Evidence for evolution

[xvbones]

First of all my spelling is excellen im just using a crappy keyboard.

Shenanigans.

 

[Naleh]

Oh, sweet, someone I was opposing listened to what I had to say. Respect, Weentastic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not very onboard with the softer sciences. The impact of a discovery gets less and less powerful the farther it gets away from a controlled and well understood environment (at least for me). AMMO boy made a good point about evidence being able to be explained to support multiple hypotheses. Since you can't really rigorously disprove cosmic phenomena because our labs aren't big enough, you probably aren't going to finally "get through" to all those in my boat. Whatever you seem to think counts as science, and I like my science hard, I mainly get annoyed at people who use the word in a sentence like, "I've got COD sniping down to a science". I would hope we can both agree that making a good potato soup is a really really soft science.

I place both astronomy and evolutionary biology firmly in the "hard sciences" bucket. Soft sciences are things like psychology.

That might just be my bias, as someone who loves astronomy and is studying physics.

But I'll agree to disagree. I'm mainly just pleased to encounter someone on the internet who's reasonable and willing to concede some of a point. It happens from time to time but it's unusual enough to be cool.

And now I want potato soup.

 

[Move127]

There is a pretty good series of videos by Thunderf00t on Youtube called Why Do People Laugh at Creationists. Watching those might help you put together a pretty comprehensive argument against anything your dad says.

 

[Naleh]

...but I just hate the assumption by both Christians and atheists alike that

Religion=Denier of science
and
Atheism=Destroyer of happiness and faith.

It irks me beyond reason.

Atheists aren't against happiness.

Faith does strike us as silly, but the vast majority of atheists don't really mind faith either (after all, everyone's silly in some way or another), as long as it's kept private and doesn't interfere with science or society.

I didn't say that, I implied that the more ignorant religious zealots believe that because they suck.

Apologies. I guess I got confused by the "both Christians and atheists alike" part.

 

[xvbones]

I place both astronomy and evolutionary biology firmly in the "hard sciences" bucket. Soft sciences are things like psychology.

Eh. Psychology's just an application of anthropology.

 

[Handbag1992]

@Darkassasin96

You're constantly bitching about evidence, fine. I shall oblige.

Firstly, the presence of vestigial limbs is present throughout many species that, considering their current form, have no use for them. This is present in:

Whales

Spoiler

Snakes

Spoiler

Wait a satan-worshipping second! Why am I doing so much work when other people have done it for me.

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

Wonderful site. Feel free to disagree with it, also feel free to give me reasons why.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

Remember that I won't respect your insults if they have acronyms in the posts.

TL;DR

*Snickers.*

Okay. I will stop being childish now.

Back to the original topic... finding absolute proof of evolution is about as difficult as finding absolute proof of the Ressurrection. There are just way too may people out there, for both topics, who are bound and determined to disbelieve anything that might point in that direction, not because the evidence is flimsy, but because they want it to be.

I think it would do us all some good to admit that we're all on equally shaky ground... we can't really PROVE anything. That said, it is hard to deny that evolution takes place at least within species (forms of dogs mutating into different strains of dogs, the common cold changing enough to hit us again every year, stronger claws and stronger beaks, etc). We have seen that happen, and to say that the virus that is immune to anti-biotics doesn't out-compete its fellows is just a bit nuts. There's plenty of room to argue against monkeys turning into humans without going overboard and rejecting basic fact.

However, if your basis for argument against the theory being taught boils down to, "The Bible says it didn't happen that way, so Darwin is a dirty Communist liar," then I think you have to realize that your point of view cannot be proven either. No matter how many little details from the Scriptures you can point to and say they really happened thanks to records found elsewhere, it doesn't add up to the Bible being absolute truth any more than an odd looking skeleton proves a monkey was your uncle.

At the end of the day, we really just all have to do the best we can.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

By skipping some of my comment you proved that some of this is valid and you dont even want to quote it.

Not even close. It was mostly nonsense rambling, disjointed and out-of-place analogies, and even more ignorance that I didn't feel like addressing.

Lets strt with yur first point microevolution has been proved and macroevolution is barely an idea, they are not the same thing, and even most scientists accept that.

Sources? This is basically the equivalent of "nuh uh!". You're just disagreeing without putting forth anything new.

I, for one, will provide a source though: "The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place."

Emphasis added. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

NEXT!

