Evidence for evolution

Fieldy409_v1legacy

New member
Oct 9, 2008
2,686
0
0
Muspelheim said:
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.
true true. My father likes to say that the week god took to make all things wasnt really a week.
 

jimbob123432

New member
Apr 8, 2011
245
0
0
Honestly, I wouldn't bother trying to explain. My best friend's mother believes that the dinosaurs died because Jesus came down, surfing on a giant meteorite, and killed them because they were Muslim. I really wish I was joking about that.

Some people just want to believe what they believe. Let them.
 

Agow95

New member
Jul 29, 2011
445
0
0
Tell your Dad that Intelligent design isn't accepted as a scientific theory, then when he says that evolution is just a theory as is normally done, tell him that in scientific terms Theory means "Fact backed up with enough scientific evidence to be accepted as truth" or something along those lines, that is why we still call gravity, the theory of gravity or gravitational theory, because it is scientific fact, just like evolution
BTW There is no plausible evidence for intelligent design, it is based entirely on filling in the gaps between one stage of evolution to the next with "God"
 

ShindoL Shill

Truely we are the Our Avatars XI
Jul 11, 2011
21,802
0
0
MrBenSampson said:
I think that wolves being moulded into the many breeds of dogs should be proof of concept.
there. quick and simple. "we have dogs, dogs were once wolves."
Anthan said:
The fact that cross-breeding exists, think of horses.
A horse breeder breeds two fast horses together to make a faster horse.
and yet none have tried to cross-breed rhinos and horses to make unicorns... pity.

OT: what they said, plus genetic traits. if your parents are both black, you will be too. why are black people black? because they come from places with lots of sun, therefore they get the melanin ionised more, get more in their cells and get darkened. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin#Human_adaptation] we have the chemical inactive (unless the sun activates it) in our cells for a reason. the reason is evolution. we evolved to need it when we're in the sun, not when we're in darkness (remember, the earliest members of our species were found in Ethiopia).
 

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
You know, I still wonder why some people are so adamant against Evolution.

Saying it exists isn't like you're denying God, it's just how it happened. Even back when I was a moderately religious person, I had no problems accepting that it was how it worked.
 

Some_weirdGuy

New member
Nov 25, 2010
611
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.
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.
Yay, someone else who knows what they're talking about!
Sometimes I feel just as annoyed at evolution supporters who fail to raise this point as those people who refuse to 'believe' in evolution.

I think I'm going to quote this lovely post one more time.

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.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
Blablahb said:
It's hard to deny something's existance when you're looking at it.
First, Macrobstar's Father is questioning evolution when it is obvious he is anything but qualified to do so (otherwise, he probably wouldn't). In other words, he's no scientist so he has no right to question anything scientific. Second, Macrobstar's efforts will be nothing but futile, religious people, regardless of the religion, deny what's RIGHT in front of them every day of their lives, it's called faith, which by definition (my understanding of it) means believing in something that you have no evidence whatsoever of it's existence/truth, while at the same time denying all the evidence in the world that it does not exist/is false. Thus, any of Macrobstar's efforts to prove ANYTHING to his Father that goes against his religion will be a complete failure.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Darkasassin96 said:
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.
Lemem step in here. MRSA got so strong because single celled organisms dont just develop resistances. They share them. Bacteria have a thing called a plasmid. Its basically a second loop of DNA that can be traded with other bacteria or swapped or what have you to share around all functional DNA contained in that secondary loop. The primary loop remains the same but this plasmid can contain the DNA for resistance to some antibiotics. Bacteria can share their success.

When an organism is born its DNA is NOT 50%/50% its parents. Some DNA was changed, a single amino acid could have been swapped, deleted, or added. This leads to the following changes:

1. Silent: very common, you very likely as not contain a tonne of silent errors, human DNA has multiple nucleotide combinations for a single amino acid meaning if we get "ATT" or "AGT" we still code the same protien and thus no change is made to your biology despite having a different DNA sequence. See? In fact silent is important, we can change about 33% of your DNA and have the same protiens produced, but the DNA is now different, meaning a mutation only has to make a tiiiiiny jump to get you to produce a new protien, see how changes can have NO effect at all, and be silent then suddenly one more change can make a hugely different protien?

