Evidence for evolution

ChocoFace

New member
Nov 19, 2008
1,409
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.
The theory of evolution is as much a "theory" as the theory of gravity.
Also, we understand less of gravity than evolution.
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
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

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,028
0
0
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.
 

zakkro

New member
Aug 6, 2009
27
0
0
thethird0611 said:
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.
It's not a matter of belief. It's not a matter that positive proof doesn't exist (outside of math, anyways). It's a matter of seeing the evidence. Ring species, ERVs, the fossils detailing the evolution of horses and whales (as just two examples), all are things that we can actually see. While they're a scattershot list of evidence, Creationism cannot account for any of them at all, aside from just saying "It was designed that way." You now what can account for it?
 

MaxwellEdison

New member
Sep 30, 2010
732
0
0
xvbones said:
MaxwellEdison said:
What evidence is there for intelligent design?
There isn't any, but the leading argument deals entirely with 'irreducible complexity' - basically, something so complex it is would be impossible to reach in steps.

The eyeball and the bombardier beetle are at the forefront of this argument, I don't know about the eyeball, but i do know that the concept that the chemicals that mix to create the bombardier's defensive spray could not have adapted naturally without killing the beetle has been disproven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&feature=channel_video_title

^For whenever this comes up, Qualiasoup has done a great video.
 

Tiger Sora

New member
Aug 23, 2008
2,220
0
0
People, we don't need to stoop to their level and preach to them that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. We've science and technology behind us.
We proved that the world is round not flat, and the earth revolves around the sun not everything around us. We used science to prove those, and everyone before believed for fact that they were true. Well they were proven quite wrong, it took time for some to face the facts and accept it. And again science shall not falter here. It's all but a matter of time now. And last I checked, time is on sciences side.
 

triggrhappy94

New member
Apr 24, 2010
3,376
0
0
Did you try citing The Origin of Species, you know what's basically the orign of the theory of evelotion. The various different finches that Darwin uses should be enough.

Also, just about everything is a theory (if you feel like debating metaphysics) except in math and even that's debatable. What I'm trying to say is that just saying that it's a theory doesn't disprove it. In fact, you can say it's a point in its favor. As a theory it's constantly being testing, where ideas like intellegant design or creationism rely on faith.
There's nothing wrong with thinking that fairies created the world, just don't try to pass it off as a scientific fact.

Bacteria are actually a pretty good example of evolution
In high school biology toward the end of the year, I remember instead of doing a disection, we transfered the DNA from a jellyfish into E.Coli cells so they'd glow in the dark.
It's not quite what people think of when they hear 'evolution' but it's pretty much the same principle. Bacteria will constantly trade DNA with the cells around it to mutate, with the hopes of increasing their chances of servival. It's why the anti-biotics used twenty years ago don't work as well now. The anti-biotics have killed all the weaker DNA'd bacteria leaving the one's who are immune. Evolution!
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
zakkro said:
thethird0611 said:
Snip, to save room for scrolling
Again....

"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"."

Also

"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)."

I have learned enough through Psychology testing of our own theories, that factors can play a huge part in results. The difference is, ours can be tested to be replecated because its in present times, Evolution cant.

Now looking at your statement, instead of trying to draw it out and to "look smart", your saying that you have some scattershot evidence(as you called it), and because I cant give you any evidence(that would have any meaning to you, like historical sights lining up with the Bible, and the such, some of which ive seen and some from very trusted people ), that expressly means that Evolution is correct in all ways?

I have no want to call you wrong, because people have their own beliefs and acceptances, but technically what I believe in is faith, and what you believe in, once again, is 'scatter shot' evidence. So we are on the same platform there.
 

Spud of Doom

New member
Feb 24, 2011
349
0
0
Now that I spent a few minutes reading the posts in here, it's amazing how people get so much worse at typing correctly when they're angry.
 

crudus

New member
Oct 20, 2008
4,415
0
0
Darkasassin96 said:
And Mutation has rarely caused a 'new enviromental advantage' and cant even think of an example because most of the time it destroys DNA and to be able to support evolution they have to twist it, the only reason it was considered as evidence or a reason evolution can be possible is because of a lack of evidenc ein the form of the missing links which are still missing.
<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria>Nylonase, <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance>Anti-biotic resistance, <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus>radio tropic fungi, <a href=http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10214.short>resistance to HIV. Shall I continue?

