Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!

[itsthesheppy]

The best thing about evolution is that people don't need to believe in it for it to be real.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Although a lot of people honestly don't know what they're talking on both sides of this argument(if it had even been an argument), evolution is very much real, and the people who claim otherwise needs to read up on how insulin production and resistance to antibiotics work.

Oh, and it should be mandatory for anyone who says "evolution's just a theory" to redo high school, and specifically pay attention research theory and any kind of science courses. Seriously, exactly how braindead do people have to be in order to utter those words?

Y'know, while I'm with pretty much everyone else here in this thread on the whole "You don't believe in Evolution, it's obviously right f*cking there, it's observed" there's one part which always bothered me about how humans evolved.

When Homo Sapiens developed over Homo Neanderthalis we... really weren't that much better. Neanderthal's wouldn't have been stupid, they had the same cranial capacity we did at birth and they even wound up with larger brains (source [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533682/]) so they didn't die out because Homo Sapiens was superior to them. In fact all we had over them was the fact we developed faster in earlier stages of maturity; even if we weren't as strong, smart or adapted to survive in cold environments such as the Ice Age (source [http://www.fmmcpherson.com/creatures/neanderthal].) Hell, we're pretty sure they could talk as well so... this is one of those things that always kinda bugged me about human development. I can't see a reason, through Natural Selection, Homo Sapiens trumped Homo Neanderthalis. Which, if you were of a religious mind, would be the point you start shouting about Adam and Eve and try to ignore the implications God made humanity on an already inhabited world and let them slowly over-run the natives.

Basically, I don't get why Humans were superior to Neanderthals in anything other than breeding speed. Any sources to explain it would be appreciated.

 

[dajuberjaber]

i feel like I should leave this here.
http://rt.com/usa/news/loch-ness-monster-louisiana-creationism-evolution-790/

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Since pretty much everyone agrees with the OP, I'm just going to get to the little slightly off-topic thing I would've tacked on to my evolutionist response. Yes, people can also believe whatever they like, but science has found evolution to be true unlike every competing hypothesis, so please, don't try and force those others into education. In case we have any of those in the forum.

 

[wizzy555]

Basically, I don't get why Humans were superior to Neanderthals in anything other than breeding speed. Any sources to explain it would be appreciated.

It's not necessarily true that we were, flukes happen. Look at the dinosaurs.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Basically, I don't get why Humans were superior to Neanderthals in anything other than breeding speed. Any sources to explain it would be appreciated.

It's not necessarily true that we were, flukes happen. Look at the dinosaurs.

Point, but they weren't exactly bred out of the gene pool. I can accept it was a fluke but it seems just... weird. The overly long transitionary period also gets to me, there was way too much time where both stages of humanity intermingled.

 

[Naeras]

Y'know, while I'm with pretty much everyone else here in this thread on the whole "You don't believe in Evolution, it's obviously right f*cking there, it's observed" there's one part which always bothered me about how humans evolved.

When Homo Sapiens developed over Homo Neanderthalis we... really weren't that much better. Neanderthal's wouldn't have been stupid, they had the same cranial capacity we did at birth and they even wound up with larger brains (source [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533682/]) so they didn't die out because Homo Sapiens was superior to them. In fact all we had over them was the fact we developed faster in earlier stages of maturity; even if we weren't as strong, smart or adapted to survive in cold environments such as the Ice Age (source [http://www.fmmcpherson.com/creatures/neanderthal].) Hell, we're pretty sure they could talk as well so... this is one of those things that always kinda bugged me about human development. I can't see a reason, through Natural Selection, Homo Sapiens trumped Homo Neanderthalis. Which, if you were of a religious mind, would be the point you start shouting about Adam and Eve and try to ignore the implications God made humanity on an already inhabited world and let them slowly over-run the natives.

Basically, I don't get why Humans were superior to Neanderthals in anything other than breeding speed. Any sources to explain it would be appreciated.

Short answer: brain size isn't related to intelligence.
The only things that really sets humans apart from other animals is the ability of reflecting upon themselves, their actions and the world. Neanderthals didn't have that ability either, and thus didn't have the actually biggest evolutionary advantage humans have: imagination.
Nobody knows exactly how this differs from other closely related species, however.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Yes, that is the generally accepted current scientific explanation of the last century.

Personally, I can't wait to see the major changes to this current explanation that will be made in the next hundred or so years.