2. Missense: Heres where shit gets awesome or not depending on luck. Missense changes the protien you are making with your genetic code, now we get to the real mutation. Sometimes, (VERY often) this ends pretty badly for the organism. However this can change the function of a protien to do something else. And HERE is where we get difference in animals. Different protien or growth control (only if we get mutation in the homebox DNA chain) can affect an organism to look or behave or be able to eat differently.


Micro evolution is a fact. The theory or what have you can be up for debate about its tiny mechanics but as an observation organisms evolve and we cant deny it. Tell people dying of MRSA it isnt evolving. It sure as hell is.

Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over a LONG period of time BUT the thing needed here is a population seperator. The two populations must NOT be able to interbreed as long as they are still compatable to allow for seperate genetic paths to be taken.

Heres the fundamental logical issue i have with people who like micro and not macro. If DNA changes over time and drifts around due to mutation and selection, two species if given a BILLION years and two seperate islands which cannot be reached by eachother you agree their DNA will change a LOT? To the point where its completely different? Well they cant mate anymore. Thus macro evolution. Maco evolution is simply the application of micro evolution over and over and over to two seperate populations of the same species until DNA is so different breeding is impossible.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
thethird0611 said:
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)
I hate to be that guy who double posts but w/e

Do you think dinosaurs didnt exist? I gotta know. What about every skeleton of every extinct being ever. Cave drawings? Cavemen? Mamoths? Sabre tooth tigres?

Also i have a question. If you saw something that directly conflicted with the bible, would you go with what you saw, or the bible. A quote ive seen before is "If the bible disagrees with the evidence the evidence is wrong" which always hurt me a little to read.

EDIT: Heres the thing really. In history. Every time. Every single time. Science and the church have conflicted, or the bible or what have you. Every single time. Religion puts up a brave front but pure science wins. Always. Not once in history has someone proved that what is in a book is more real than what you can see or hear or touch. Ever. It just seems rather inevtiable that, once again, this view will die out and we will move onto the next thing "The god particle cant exist" or some shiz and we will have this arguement all over again.

Also the implication i have faith in evolution is kinda wrong :/ I dont. Anymore than i have faith space is a vacuum. Sure ive never been but facts suggest it is. I kinda "assume" more than i believe. Whats the word for thinking something because of evidence? Belief is thought without evidence.
 

zakkro

New member
Aug 6, 2009
27
0
0
Some_weirdGuy said:
Yay, someone else who knows what they're talking about!
Sometimes I feel just as annoyed at evolution supporters who fail to raise this point as those people who refuse to 'believe' in evolution.
Yeah, but by the scientific definition of theory, it is a theory. It's both fact AND theory, honestly, so... yeah.

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but oh well.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
zakkro said:
Yeah, but by the scientific definition of theory, it is a theory. It's both fact AND theory, honestly, so... yeah.

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but oh well.
Actually, you're not splitting hairs at all. It's a very important thing to realise; what people call "evolution" is both fact and theory.

Or to be more precise, there is the fact of evolution, which simply states that life changed over time and there's the the theory of evolution that tries to explain how that change occured.

The fact of evolution is supported by craptons of solid, emperical evidence. The theory of evolution, or to be precise modern evolutionary theory, keeps offering us a solid explanation of how the fact of evolution happened. It's not finished yet, but it's constantly improving.

If only everyone would understand that little distinction between the two, discussing this would be a lot easier.
Some_weirdGuy said:
Yay, someone else who knows what they're talking about! Sometimes I feel just as annoyed at evolution supporters who fail to raise this point as those people who refuse to 'believe' in evolution.
I agree, there are large misconceptions on both sides of the fence, even the well-meaning ones.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
There's no convincing people with strong religious beliefs now matter the proof you have.

Some ideas, there's no 'missing link', we have every skull of the evolutionary process, or here's a kicker, they found we found the genes of neanderthals in our genes.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3440/neandertals-and-humans-interbred-geneticists

So yeah that's kind of a big thing.
 

tthor

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,931
0
0
as I like to point out in this kind of situations, are parts of my own human body;
*points to pink little part on the inner part of the eye* this is a remnant of a third eyelid, something possessed by reptiles, amphibians, and some mammals. Dogs and cats, for example, have semi-functional third eyelids, which can be seen functioning especially when they sleep. Because we humans have had little use for a third eyelid beyond another way of removing dirt from our eye, evolution has caused the muscles controlling our third eyelid to mostly deteriorate, which is why we cant use it.