Darkasassin96 said:
Id like you to give an example of an organism modifying there DNA.
<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation>*cough* *cough* *wheeze*. Sorry, I had something in my throat.

brainslurper said:
Ask him why men have nipples.
That is actually because they are formed in the first three months of the pregnancy which is before the sex of the fetus is comes into play.

Tiger Sora said:
We proved that the world is round not flat
I would like to note that the "world is flat" thing got the same reaction it did 2000+ years ago that it does today. Its following was even just as big as it is now. The Greeks knew because you see a ship's sails above the horizon before the rest of the ship!

thethird0611 said:
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).
Well, the way scientific theory works is it just explains a phenomenon. Whether that phenomenon be in atoms, organisms, or gravity. They have undergone testing, extreme scrutiny, and intense observation. That is really all a scientific theory boils down to.

Also, you don't need to watch something happen to prove it. The forensics field would not exist if that were true. In fact the whole point of the forensics field is to prove what happened without seeing it happen. Lets assume that is true for the sake of argument though. Simple bacteria can go through just over 26,000 generations in a year which makes it ideal for watching natural selection happen. It would take humans 400,000 to 500,000 years to do the same which is twice the estimated time Homo sapiens have been around(and 100 times the length of recorded history).

thethird0611 said:
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.
What are your problems with it if I may ask? I know I cannot sway your opinion/beliefs. It is just always fun to swap ideas.
 

zakkro

New member
Aug 6, 2009
27
0
0
thethird0611 said:
I have learned enough through Psychology testing of our own theories, that factors can play a huge part in results. The difference is, ours can be tested to be replecated because its in present times, Evolution cant.

Now looking at your statement, instead of trying to draw it out and to "look smart", your saying that you have some scattershot evidence(as you called it), and because I cant give you any evidence(that would have any meaning to you, like historical sights lining up with the Bible, and the such, some of which ive seen and some from very trusted people ), that expressly means that Evolution is correct in all ways?

I have no want to call you wrong, because people have their own beliefs and acceptances, but technically what I believe in is faith, and what you believe in, once again, is 'scatter shot' evidence. So we are on the same platform there.
Where did I say evolution is correct in all ways? I'm saying you can't provide a better explanation for such observances. That doesn't mean "historical sights," I'm talking about empirical evidence (fossils, genetic evidence, etc). Also, there have been plenty of evidence [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html] showing speciation occurs, hell I even mentioned ring species. It's hard to replicate evolution since there's a bit of randomness to it, and large-scale evolution takes a long time, yet we STILL have evidence of it occurring, and that it has occurred in the past. It's not a matter of belief, you don't have to say "Well, I believe in the existence of ERVs and our common ancestry with chimpanzees, so I guess evolution is right" because you can actually see the evidence there for yourself.
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
zakkro said:
thethird0611 said:
Snip again to help others
Well, thanks for picking out my misspelling. Working for 14 hours and at 1 a.m. tends to make me have misspellings, as well as watching TV at the same time. I meant 'sites', but other than those and the great evidence that quite a bit of the events of the Bible can be proven. (I have most of my research in that area focused on the validty of the New Testament through the writings).

Now, I should put this out there so there is now confusion, but I believe in adaptation, which im pretty sure includes micro evolution

Though that is what I mean, "It's hard to replicate evolution since there's a bit of randomness to it, and large-scale evolution takes a long time" (Yes, im singleing this out from your discussion, so check back for the source if others are reading). Evidence is difference than proof. You (nor any others) have seen this happen in person, so no proof. Because of that, scientist can only theorize that the evidence leads to evolution. Same with the Bible to me, though I have faith in the bible and not Evolution.

(Please do not being in the Micro/Macro argument either please, its the one ive discussed with my friend to extreme lengths, and will not discuss outside there because of the time and lack of proximity)
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Fieldy409 said:
Thing is though, evolution existing doesnt necessarily mean god didnt get the ball rolling in the first place.
Of course not. But some groups seem to think it does, or that it contradicts the old scriptures and traditions where god wills everything in existance just like it is now. The weird process of evolution and time itself does, in my opinion, at least give the possibility of some sort of... Programmer-figure, something that put down the basic parameters and directives from which the various functions of the universe then slowly developed on their own. Sort of like seeding a garden at random.