 

[KefkaCultist]

Although a lot of people honestly don't know what they're talking on both sides of this argument(if it had even been an argument), evolution is very much real, and the people who claim otherwise needs to read up on how insulin production and resistance to antibiotics work.

Oh, and it should be mandatory for anyone who says "evolution's just a theory" to redo high school, and specifically pay attention research theory and any kind of science courses. Seriously, exactly how braindead do people have to be in order to utter those words?

Y'know, while I'm with pretty much everyone else here in this thread on the whole "You don't believe in Evolution, it's obviously right f*cking there, it's observed" there's one part which always bothered me about how humans evolved.

When Homo Sapiens developed over Homo Neanderthalis we... really weren't that much better. Neanderthal's wouldn't have been stupid, they had the same cranial capacity we did at birth and they even wound up with larger brains (source [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533682/]) so they didn't die out because Homo Sapiens was superior to them. In fact all we had over them was the fact we developed faster in earlier stages of maturity; even if we weren't as strong, smart or adapted to survive in cold environments such as the Ice Age (source [http://www.fmmcpherson.com/creatures/neanderthal].) Hell, we're pretty sure they could talk as well so... this is one of those things that always kinda bugged me about human development. I can't see a reason, through Natural Selection, Homo Sapiens trumped Homo Neanderthalis. Which, if you were of a religious mind, would be the point you start shouting about Adam and Eve and try to ignore the implications God made humanity on an already inhabited world and let them slowly over-run the natives.

Basically, I don't get why Humans were superior to Neanderthals in anything other than breeding speed. Any sources to explain it would be appreciated.

Even though I can't be much help on your actual question, you've made me start thinking about the Adam & Eve thing: Do they actually think that A&E were placed here post-neanderthals and then overtook them, or do they believe A&E were the first humanoids which led to the neanderthals. If the latter is the case, then A&E must also have be neanderthal-like. It'd sure make some stories more interesting.

"Ug, talking snake. Me no like. *club*. Oogah, apple. Me eat."

 

[ultimateownage]

Oh, right, you're American. America seems to have way too much trouble accepting evolution. I've never met anyone in England who doubted it outright.

Some people who posted in this thread don't seem to know much about evolution. We didn't involve from any of the current monkey species, we just share the same evolutionary ancestor. We haven't just evolved quicker than them, they've evolved to fit a different environment.

 

[Lethos]

I'm going to try and say this in a non American bashing way. Why does is it in the West it only seems to be America that has so much trouble accepting evolution? Is it something about your education system or what?

I've never even heard calls for a debate on this in the UK because everyone accepts Evolution as fact.

 

[Navvan]

Reminds me a great Youtube series called Crash Course. Seriously its worth a watch if you want to get a basic grasp of biology and/or history and be entertained at the same time. The history one at least is actually entertaining. I haven't watched a whole lot of the Biology (because I already know it) but they seem to do a decent job as well.

Y'know, while I'm with pretty much everyone else here in this thread on the whole "You don't believe in Evolution, it's obviously right f*cking there, it's observed" there's one part which always bothered me about how humans evolved.

When Homo Sapiens developed over Homo Neanderthalis we... really weren't that much better. Neanderthal's wouldn't have been stupid, they had the same cranial capacity we did at birth and they even wound up with larger brains (source [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533682/]) so they didn't die out because Homo Sapiens was superior to them. In fact all we had over them was the fact we developed faster in earlier stages of maturity; even if we weren't as strong, smart or adapted to survive in cold environments such as the Ice Age (source [http://www.fmmcpherson.com/creatures/neanderthal].) Hell, we're pretty sure they could talk as well so... this is one of those things that always kinda bugged me about human development. I can't see a reason, through Natural Selection, Homo Sapiens trumped Homo Neanderthalis. Which, if you were of a religious mind, would be the point you start shouting about Adam and Eve and try to ignore the implications God made humanity on an already inhabited world and let them slowly over-run the natives.

Basically, I don't get why Humans were superior to Neanderthals in anything other than breeding speed. Any sources to explain it would be appreciated.

Short answer: brain size isn't related to intelligence.
The only things that really sets humans apart from other animals is the ability of reflecting upon themselves, their actions and the world. Neanderthals didn't have that ability either, and thus didn't have the actually biggest evolutionary advantage humans have: imagination.
Nobody knows exactly how this differs from other closely related species, however.