Second point, genetics disproves macroevolution to the point that Mutation has become the new norm for the theory.

Since macroevolution is essentially the SAME THING as microevolution, genetics cannot support one and disprove the other. You fail utterly.

With 'gradual change' as you say there would be missing links. There have been none found and confirmed because of this mutation has been adopted so that great changes occured over short period of time by radiation or something smilar.

Is this even English? You shift tenses mid-run-on sentence... then you start talking about radiation causing mutations? First off: NO. That's not what people are talking about when they mention mutations. Second, I'm not even going to bother trying to interpret your moonspeak until you can express your ideas clearly.

Third you completely skipped the rest of my post after that where is said HAHA i can do better than that and i did.

No idea what you're referring to and frankly, I'm not bothered at all.

Fourth you instantly labeled me as a Creationist even having made no mention of God.

Yeah, I did. Know why? You are one. You're just pretending you aren't. You're not fooling anyone. You're spouting as fact things only that only people with a poor understanding of evolution spout as fact. Typically, those people are creationists.

And who says that the Highschoolers have to be the ones who bring it up. Plenty of teachers bring i tup and then instantly get fired or are the butt of legal battles because there theories cant stand up. Even though they claim they do, there isnt even a debate about it they just say your wrong im right fire his ass. Ive even heard of teachers that comare the two and theyre fired as well fro even considering a widely held belief, and comparing the evidence to show the children which is right or wrong. Which is a perfectly finr idea with me as long as yoru theory can hold up.

1. Creationism is not a theory.
2. Creationism is not science.
3. Only SCIENCE belongs in science classrooms.
4. I never said high schoolers bring it up. I said they're not capable of making educated decisions on the subject, as they're not scientists. They're in science class to learn about SCIENCE. If they want to learn about creationism, they can go to Sunday school.

If not I might also not want it to be compared by something backed by thousands of years of mostly firsthand reports. Now you may call me a creationist if you wish.

Waaaaaay ahead of you.

Fifth. The video was very informative and contradictory with itself. I especially like the part with the Popes just seconds after claiming that anything that comes out of the mouths of christians is false since they are all uneducated.

Either:
1. You weren't paying attention.
2. You didn't comprehend the subject.

He's very clear and constructs his points exactly. In fact, that first video doesn't even really get into the meat of evolution. That one's mostly an introduction to the whole subject.

Yet he readily accepts the opinions of Popes with probably nothign mor ethan a highschool education in the sciences surrounding evolution. most of which he listed were only vaguely connected. Evolution on its most basic level is a gentetic science.

You~weren't~paying~attention~!

And any video with so many cartoon references is hardly to be taken seriously.

Yeah, you weren't paying attention... You're really not worth talking to if you don't even comprehend simple arguments.

Sixth yes teh Media did get blown out of proportion over a tooth yet someone had to tell the media.

So the scientists are to blame because OTHERS MISINTERPRETED the paper? Given the time, I could point to at least half a dozen other examples where scientists reported one thing only to have it blown MASSIVELY out of proportion by popular media. Your insinuation that the scientists are to blame is absurd.

And if they can get so blown out o fproportion based on no evidence adn speculation wouldnt actual evidence with a complete skelton that was irrefutably a missing link be so blown out of proportion it would rival the findings of the Holy Grail, or as is most likely people giving up the search for that stupid thing.

There are plenty of "missing links" that we have FOUND. We, at this time, have so many "missing links" and such a complete understanding of the strata, we can predict where to find the stages in between two "links"... and find the intermediate form! The very notion of "missing links" in this day and age is laughable!

Seventh There isnt a seventh point you made but i would like to harken back to my original comment when i said that most likely people would yell at me callign me superstitpus an dan idiot and that summs up what you did quite nicely so not only have my own psychic powers been proved you didnt even acknowledge it, great job dude top notch

You're probably just used to it by now. It's easy to understand why. You're welcome.

 

[chaos order]

By skipping some of my comment you proved that some of this is valid and you dont even want to quote it.

No, he's saying that some of what you stated was either irrelevant, nonsense or irrelevant nonsense.

None of what you have stated is valid.

Let me repeat that, none of your statements have any real, true or valid basis in reality and only demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of biology.

Lets strt with yur first point microevolution has been proved and macroevolution is barely an idea, they are not the same thing, and even most scientists accept that.