*points to the wisdom teeth in the back of mouth* These are from back when our ancestors had larger jaws that could fit the extra wisdom teeth, as the larger jaws with more molars was better fitted for eating plants, which our ancestors ate much more of. Today, do to these herbivore ancestors mating with the stronger, more aggressive carnivore ancestors, it produced our smaller jaws. This is why the majority of people need their molars removed, because the can't fit on our smaller jaws, and as a result often even grow in sideways. Evolutions is even just now causing some people to be born without wisdom teeth, a next step in evolution.

*points to ears* Have you ever seen people who can wiggle their ears? Thats because our ancestors used to be able to move their ears around, similar to how many animals do. they moved their ears so they could better locate where a sound is coming from. But as this skill became less necessary to our ancestors, evolution caused this ability to deteriorate away for the most part, tho some people can still partially move their ears.

*points to stomach* The appendex used to be used by our herbivore ancestors to better digest plants by breaking down the cellulose. However, as we became more omnivorous, we had less desperate for eating plants since we had meat, and thus it wasn't as important for us to be able to fully digest plant material. Because of this fact that we didn't need a full function appendex, evolution caused the appendex to deteriorate to the point where today, it is a useless organ that 1/3rd of people have to have removed because of rupturing.


--tho ofcourse, he still won't listen. Cult followers are dedicated to their cult, and nothing short of beating them senseless will change that. -Tho despite common conseption, cult followers are statistically just as intellegent and sane as other people; its just that they fell into a wrong crowd, and the brainwashing effect did its work.
 

TheEndlessGrey

New member
Sep 28, 2009
120
0
0
zakkro said:
Some_weirdGuy said:
Yay, someone else who knows what they're talking about!
Sometimes I feel just as annoyed at evolution supporters who fail to raise this point as those people who refuse to 'believe' in evolution.
Yeah, but by the scientific definition of theory, it is a theory. It's both fact AND theory, honestly, so... yeah.

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but oh well.
The hair splitting is only necessary because common vocabulary uses the same word to describe two things. The explanation is theory, the process is fact. If we could change the vocabulary so that there is a distinction between the two, phrases like "theory of evolution" would disappear and cease to conflate the issue.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
Ok, Evolution is not 'simply a theory', but a fact. Evolution DOES HAPPEN.
HOW evolution happens is a theory, and in Science a theory is well grounded in evidence.
I would also ask him what unfalsifiable and verifiable proof he has of intelligent design. I can guarantee it will be disproved by someone on here.

Thing is, your dad is close minded (By all current accounts), and will not accept any evidence to the contrary. There is no real way to solve this, but the only thing I can think of is to have each of you now bring forth evidence behind each of your arguments.

He says 'Evolution is just a theory', tell him to back that up with evidence, then show him the evidence that Evolution is FACT, and that HOW evolution happens is theory, then go one step further and show him the evidence that in science a Theory is a pretty big deal.
If he tries to swipe something aside, force him to bring forward evidence. If he says that everyone knows that, come on here and we will present out views on the issue and probably prove him wrong. Forcing someone to bring up hard evidence will force them into a situation they cannot win if they defend a false idea.
 

Davesdepository

New member
Dec 6, 2010
15
0
0
the Dept of Science said:


I've found this guy gives great, very concise breakdowns of the most common arguments.
Thank you these are great videos gives a good clarifation of the actual theory not bullshit about how disproves God,

To the OP though I am christian I believe God created the world but that he never said how he did it, just that he did. Now I personally don' have an issue with natural selection or evolution up to a point. I believe that it is a theory and one that is fairly constructed. However no-one can say with 100% scientific certainty that it is correct.

Now at does not mean I think it is wholey incorrect but my religous beiefs lead me to believe certain aspects are not. Now that is my right and it also yours and your dads.

Basically people will believe what they want. The real question is why do you want your dad to believe this theory, surely it doesn't change your opinion of the man. Hopefully you'll still respect and love him reguardless.

I really don't understand why people need to have watertight arguments about things like evolution, it has no impact on anyones daily life, unless you are an academic biologist or something.

I hope you have some good conversations with your dad about this man but I hope both of you will listen to each other as opposed to just trying to prove your point at all costs