tales & imaginary friends in the sky.

 

[Howard]

No. There is only proof of micro-evolution. A dog changing fur color is not the same as it sprouting an entirely new limb or something of the like (which has yet to be observed).

Animals sprout extra limbs all the time in nature. Some snakes are born with two heads, some cows are born with deformed heads, dual heads, extra eyes, one eye fruit flies can grow extra wings, no wings, a mouth where it's ass should be an ass where it's mouth should be etc etc. Even the Stickleback fish I linked is able to grow and lose a portion of it's body merely by deleting a string of DNA. So yes, a dog changing fur color is the same as it sprouting an extra limb. They're due to some kind of genes being turned off or on or the combination and absorption of twins during the gestation period.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

I get what you're trying to say only because it's the same thing Bored38 was trying to use in earlier arguments in a different way. You're trying to make a point for microevolution and macroevolution being different and they are to an extent. That extent is that macroevoulution to my knowledge and anyone with cited proof can make me look stupid if I'm wrong is the culmination of all the microevoulations of a species until it becomes unable to breed with it's previous incarnation. Meaning it takes thousands of microevolutions over thousands if not millions of years to get to that point where a population is unable to breed with a separate population. Apple Maggot fly is going through the process now. It's broken away from the Hawthorn fly. It no longer shares a common environment, feeds on a separate food source, breeds earlier in the year and it's offspring mature quicker to meet the demands of the Apple trees maturing earlier then the Hawthorns. Most breeding due to environmental crossover is a non-factor and they have to be brought together in a lab to mate. Similar process going on with the Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish. I mentioned these two earlier but they were mostly ignored. I also mentioned an example of specialization/macroevoution through chromosome change in plants. This was mostly ignored as well.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

You must be registered for see links

Later studies showed that at least one of his elementary species was a tetraploid (see below) and it established itself as a new species in self-fertilizing evening primrose.

All of this is directed at both of the users who are making a case against microevoultion and macroevolution without any citation.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Evolution is the act of gradually changing over time for better or worse. That is a fact no denying it. Its been studied and continues to be studied everyday. The theory of evolution is the the study of the Mechanisms that we believe evolution uses to change a species such as mutation and natural selection. Those mechanisms are up for debate for sure.

Where do you see a debate among Biologists involving mutation and natural selection? I was led to believe Genetics and NS were two of the main driving forces behind Evolution, given the incredible amount of evidence to support it. These two mechanisms are tested all the time every day, and not one time so far have they been ruled out when under observation in which it was supposed to work.

 

[Bakimono]

Nah not a lot of it same could be said with creationist to though Evolution By Divine Creation I'll go with that

 

[Jack Spicer]

The poll that was as close to how I felt was the one with God. Evolution happened, but I feel like God or something out there like god or some religion thing is mixed in with it somehow. Maybe not with evolution, but they started it all. Maybe I'm being confusing. Oh well.

 

[Zavage10]

Theory?... I pretty much been proven already...

 

[lagala]

The 'evidence' AGAINST the religion of evolution is so overwhelming as to render the theory laughable.It's funny that any thinking person would even believe it.Building blocks don't build themselves; mutations in already existing genetic material don't explain where that genetic material came from in the first place; information content does not arise on its own and then increase without intelligent input; natural selection works on what's already there, and does not improve survivability, but rather narrows it; life can not arise spontaneously - oh, excuse me - 'abiogenetically'; wings and things don't just magically appear on animals and magically function just right; there's no reason things had to get bigger or more complex; and on, and on, and on.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

The 'evidence' AGAINST the religion of evolution is so overwhelming as to render the theory laughable.It's funny that any thinking person would even believe it.Building blocks don't build themselves; mutations in already existing genetic material don't explain where that genetic material came from in the first place; information content does not arise on its own and then increase without intelligent input; natural selection works on what's already there, and does not improve survivability, but rather narrows it; life can not arise spontaneously - oh, excuse me - 'abiogenetically'; wings and things don't just magically appear on animals and magically function just right; there's no reason things had to get bigger or more complex; and on, and on, and on.

So how was the creator created? If life is so advanced that a creator is required for it to exist, then surely the creator must also require a creator since it is even more complex than life on Earth.

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

The 'evidence' AGAINST the religion of evolution is so overwhelming as to render the theory laughable.It's funny that any thinking person would even believe it.Building blocks don't build themselves; mutations in already existing genetic material don't explain where that genetic material came from in the first place; information content does not arise on its own and then increase without intelligent input; natural selection works on what's already there, and does not improve survivability, but rather narrows it; life can not arise spontaneously - oh, excuse me - 'abiogenetically'; wings and things don't just magically appear on animals and magically function just right; there's no reason things had to get bigger or more complex; and on, and on, and on.

I refuse to believe this is legit and that you're not trolling or else you're missing the entire point of evolution. A.K.A Survival of the fittest.

 

[Cornson]

Theory?... I pretty much been proven already...

google the theory of evolution (it's a scientific term, theory does not mean the same thing for a layman as it does for a scientist)