There has been evidence for Neanderthal culture (art) [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-paintings-spain-science-pike/] which would mean that they did indeed have the ability to reflect on the world. Most researchers now believe that Neanderthals were of about the same intelligence as the homo-sapiens of the time. However it isn't a universal consensus as there are still some who believe them to be little more than animals.

To confuse the issue even more CaptainMarvelous actually has it backwards. Neanderthals are thought to develop quicker than humans [http://news.discovery.com/history/neanderthals-aging-maturity-development.html]. Although that isn't necessarily a disadvantage as noted in the article.

The answer likely boils down to numbers. Homo-sapiens had them and Neanderthals did not. The most popular hypotheses are that we either mated them to extinction, or we killed them to extinction [http://discovermagazine.com/2009/nov/30-did-we-mate-with-neanderthals-or-murder-them]. Our larger population either interbred with the Neanderthals and those offspring interbred with more Sapiens, and so forth until you have a very dilute Neanderthal that is predominately homo-sapien (whose descendents would theoretically still be around). That or we simply killed them with our larger numbers. We may also likely had better technology that we developed to compensate for our smaller body size in addition to our longer lifespan. That is we needed to defend our-self from things like lions or kill wild game, and our longer lifespan allowed us to learn more and utilize it.

Also Natural Selection is only one means of evolution. There are a number of other things that can cause evolution (Genetic Drift and Gene flow for example)

 

[ChildishLegacy]

You know, although the majority of the scientific community accepts it to be true, I'd like to see the people that claim it to be true actually know something about it. The amount of people that just "take their word for it" and not actually bother learning about why and how it is true is quite annoying, it's an interesting thing and you shouldn't argue it's true and sit back and say "science says so" as your proof, it's just as bad to appeal to the authority of scientists as it is to accept that evolution didn't happen due to a book saying so. Maybe if you looked into it you'd disagree with it, not that I do, but people should start learning about the things they like to argue about.

This is why I don't really get involved in Evolution arguments, because I don't know enough about it to persuade anybody that it's true as I can only take biologist's word for it (which I currently do), I'll probably look into it over the summer actually because I have quite a bit of spare time before I head off to uni.

Okay this isn't only directed at you, but your thought pattern as a general argument.

See we all can't be biologists, and have a working society. Just as we can't all be doctors or mathematicians or lawyers.

Evolution inst just an idea that people believe in. Evolution is a part of biology, and biology is a part of science.

If you say evolution isn't real, then you are saying science isn't real. I have no idea how you were even able to post on this board if not for science.

You see guys, science isn't just a bunch of people in white coats who think "oh what if man was once a monkey!? That's sound plausible", no science needs to prove that there is a link between monkey and human.
But we can't all go out and learn everything there is to know abut biology just so we can say "yeah those smart guys in lab coats were right".

That said, I know enough about biology to see that it is the only theory on how humans came to exist out there. And no creationism isn't a theory, it is a hypothesis at best.

Most of the time I see that people who are against evolution use poor understanding of biology to show how flawed it is.
You see, you can not disprove science without knowledge of said science, but you don't need to know everything about said science to know it is true.

Think it is time for me to stop ranting

You misunderstand my post.

I was saying that to be an advocate of evolution, you should probably know a bit more about it than "science says its right", if anything, the scientific community would not want you to do that because it's unscientific as you're blindly following something without any idea as to how it works. Granted that blindly agreeing with the scientific community is a much better bet than blindly agreeing with a holy text, but it's still an unscientific way to approach things.

I'm happy for people to blindly accept Evolution if they don't really care that much about it and don't care for other people's opinions on the topic, what annoys me is people try to convince creationists that Evolution happened by saying "science says so", which I'm betting they've heard quite a few times before and are still creationists, meaning they have brought nothing to the argument they supposedly support. If you want to try and persuade somebody that evolution is true, then you should probably know how it is true yourself, because it's not a very persuasive argument to say "true, done", if I didn't believe in evolution and somebody were trying to persuade me otherwise, I'd want to know exactly why I should believe in it, so many people on the internet (and on these forums) don't know anything about evolution yet are still huge advocates of it, proclaiming that those that don't believe it are stupid. What is stupid is that for all they know they might disagree with it, but they haven't looked into it at all so they don't know.