But again, evolution often contradicts many traditional believes in Yahweh-worship, and I suppose it's there that the conflict lies. If much of your spirital perception of the world hinges on it being around five-thousand years old and created as-is by god as described in the bible, there will be a slight conflict. Either you deny the whole evolution-thing or attempt to fit it in with the traditional legends somehow.
 

FFHAuthor

New member
Aug 1, 2010
687
0
0
Oh look, this thread, again.

For the love of god, THIS one again...

My thoughts on the matter;

It's not a choice between Evolution and Intelligent design. That's like saying that the concept of color is different from the color Orange.

It's a choice between Darwinism and Intelligent Design to describe and understand Evolution. That's the argument between what a color is, green or orange.
 

zakkro

New member
Aug 6, 2009
27
0
0
thethird0611 said:
Well, thanks for picking out my misspelling. Working for 14 hours and at 1 a.m. tends to make me have misspellings, as well as watching TV at the same time. I meant 'sites', but other than those and the great evidence that quite a bit of the events of the Bible can be proven. (I have most of my research in that area focused on the validty of the New Testament through the writings).

Now, I should put this out there so there is now confusion, but I believe in adaptation, which im pretty sure includes micro evolution

Though that is what I mean, "It's hard to replicate evolution since there's a bit of randomness to it, and large-scale evolution takes a long time" (Yes, im singleing this out from your discussion, so check back for the source if others are reading). Evidence is difference than proof. You (nor any others) have seen this happen in person, so no proof. Because of that, scientist can only theorize that the evidence leads to evolution. Same with the Bible to me, though I have faith in the bible and not Evolution.

(Please do not being in the Micro/Macro argument either please, its the one ive discussed with my friend to extreme lengths, and will not discuss outside there because of the time and lack of proximity)
What does the Bible have to do with species evolving? I'm not trying to discredit Christianity.

Yes, and adaptation is a part of evolution. In general. Creatures adapt, and those who are more capable of reproducing will, and their genes will be passed down (but not perfectly).

I just said that positive proof doesn't exist in anywhere but mathematics. For as much evidence as can be thrown out there, evolutionary theory can't be 100% true because there is no such thing in science; we still have much to figure out, I will not deny that. But science IS about accuracy, and explaining mechanisms that explain most, or all of the data.

Unfortunately, I just SHOWED you that we have seen evolution occur, unless you can tell me why all those papers showing observed speciation are wrong, or what they get wrong.

I'm being kinda rhetorical here seeing as how it's probably late for you (it is for me), but really, you have no evidence at all AGAINST evolution. And I won't make this a discussion of macro and micro evolution, because they're the same thing. (Yeah, I can be passive aggressive like a fox late at night.)
 

TheEndlessGrey

New member
Sep 28, 2009
120
0
0
Evolution, the gradual changing of a creature's morphology over successive generations, is not a theory, it is accepted as fact by modern biology. The "Theory of Evolution" is a common misnomer combining the two ideas for which Darwin is best known, Evolution, and Natural Selection. Natural selection is a theory explaining the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, but evolution itself - not a theory.
 

chaos order

New member
Jan 27, 2010
764
0
0
TheEndlessGrey said:
Evolution, the gradual changing of a creature's morphology over successive generations, is not a theory, it is accepted as fact by modern biology. The "Theory of Evolution" is a common misnomer combining the two ideas for which Darwin is best known, Evolution, and Natural Selection. Natural selection is a theory explaining the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, but evolution itself - not a theory.
actually evolution is STILL a biological theory, its what the general population thinks a theory is thats WRONG
 

TheEndlessGrey

New member
Sep 28, 2009
120
0
0
chaos order said:
actually evolution is STILL a biological theory, its what the general population thinks a theory is thats WRONG
Well if you argue in caps I must be wrong. Instead of using my own words again, I'll be lazy and pull a quote from good ole wikipedia:

"Scientists continue to study evolution by constructing theories, by using observational data, and by performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science."

So again, any explanation of how evolution takes places is a theory, but evolution itself, not a theory.