Evidence for evolution

Darkasassin96

New member
Oct 25, 2011
77
0
0
zakkro said:
Darkasassin96 said:
As was expected, scientists did not want to beeive it so they changed the theory so many times it barely resembles Darwins original assumption
You're right: science happened. Also, it wasn't an assumption so much as it was inferences.

Also-also, of COURSE the theory of evolution as it stands today is different than what Darwin had originally shown, so I don't see what the problem is. Also-also-also, the theory of evolution isn't THAT wildly different since it's still based on mutation and natural selection (yeah, yeah, there's genetic drift as well), which are the mechanisms Darwin proposed. So no, it isn't ONLY about mutation.

Side-bar: I've seen it on this site more than others, but I must ask: Why do some people ignore natural selection?

OT: I doubt you're going to convince your dad of anything. My sister knows nothing about evolution at all, so I've learned to never bring it up around her.
As i must respect you for having more common sense than the tried and true atheist i stand against, and some tried adn true religous people i stand with i must point out three things. One as was expected you did not give any evidence to contradict what i say, two Darwins original theory made no mention of mutation, three i didnt ignore natural selection, i just called by its modern name microevolution, which is as much a scientific law as bacon is delicous(ignore the comparison).
 

Dangit2019

New member
Aug 8, 2011
2,449
0
0
Macrobstar said:
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.
Tsk Tsk. I believe in both actually, and am sad that some people are insistent that evolution can't work just because "it's not in the Bible hur dur". I'll bet money that your dad never read through the entire Bible, but that's not my point.

My personal belief is that God made humanity (I also believe in old world Christianity) and humanity and creatures have since evolved as time has passed. I have actually asked committed Christians around me why this couldn't work after they told me evolution is "just a theory" -sigh- and they could not give me ONE reason to differ. Now, I know there are probably complications to my theory to be worked out, 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.
 

zakkro

New member
Aug 6, 2009
27
0
0
Darkasassin96 said:
As i must respect you for having more common sense than the tried and true atheist i stand against, and some tried adn true religous people i stand with i must point out three things. One as was expected you did not give any evidence to contradict what i say, two Darwins original theory made no mention of mutation, three i didnt ignore natural selection, i just called by its modern name microevolution, which is as much a scientific law as bacon is delicous(ignore the comparison).
I do say sir, you provided no evidence for your ramblings either. And no, "microevolution" isn't the modern word for natural selection. Natural selection is the modern word for natural selection, and it is not a law, it is a mechanism. Unless you'd like to state the Law of Natural Selection for me, please, as you see: laws generally have a formal statement, usually accompanied by a mathematical equation.

I will admit I have no evidence that Darwin proposed mutation along with natural selection, but he did use the phrase "descent with modification" which... oh crap, I do believe IS mutation. Hm.
 

Darkasassin96

New member
Oct 25, 2011
77
0
0
zakkro said:
Darkasassin96 said:
As i must respect you for having more common sense than the tried and true atheist i stand against, and some tried adn true religous people i stand with i must point out three things. One as was expected you did not give any evidence to contradict what i say, two Darwins original theory made no mention of mutation, three i didnt ignore natural selection, i just called by its modern name microevolution, which is as much a scientific law as bacon is delicous(ignore the comparison).
I do say sir, you provided no evidence for your ramblings either. And no, "microevolution" isn't the modern word for natural selection. Natural selection is the modern word for natural selection, and it is not a law, it is a mechanism. Unless you'd like to state the Law of Natural Selection for me, please, as you see: laws generally have a formal statement, usually accompanied by a mathematical equation.
Thn explain to me what natural selection is becausee ive obviously missed the point. My thought was that natural selection was what happened when microevolution took place. Something with a longer beak was able to survive so it passed its beak on and it stacked on top of othe rlonger beaks, therefore the ones with the longer beak survived as it was more fit to live eventually giving rise to a new species of bird. adn then it starts all over as new conditions arise to change the way it needs to do things.
 

zakkro

New member
Aug 6, 2009
27
0
0
Darkasassin96 said:
Thn explain to me what natural selection is becausee ive obviously missed the point. My thought was that natural selection was what happened when microevolution took place. Something with a longer beak was able to survive so it passed its beak on and it stacked on top of othe rlonger beaks, therefore the ones with the longer beak survived as it was more fit to live eventually giving rise to a new species of bird. adn then it starts all over as new conditions arise to change the way it needs to do things.
Yes, that is what natural selection is, generally. Those who are more capable of reproducing will pass on their genetic material (with modification). It's not a law, though, and I like that you didn't state the Law of Natural Selection.
 

OuroborosChoked

New member
Aug 20, 2008
558
0
0
Darkasassin96 said:
Ok I am by no means viewing this from a religous standpoint and from a purely scientific standpoint. So lets see what happens.
Bullshit. Please continue, though.