Oh, right, you're American. America seems to have way too much trouble accepting evolution. I've never met anyone in England who doubted it outright.

Some people who posted in this thread don't seem to know much about evolution. We didn't involve from any of the current monkey species, we just share the same evolutionary ancestor. We haven't just evolved quicker than them, they've evolved to fit a different environment.

What this guy said. Some people in this thread (some of them in support of evolution) don't know their shit. I don't think anybody should have a real input into an argument if they DON'T KNOW THEIR SHIT. There are plenty of people that do know their shit when it comes to evolution, so leave it to them rather than just saying "science says so", I'd like to actually see posts with evidence and reasoning in, not blind faith in science which would be frowned upon by a lot of scientists.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Don't be completely short sighted, evolution is only a theory.

If it were real, and we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? You can't explain that.

Next you'll be claiming that the world is round like that dude in the other thread. What's wrong with you people, has the world gone mad.

BE GONE YON TROLL.
I love that argument though, so fun to explain how the argument they're pulling apart is actually wrong and then present them with the actual case. Usually ends up with people going "Bwuh? But the guy said!"

 

[AwkwardTurtle]

Snip

But it is stupidity. Because evolution isn't a vague concept which just sit by itself on a shelf. As I said earlier: Evolution is apart of Biology, which is a Science. You are not allowed to pick and choose what part of science you "believe in" Science = facts. Sure sometimes we are wrong in science, and we adapt out theories, but that is done by professionals who see that our understanding of some concepts were wrong. Like how Newtonian physics worked for us for ages, and still do, but it wasn't accurate on the quantum level, and lead to new theories being developed.

And you know, I have been educated in physics, didn't really like electromagnetism so I choose not to believe in it.
See how stupid that sounds?

Well it seems you do have some knowledge of the history of science. It seems to me that science overall has been a history of getting things wrong, and then adjusting and creating new theories to adapt to the previous incorrect understanding of the world.

Looking at the history of science, I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with remaining skeptical of Evolution and Science in general since to me, a crazy person, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to believe that now suddenly we have discovered the absolute truth.

I'm not saying that one should completely disregard science or evolution as a whole, but it's perfectly normal to choose to remain skeptical and not accept Evolution as the complete and only truth.

The only time I would consider it to be "stupid" to continue to be skeptical/not believe in science would be when all the "professionals" are literally done researching everything and the absolute truth about everything has been confirmed. I somehow doubt that this will be happening anytime soon.

 

[Gorrila_thinktank]

3. This is a bit of ex post facto logic. Basically if the conditions were any different we wouldn't be here to question them so the fact that they exist doesn't prove anything about why they exist. These could be wholly random in which case we got lucky and can talk about why they came about. They could also be a result of his noodly appendage guiding us for the grand purpose of creating pasta to honor him. Unfortunately we have no proof either way.

Well said. Basically what this means is that we're here because of the way the universe works. The universe doesn't work that way because we are here.

Back on the topic of evolution: Another common criticism of natural selection is the development of more complex body parts such as an eye. Some say species couldn't have developed eyes through evolution because without the entirety of the eye (iris, pupil, retina, etc.), the eye as a whole would be useless, so species that developed mutations with only one part of the eye wouldn't survive, thus wouldn't reproduce. In my opinion, this is one of the best counters to natural selection, though I've seen some answers for it that haven't quite satisfied me.

I guess this is the problem that hounds the whole theory, how can something so complex just have appeared? The eye is just a good summation of the whole argument. When you get down to it, it?s more a question of how something came into being that can not only self replicate, but also fed itself. Then you move up one step and ask how they can organize themselves and specialize. All bets are out the window. Then you add the fact that it only takes one cell going rouge to give someone cancer. So the real miracle is not that things are changing and growing, but that their doing it in concert.

It's such an interesting subject. After learning about mutations and how species reproduction lets those mutations actually carry on, I think the key to really understanding how evolution and natural selection work is to realize that every living thing on Earth is the way it is because if it wasn't that way, it wouldn't be here.

That explanation has never sat right with me. I agree that there is a certain peace in it: we simply are and we must accept that. I just don?t believe it, on a visceral level. If humans could be taken out of the equation then I?d be happy to consider evolution but the way it is I see too much unity within the whole of life on earth. It?s too well but together for random chance to have played much of a part. The only place I?ve witnessed mutation was from cancer and that was anything but forward moving.