[Citation Needed]

Second point, genetics disproves macroevolution to the point that Mutation has become the new norm for the theory. With 'gradual change' as you say there would be missing links. There have been none found and confirmed because of this mutation has been adopted so that great changes occured over short period of time by radiation or something smilar.

[CITATION NEEDED.]

Here is an amazing thing about reality: it is real. You cannot just say whatever bollocks comes to mind and have it actually be real, because there really is a real, it is really reality, and what you are saying and what is real?

They are two different things.

Third you completely skipped the rest of my post after that where is said HAHA i can do better than that and i did.

Not really, no. The rest of your post was pretty badly spelled and utterly unresearched, speaking from a position composed of misunderstandings, disproved hypotheses and utter fabrications.

I don't really see why he'd need to quote any of it.

Do you want people to reply to your every single line?


...okay...

Fourth you instantly labeled me as a Creationist even having made no mention of God.

You're a creationist.

And who says that the Highschoolers have to be the ones who bring it up. Plenty of teachers bring i tup and then instantly get fired or are the butt of legal battles because there theories cant stand up. Even though they claim they do, there isnt even a debate about it they just say your wrong im right fire his ass. Ive even heard of teachers that comare the two and theyre fired as well fro even considering a widely held belief, and comparing the evidence to show the children which is right or wrong. Which is a perfectly finr idea with me as long as yoru theory can hold up. If not I might also not want it to be compared by something backed by thousands of years of mostly firsthand reports.

This. This right here? This is a ramble. This is a series of brain farts with no guiding line. There is no truth in this, there is no evidence or proof or 'done better', this is null speech, here, it is meaningless and really, really difficult to read.

Is this what you want people to reply to?

Because the only possible reply to this is "read more books and less internet".

Now you may call me a creationist if you wish.

You're a creationist.

Fifth. The video was very informative and contradictory with itself. I especially like the part with the Popes just seconds after claiming that anything that comes out of the mouths of christians is false since they are all uneducated. Yet he readily accepts the opinions of Popes with probably nothign mor ethan a highschool education in the sciences surrounding evolution. most of which he listed were only vaguely connected. Evolution on its most basic level is a gentetic science.

YOUR GRASP OF SPELLING, GRAMMAR AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE IS AS SHAKY AS YOUR GRASP OF BIOLOGY.

And before you say "I don't need to spell right to be understood" YES YOU DO

In order to be taken seriously, you must know how to communicate in your own fucking language!

SPEAKING OF:

And any video with so many cartoon references is hardly to be taken seriously.

Jesus, dude.

Sixth yes teh Media did get blown out of proportion over a tooth yet someone had to tell the media. And if they can get so blown out o fproportion based on no evidence adn speculation wouldnt actual evidence with a complete skelton that was irrefutably a missing link be so blown out of proportion it would rival the findings of the Holy Grail, or as is most likely people giving up the search for that stupid thing.

You are just saying the same misinformed, disproven things over and over and over.

Why do you want people to respond to this?

This is hell.

I am right now in hell.

Seventh There isnt a seventh point you made but i would like to harken back to my original comment when i said that most likely people would yell at me callign me superstitpus an dan idiot and that summs up what you did quite nicely so not only have my own psychic powers been proved you didnt even acknowledge it, great job dude top notch

WHAT

... you know what fuck this.

Troll or retard, don't know and don't care.

First of all my spelling is excellen im just using a crappy keyboard. Second you mostly proved my last point in that YOU NEVER GAVE ANY EVIDENCE AND CALLED ME A RETARD RIGHT AFTER I SAID YOU WOULD. You sir make me want to go crawl in a hole and never have contact with any of humanity. And no i dont want him to quote my every word but when he makes a comment on a joke sentence and then skips the next sentence when i call it a joke sentence adn correct it thast where I have a little chuckle.

Now im going to look at evidence for creation and im going to use the teh world is flat thing as an example until I think of a better one. Wait ive got one im going to use galileo instead. WHy did the sun is at the center of the solar system get so popular. Well at first it wasnt a very popular Idea at the church becasuse it went against there beliefs or something to do with the earth being the most important thing and it wasnt readily accepted. But afte ra while evidence for it was presented and it was eventually accepted. Why isnt evolution accepted becasue no evidence has been proposed that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is real and...ahhh let me quit kidding myself. I knew i wouldnt convince a single one of you. WHy because you belive in odds greater than drawing a royal flushmore than fifty times in a row with just the amino acids forming a protien. And first the amino acids have to be created. Your Faith is truly stronger than any christian i have ever met.