The Finches on the Galopigos islands is a good example. [...] Today that is known as Microevolution, or natural selecton, and is a scientific law as it can be observed at a measureable rate. Now Macroevolution or just evolution as it is commonly known has less evidence.
You know not of what you speak. Macroevolution IS microevolution. It's the same bloody thing, just over a larger time scale. It always amazes me that people can accept microevolution (because hey, they're not clones of their parents), but absolutely refuse "macroevolution" because that means we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees. *facepalm*

Please, do go on... though I will skip a lot of the just utter nonsense, mind you.

As was expected, scientists did not want to beeive it so they changed the theory so many times it barely resembles Darwins original assumption. Now the most widely accepted theory is mutation though judging by what Ive been seeing from this post not so much.
Genetics verifies gradual changes over time. We can track evolution through our DNA. Aside from that, the various hypotheses posited over time get modified with the evidence discovered. However, the core idea (descent with modification over time) remains relatively THE SAME.

Now that thats out of the way lets look at other less long arguments. Most scientists believe it, most scientists believed the Earth was flat,
Name two. It has been known that the world is more or less round for THOUSANDS of years. People have known the world was round since the times of ancient Egypt.

You try to bring a new idea into a science classroom itscompletely stopped by legal battles against scientists.
...and right there. That's where you outed yourself as a creationist... and you weren't hiding it that well to begin with. Your weak understanding of science, history, and basic knowledge gave that away long ago. But the main reason I bring this point up is because the classroom IS NOT A LABORATORY. The high school classroom is not the place for scientific debates. High schoolers aren't scientists. They don't know the difference between black holes or ass holes. Notwithstanding that creationism ISN'T SCIENCE and therefore does not belong in a science classroom...

there is no significant fossil evidence and most "missing links" are nothing more than a few broken up peices of a skeleton.
Yes, please... keep demonstrating your ignorance.

Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

Most notably the Nebraska man is one of my favorites.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

Note that most scientists were skeptical that it even belonged to a hominid and Osborn himself (the paleontologist who wrote the paper hypothesizing that it might be a new species) declined to make the conclusion that it was a hominid.

Where exactly is the entertaining part? That some members of the public got over-excited and over-blew the discovery? That some scientists were proven wrong? It happens, you know. You're often wrong innumerable times before you're right. That's science. Claiming that being wrong in their attempts to understand things makes scientists laughable is ridiculous.
 

Weentastic

New member
Dec 9, 2011
90
0
0
Naleh said:
Weentastic said:
...
TL;DR
People often misunderstand what science is about...
I'm afraid you've misunderstood what science is about, too.

The Scientific Method as you've described it is a wonderful thing. It's a driving engine behind our modern knowledge. But it's not the only engine. There are whole realms of sciences - astronomy comes to mind - where direct controlled experimentation isn't possible. But they're still sciences. When we need to identify them, we call them "observational sciences".*

Basically these are sciences that let nature do the experiments for us. Astronomy has a whole night sky filled with billions and billions of stars. So even though we never set up an experiment, we still have a wealth of data sitting ready for us to analyse. In the same way, evolutionary biology never set up an experiment,** but there's so much evidence - fossils, morphology, genetics, geographic distribution - that we can connect the dots and build reliable theories.

And yes, those theories can be falsified, if we just find some evidence against them. We never have.

Wikipedia has an extremely long article, reflecting the extremely extensive degree of evidence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent]. To scientists, evolution is not even slightly controversial.

* (Actually, few sciences are purely one category or the other. We're not that stupid; we can and do combine evidence from experimental and observational sources. Oh, and there's a third group - formal sciences, which are based on reasoning. Computer science and mathematics are examples of formal sciences.)

** (Well, actually, experiments have been done. If you pick the right species, it's not hard.)
This is a good point, and I always get confused about the blurrier definitions of science. I got really side tracked and the point I guess what I get annoyed at is that people keep trying to "prove" something to people who believe in Creationism. And for every ounce of evidence one side throws at the other, the other side just side steps it somehow. I'd rather have this guy just tell his dad what evolution strictly is so they can stop arguing about it. His dad can't argue with the strictest definition of evolution or survival of the fittest, and he should make the difference between the broader and stricter definitions known.
 

xvbones

New member
Oct 29, 2009
528
0
0
Macrobstar said:
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.
You need to explain to him that there is no dissent in the scientific community about evolution.

You also need to explain to him that he is grievously mistaking the word "THEORY" for the word "HYPOTHESIS."

'Theory' does not mean "educated guess", you see. That's what 'hypothesis' means.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

Which means that what he is dismissing is something that has been tested, repeatedly, and has held up. Repeatedly.

Other scientific theories include GRAVITY AND THERMODYNAMICS.