 

[Gorrila_thinktank]

Derp.

Evolution happens? Yes.

The main problem in communication that absolutely bloody no one can bridge is "Is evolution the reason we are here?" Many non-evolutionists ask that question, say no, and then claim evolution doesn't exist. Many evolutionists ask that question, say yes, and then lambaste non-evolutionists regardless of if they believe it exists or not.

I, personally, say that yes, evolution happens, but it's not adequate to explain how we came to be. Lots of niggling little questions I have, be they "Where'd the first incidence of life come from, and how did it come up with a method of reproduction over one lifespan?", "Where are the millions of missing links?", "How did the universal constants end up so finely tuned?" and "How, exactly, does a species evolve a wing without becoming excessively clumsy, and thus die?" have gone either unanswered or answered by an unrefined hypothesis. Sure, there's hilarious amounts of evidence for evolution in the past, but I still can't see it being singularly accountable for our existence. That's like saying "Because there's much evidence that the victim was shot to death, we can conclude that a gun shot him," without concerning who was holding it. I believe there had to be intervention, divine or otherwise.

OT: I've met someone who told me that if you lose too much calcium, your bones become soft and then begin bending and twisting, turning you into a jellyfish-like thing.

THAT'S NOT HOW OSTEOPOROSIS WORKS!

Note that it will be very clear from your response whether or not you actually read my response *and* watched the related but incredibly important videos.

1) The first incidence of life is not important to evolutionary theory. It IS important to abiogenesis, which is the primary explanation for how life could arise. Other possibilities include: life being seeded by aliens, life being seeded by asteroids from other planets, or some combination of the two. But these have little evidence to back them up compared to abiogenesis.

If we ARE talking about abiogenesis, though, then I provide you with this video, which explains how 'life' could arise from 'non-life.'

2) Transitionary species are incredibly rare. This video explains why very well:


This is in addition to the fact that fossils are already a very rare occurrence. The vast, vast majority of creatures will not become fossils. The majority of species that have existed in the past 3 billions years will never have any evidence of their existence.

3) Not related to biology. At all. Also related: The Anthropic Principle. If various universes have different constants, and only one in a billion have constants that could allow for star formation and possible life, we wouldn't exist in any of the other 999,999,999 universes to comment on how unlucky we are to not be able to exist. We exist, the universe has certain constants. There's no need to go any deeper than that if there's no evidence that other universes even exist.

That is a question for philosophy, and does not discredit science (let alone evolution) in the slightest. You may as well be invoking 'THERE MUST BE MEN IN LABCOATS CONTROLLING OUR BRAINS, BECAUSE OUR BRAINS COULDN'T BE IN VATS CONNECTING US TO THE MATRIX OTHERWISE.'

4) Simply put (and partially because I'm not yet a biologist and don't know the ENTIRE BODY OF AVIAN HISTORY): Their proto-wings didn't make them clumsy. It's likely for similar reasons that flying squirrels exist: for maneuverability. I'm just gonna post a link that contains a bunch of evidence and explanations, but one that caught my eye in particular is within:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Bi-pedalism provides an explanation for larger arms and eventual flight. Blah blah blah, increased muscle mass, blah blah blah. Just look at an Ostrich and consider that analogous to an early proto-bird. Then make it smaller and lighter to increase maneuverability. Yada yada, you eventually get a flying animal.

Your final bit, saying that evolution doesn't explain our origin, is redundant. Evolution doesn't seek to explain our origin. Abiogenesis does. Just want to reiterate that so you don't continue polluting the public's pool of knowledge with ignorance.

Edit: Dammit, that's what I get for leaving this page open for like an hour and only finally posting. Seems I was ninja'd with almost the exact same definitions. Ah well, at least I've got some awesome videos.

Dude, don't bring M theroy into this. It can be claimed that God exists in another universe and directly influnces ours, thats why we cant find him. M theroy is just a bad place to go.

 

[Evilpigeon]

how come only we have really evolved to this state with humans all over the world of different colours and styles all related to the same ancestor, but how come the orangutan never did?

You can ask the same question about elephants or fig trees. Some species are more successful than others, some are more adaptable to different environments, some can only thrive in a specific environment.

but can they play halo?

Dude, if Orangutans can't play Halo I don't want to live on this planet any more.

They were made for it, even better than 12 year olds at screeching at people over the headset.