Miller?Urey experiment look it up

i dont mean to sound like an ass and i mean no disrespect but you honestly do not have a solid grasp of biology. ive seen some of your posts and alot of your thoughts on biology are just wrong, especially mutations.

i dont condemn you for not accepting evolution, you are entitled to believe whatever you want and ill respect that. BUT (BIG BUT) you cant just start spouting things about something you dont understand. If you want to understand evolution and see why soo many (all) biologists accept it, look it up, then if you dont understand or still dont agree then ask or post. at least then your arguments will make sense. (i apologize again if i sound like an ass)

 

[Kopikatsu]

Miller?Urey experiment look it up

i dont mean to sound like an ass and i mean no disrespect but you honestly do not have a solid grasp of biology. ive seen some of your posts and alot of your thoughts on biology are just wrong, especially mutations.

i dont condemn you for not accepting evolution, you are entitled to believe whatever you want and ill respect that. BUT (BIG BUT) you cant just start spouting things about something you dont understand. If you want to understand evolution and see why soo many (all) biologists accept it, look it up, then if you dont understand or still dont agree then ask or post. at least then your arguments will make sense. (i apologize again if i sound like an ass)

Er...the Miller-Urey experiment went a long way towards disproving creationism. Since, you know, they proved that life could have risen from the conditions on a primitive Earth and that life didn't just 'happen' because God said 'AND LET THERE BE LIFE' and Adam appeared.

 

[chaos order]

Miller?Urey experiment look it up

i dont mean to sound like an ass and i mean no disrespect but you honestly do not have a solid grasp of biology. ive seen some of your posts and alot of your thoughts on biology are just wrong, especially mutations.

i dont condemn you for not accepting evolution, you are entitled to believe whatever you want and ill respect that. BUT (BIG BUT) you cant just start spouting things about something you dont understand. If you want to understand evolution and see why soo many (all) biologists accept it, look it up, then if you dont understand or still dont agree then ask or post. at least then your arguments will make sense. (i apologize again if i sound like an ass)

Er...the Miller-Urey experiment went a long way towards disproving creationism. Since, you know, they proved that life could have risen from the conditions on a primitive Earth and that life didn't just 'happen' because God said 'AND LET THERE BE LIFE' and Adam appeared.

well darkasssin ended his post questioning where amino acids came from and how they were formed. i was merely trying to show that he doesnt really understand what he is talking about and he should at least try some research before he starts saying things as fact.

 

[Muspelheim]

I suspect that, at one point, he'll bring up the human eye, and how such a thing is obviously far too complicated to have slowly evolved through chance and time.

Then, present him with this: the human eye proves only two things. Either God is Russian or that it is indeed the result of biological trial and error.

For as far as bio-engineering go, the human eye is really rather slapdash. For one thing, I have glasses to compensate for a built-in fault, one that I share with many, many members of my species. My eyeglobes are simply a bit too large to let the light focus properly on the receptive cells. Honestly, what intelligent designer would do that? And why is it so exceptionally common?

Furthermore, our brains does the majority of the work when it comes to our eyesight. The image produced by the eye is jumbled, jittery, upside-down and unfocused. It's the brain that has to do massive compensational work to create an acceptable image of our surroundings. And even that is prone to failure. Furthermore, the light-receptive cells are rather fragile, and have a tendency to fail when over-exposed, which is why you can go blind from overbright flashes.
Also, there's a big blind-spot in your vision because where the eye-nerve plugs into the eyeball, there are no receptive cells. Which again means that your brain has to compensate and fill it in with the nearest surrounding colour and hope for the best.

The human eye is exceptionally slapdash, fragile and often prone to failure. They also degrade with age, sometimes developing unpleasant diseases. They're also very vulnerable to parasites and infections. Ask anyone who've had a worm burrowing in their eyeball. It's Russian engineering. It barely works and is slapdash to the point of hilarity. But it does work, and we will have to do the best we can with what we've got.

Again, either god just threw it together while he was drunk, or it's a result of a long, long trial and error-process. Biology and evolution is a bit of a mess, but it can reach working results, as is evident since we're sitting here and discussing it from different parts of the globe. The eye is one of them, a mishmash that indeed works, but would not certainly have been designed as it is by some intelligent deity. Unless he was on a deadline and didn't give a toss as long as it worked.