Whereas there is absolutely zero evidence for intelligent design, as 'ID' is based wholly on faith and not science.

None, whatsoever.
 

Darkasassin96

New member
Oct 25, 2011
77
0
0
zakkro said:
Darkasassin96 said:
Thn explain to me what natural selection is becausee ive obviously missed the point. My thought was that natural selection was what happened when microevolution took place. Something with a longer beak was able to survive so it passed its beak on and it stacked on top of othe rlonger beaks, therefore the ones with the longer beak survived as it was more fit to live eventually giving rise to a new species of bird. adn then it starts all over as new conditions arise to change the way it needs to do things.
Yes, that is what natural selection is, generally. Those who are more capable of reproducing will pass on their genetic material (with modification). It's not a law, though, and I like that you didn't state the Law of Natural Selection.
I like that you didnt say the law of evolution, i also like how you called what i said ramblings despite being valid observations. Id like to point out the, with modification, comment you slipped in. Organisms cannot modify or change there DNA. I said in my commetn with a basic grasp of genetics youd see that. Id like you to give an example of an organism modifying there DNA. The DNA to have a long beak is already present in the birds its just not a very common trait. And im sorry for saying law though it isnt its just on eof those phrases you throw out lke theory and hypothesis, damned nuisances if you ask me.
 

SilentCom

New member
Mar 14, 2011
2,417
0
0
gigastrike said:
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.
Instant conversion: It's like instant noodles but with more science!
 

TheIronRuler

New member
Mar 18, 2011
4,283
0
0
Macrobstar said:
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.
.
Dude, the previous pope believed in evolution.
Another thing - the word "Theory",has two different meanings when you flaunt it around in public with uneducated folk and when you use it in a scientific manner. Why? No clue.
The proper meaning for the word "Theory" is a speculation, proven to be correct by data (Empirical evidence) and now able to precit future data. It is Gravity. It is the motion of the stars with the laws of Kepler.
Some, in order to differentiate between the two, use "Scientific Theory" and plain "theory".
 

xvbones

New member
Oct 29, 2009
528
0
0
Darkasassin96 said:
I like that you didnt say the law of evolution, i also like how you called what i said ramblings despite being valid observations.
They weren't valid observations, they were misunderstandings based on hearsay and conjecture from people who clearly don't know what they're talking about.

There are blessed few actual scientific laws.

(I'd like to point out, again, that gravity is also a theory.)

Id like to point out the, with modification, comment you slipped in. Organisms cannot modify or change there DNA.
I said in my commetn with a basic grasp of genetics youd see that. Id like you to give an example of an organism modifying there DNA.
The DNA to have a long beak is already present in the birds its just not a very common trait.
Sadly, your grasp of genetics is a little more rudimentary than basic.

(also, 'their')

And im sorry for saying law though it isnt its just on eof those phrases you throw out lke theory and hypothesis, damned nuisances if you ask me.
Yes, i agree.

Proper definitions and knowledge of them is SUCH A NUISANCE.

Who needs them?

Blind ignorance is the way to go, I always say.

and by the way:

there is no significant fossil evidence and most "missing links" are nothing more than a few broken up peices of a skeleton.
Is utterly, utterly wrong.

There are no 'missing links' and there is ample fossil evidence.

Just because you haven't bothered to research it does not mean it does not exist.
 

zakkro

New member
Aug 6, 2009
27
0
0
Darkasassin96 said:
I like that you didnt say the law of evolution, i also like how you called what i said ramblings despite being valid observations. Id like to point out the, with modification, comment you slipped in. Organisms cannot modify or change there DNA. I said in my commetn with a basic grasp of genetics youd see that. Id like you to give an example of an organism modifying there DNA. The DNA to have a long beak is already present in the birds its just not a very common trait. And im sorry for saying law though it isnt its just on eof those phrases you throw out lke theory and hypothesis, damned nuisances if you ask me.
I didn't say law of evolution because there isn't one? It's a theory, supported by facts (I suppose there are genetic laws, but I've forgotten what they are), and all sorts of falsifiable hypotheses, and has good predictive powers as well.

Go look up insertion, deletion, and recombination, and tell me that genes don't mutate.
 

Handbag1992

New member
Apr 20, 2009
322
0
0
Darkasassin96 said:
I like that you didnt say the law of evolution, i also like how you called what i said ramblings despite being valid observations. Id like to point out the, with modification, comment you slipped in. Organisms cannot modify or change there DNA. I said in my commetn with a basic grasp of genetics youd see that. Id like you to give an example of an organism modifying there DNA. The DNA to have a long beak is already present in the birds its just not a very common trait. And im sorry for saying law though it isnt its just on eof those phrases you throw out lke theory and hypothesis, damned nuisances if you ask me.
And here is where I stop wondering if you have even the most minute understanding of genetics. Mutation is the process through which DNA modifies itself. It happens usually during meiosis, where the genetic sequence will twist, bend, split and knit back together in a new shape or sequence. This causes anything from birth defects to a new environmental advantage.