 

[thom_cat_]

That is my favourite one.
It's nowhere near the most convincing, but it's easy to grasp and is very cool.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. Sorry.
Just as there is no evidence for God. If there was there are rewards to be claimed. So if you have any, feel free to go make a few million dollars.

 

[crudus]

evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"

First off I am just going to leave <a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory>these <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory>here. Second off, ask him how <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory>germ theory, <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_theory>circuit theory, and <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory>Information theory are working out for him. Third, people like that aren't going to believe in evolution even if God signed off on it. If you want to even try to convince them, you basically have to go through <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological>teleology to get the right jumping off point. We can watch natural selection take place; we have a list of beneficial mutations a <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit>cubit long just within the passed 50-60 years. There is plenty of evidence. It is just a matter of whether or not people will accept it (spoiler alert: they won't).

Also, intelligent design can't be backed up with observable data, and is basically unfalsifiable. Therefore it is not science.

The most convincing evidence for evolution is when the Vatican came out and said that they accept that evolution exists. I'd look for the article, but I'm too lazy.

No, they said it was <a href=http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/16/us-vatican-evolution-idUSLG62672220080916>compatible with The Bible. Whether it is true is not for them to decide.

 

[LetalisK]

OP: Don't even bother. You will never convince him. It's like arguing at a brick wall.

 

[milna64]

The arguement from biogeographical distribution is one I'd consider the stronger. Or the fossil recording showing the evolution of the ear bones from large jaw bones in reptiles. Or the location of ERVs in humans and apes.

Also, since this is kinda sorta (not really) on topic, I will post this which I just stayed up till 6am writing.

http://stephenmilner.blogspot.com/2012/01/you-are-not-special-and-that-is-what_07.html

 

[ChocoFace]

So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
I tried explaining to him, about fossils and genetics but he wouldn't listen

So escapees, most convincing evidence for evolution?

PS: I also tried "Every noteworthy scientist believes in evolution" he just said, no.

The theory of evolution is as much a "theory" as the theory of gravity.
Also, we understand less of gravity than evolution.

 

[thethird0611]

You know, I remember some thread that someone mentioned "Escapist members are more open-minded and accepting then other communities". Man, was that utterly wrong. At least in this thread.

Ive discussed this topic quite a darn bit with a friend who heavily studies evolutionary theory. And the multiple times of 3+ hours that we have discussed this, neither of us have come to believe the other.

The only reason I can put out for that is whats been said a few times in this thread. Both are on shaky ground on being expressly PROVEN scientifically(And depending on what side your on, one more than the other).

Ive also learned not to even try to discuss this issue with anyone other than close friends(FYI here, I am a believer in Creationism), especially with most of the people in this thread, because they have the mentality of "if you don't believe, your an ignorant, stupid, bone headed, idiot human being because you don't believe the theory that I believe". And don't try to get me about the 'theory' part, because when it boils down to it, it is a theory (even in Psychology, which is what I heavily study), not expressly proven(Who has looked over the earth the last 2 billion years(using science's time here, which I dont have a problem with, nor believe)and seen all this in person? Come forward an ill change my views).

So, anyone who believes in evolution, great, im glad you believe in something, even though I dont believe in it. I may have problems with it, but I dont have problems with you. If you believe in Creationism, great, I do to.

 

[DalekJaas]

Your Dad is obviously far to ignorant to even bother arguing with. Just let it go, I feel bad for all the poor sods out there with god-fearing parents. But you will appreciate it all the more when you get to move out and live your own life.

I used to be all into respect your beliefs, but believing in God is just so downright stupid. What is worse is that people take facts and distort them/ ignore them and argue against them because they take comfort from fantasy stories. If you believe in God to the extent that you actually feel the need to argue for that fallacy you should either staple your mouth shut so your toxic dribble can't flow out onto the world any more, or move to the USA so you can be with your homo-bashing, incest loving, dinosaur dis-believing kin.

You shouldn't even be posting your opinions on a website like this, if you need to voice your love of God and your disgust in all that is real I can link you to the Flat Earth Society forums, I think there you will find people more your speed.

 

[Spud of Doom]

Drug-resistant bacteria are probably the most rapid example that people might be familiar with.