This is basic biology, stop arguing.

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

Edit: Oh dear, the person above me said the same thing. Still, at least he isn't as sexy as me.
 

Weentastic

New member
Dec 9, 2011
90
0
0
Stagnant said:
You know, I was about ready to ignore your post, but this particular paragraph really caught my eye, and subsequently my ire. There are so many implications here that are ridiculously unfounded, but I suppose I'll oversee those for the moment. The idea that the logic and philosophy behind supporting an idea which depending on who holds it ranges from unfalsifiable to proven wrong is equivalent to the logic and philosophy behind rejecting it is among that. No, what really bugs me about this is that, despite your scientific background, you don't see the bitter irony in this post in its context. The bitter irony of his father ignoring the prevailing scientific attitude, and you, no matter what the rest of your post says, endorsing exactly that same attitude. The idea that your god is beyond your human reasoning, that it's something you feel rather than think about... Excuse me for being blunt, but that is wrong. Attitudes like that are simply wrong.
I'm really confused by this. I'm not a particularly philosophical person so maybe I just can't penetrate your language. I don't like it when Christians fight with atheists and I thought they should stop. I think Christians should stop trying to prove everyone else wrong and live the way they were supposed to. We are supposed to be a light unto the world, but its not talking about our argumentative skills. I guess I just don't understand what exactly about this makes you so angry. I think Christian living and science are kinda separate. I think I can be a scientist who investigates evolutionary biology without being a bad Christian, which is kind of a taboo in my world. I was taught in my biology classes a very narrow definition of science that helps me keep those two things separate (they called the other things soft sciences), and I think I'm better off for it, because I get my fun from science and my purpose from God. Maybe that's a bit hoidy toidy for you, but I guess if you wanted to tell me what my personal religion is about you can too.,
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
Macrobstar said:
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'll let everyone else here handle the evidence portion because it's late and I'm tired, but your dad, assuming he was being sincere, has a severe lack of understanding of:

A) what constitutes scientific evidence, and;
B) what the term theory, as used in scientific study means.

Honestly, I'd say it's not even worth arguing with him. Explore the topic to expand your own understanding by all means, but anyone who so much as says there's more evidence for intelligent design than evolution has their head so far up their ass that you're only risking your continued relationship with them by trying to pull it out. And I say this because there has to be a tremendous amount of willful blindness going on to even say that intelligent design has any evidence in it's favour at all, let alone more than evolution.
 

Naleh

New member
May 25, 2010
94
0
0
Weentastic said:
Naleh said:
Weentastic said:
...
TL;DR
People often misunderstand what science is about...
I'm afraid you've misunderstood what science is about, too.

The Scientific Method as you've described it is a wonderful thing. It's a driving engine behind our modern knowledge. But it's not the only engine. There are whole realms of sciences - astronomy comes to mind - where direct controlled experimentation isn't possible. But they're still sciences. When we need to identify them, we call them "observational sciences".*

Basically these are sciences that let nature do the experiments for us. Astronomy has a whole night sky filled with billions and billions of stars. So even though we never set up an experiment, we still have a wealth of data sitting ready for us to analyse. In the same way, evolutionary biology never set up an experiment,** but there's so much evidence - fossils, morphology, genetics, geographic distribution - that we can connect the dots and build reliable theories.

And yes, those theories can be falsified, if we just find some evidence against them. We never have.

Wikipedia has an extremely long article, reflecting the extremely extensive degree of evidence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent]. To scientists, evolution is not even slightly controversial.

* (Actually, few sciences are purely one category or the other. We're not that stupid; we can and do combine evidence from experimental and observational sources. Oh, and there's a third group - formal sciences, which are based on reasoning. Computer science and mathematics are examples of formal sciences.)

** (Well, actually, experiments have been done. If you pick the right species, it's not hard.)
This is a good point, and I always get confused about the blurrier definitions of science. I got really side tracked and the point I guess what I get annoyed at is that people keep trying to "prove" something to people who believe in Creationism. And for every ounce of evidence one side throws at the other, the other side just side steps it somehow. I'd rather have this guy just tell his dad what evolution strictly is so they can stop arguing about it. His dad can't argue with the strictest definition of evolution or survival of the fittest, and he should make the difference between the broader and stricter definitions known.
Oh, sweet, someone I was opposing listened to what I had to say. Respect, Weentastic.
 

Isaac The Grape

New member
Apr 27, 2010
738
0
0
Macrobstar said:
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.
We have a Religon and Politics forum. I belive you may want to move this there.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/index/528-Religion-and-Politics
 

Naleh

New member
May 25, 2010
94
0
0
Dangit2019 said:
...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.