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

[pearcinator]

I don't believe in evolution.

I mean how would a chicken evolve to have so much meat and lay eggs that just so happen to be perfect for cooking a large variety of foods?

Why does a sheep have wool instead of regular fur? Why is wool such a perfect insulator for humans?

Why do humans have no fur? Surely having fur would be much more useful than just skin and will also help us stay warm?

If we evolved from monkeys then why don't we have an awesome tail for swinging around the trees? Humans were around LONG before anything was constructed so why would we not have tails still (if it takes millions of years to evolve).

Why aren't crocodiles evolved? Weren't they around since the dinosaurs? Also, where are the dinosaurs?! Why would things evolve to be weaker and smaller (such as sharks like the megalodon...why is it extinct if it was the king of the ocean?)

I dunno, there's probably answers to these questions but I still find evolution hard to believe. It's a good theory and makes sense from a scientific perspective but sometimes there are things in life that just can't be explained.

 

[Frostbyte666]

Yes, it does annoy me a bit, but the problem with proving the theory is we can't find the missing links in the chain. We have found evidence of types a, b and c but not any specimens that were undergoing a change from a to b so that we can say that is where evolution is occuring.

Ah, the old "missing link" argument.

What if I told you that EVERY fossil is transitional? Yes, every fossil, from the T-Rex hanging up in the Smithsonian to your grandma's bones. Evolution doesn't stop, after all, and as such "transitional forms" include literally every fossil ever. Specimens undergoing change from a to b? We've found those. A lot of those. Particularly in the hominid row, we've found dozens of steps between man and ape.

Of course, here's what happens when we fill in a gap. See, before it was like this:

Man - Ape

A creationist looks at that and says, "there's a missing link". So we find a missing link, or hell, several:

Man - Neanderthals - Homo Erectus - Homo Habilus - Java Man - Lucy - Ape

Then the creationist looks at that and says, "Ha! Now there are 6 missing links!"

...See the problem here? Ever fossil is transitional. We just don't have fossils from every generation to show every minute change, piece by piece. The fossilization process is simply too rare and too conditional.

Now I don't believe in god/gods or any type of will behind evolution but 1 evolution that brings a lot of thought to mind is how did any creature evolve a 4 chambered heart from the ancient standard 2 chambered heart common in fish and things from which nearly everything evolved from (yes kind of contradicting myself since evolution isn't proven but strongly implied). That's a hell of a mutation and it's an all or nothing deal.

Ah, "Irriducible complexity". This argument is interesting, as it's the only one that has been demonstrated to be wrong thousands of times and still touted by intelligent people. You know what the fact is? I don't know. However, it does seem that scientists are not entirely clueless [http://palaeoblog.blogspot.de/2009/09/evolution-of-4-chambered-heart.html]. And in fact, this happens every time someone brings up a system that couldn't possibly have evolved ? they are proven wrong, and then they move on to the next system they can get their hands on. First it was the eye. Then once it was demonstrated how the eye evolved, they moved on to the Bacterial Flagellum. Once that one was debunked, they moved on to the central nervous system. And now apparently the 4-chambered heart. Of course, we don't have to show how every tiny system evolved to prove evolution. If you to demonstrate that evolution is false, then show us how you know the system couldn't have evolved; not that you don't know how it could've.[/quote]

Now then tell me why you feel the need to be so condescending since it makes your arguments seem more along the lines of a smear campaign than reasoned arguments.
I also do believe in evolution but you don't seem to understand what a missing link is, now you give the Man - Neanderthals - Homo Erectus - Homo Habilus - Java Man - Lucy - Ape and yes I agree those are steps in our evolutionary chain but they are not the missing links. A missing link would be a definite Java Man with some traits that defined Homo Habilus, i.e. it would have traits from both, a transitional step if you will.
You also bring up the heart mutation I mentioned and you seem to have viewed that as an attack on evolution when I was merely saying it's interesting to think about and I wonder what causes such mutation to occur.

 

[evilneko]

Try to know exactly what your arguing about before you start arguing

I'm gonna have to say the same to you, seeing as your post contains several inaccuracies. I refer you as well to my earlier post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.380319.14951042].

What was inaccurate in my post?

Well, let's start with the first line.

"Evolution exist 100%, but what is not proven is the if, who, where and when of the issue."

Not only is it contradictory (exists 100% but not proven the "if" of it? What?) but we do know if, who, and roughly when (kinda have to accept a fair amount of years as a margin of error when dealing in geologic timescales) and sometimes even where.

"There is no proof that we evolved from another species,"

This is a silly statement. What else would we evolve from? Further, yes there is. We have identified quite a few direct ancestors of homo sapiens sapiens, which contradicts your next point, that "in the case of humans there is far to much scattered and missing evidence to form a conclusive theory that humans evolved from another species." Quite the contrary is true actually.

"To say that evolution is wrong or just a theory, not fact, because people may have not come from monkeys is ignorant."

You're right here--we DID come from monkeys. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8]
Sorry I just love that video. Aron Ra is just awesome. Gives me hope for my back-asswards state.

"Also to say that all theories of evolution are correct because a few are proven as fact is just as ignorant."

Do you mean like punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism with that? (Differing theories on essentially the timeline of evolution)

"Evolution is not one theory its a large group of many theories, more like a category of theories, so you cant really prove or disprove the whole thing without being wrong."

I suppose you could describe it that way, however I believe you just describe what is a scientific discipline, ie, biology, which evolution is the very foundation of.

Now, hopefully this post is coherent and accurate. It's 2:30 am and I just got finished dealing with a minor household disaster. I pre-emptively chalk up any mistakes or rambling to these factors.

 

[pearcinator]

Not true. If you look for it, there's pretty much nothing that doesn't have an explanation.

-What is the meaning of life (apart from 42)?
-Why do we dream?
-Do animals also dream? if so, what do they dream about?
-Is there such thing as a soul?
-Why are humans the only animals to have 'intelligence'?
-Is it possible that humans are NOT any smarter than we were 5000 years ago?
-Why are there hundreds or thousands of animal species but only like 5 or so for humans?
-Why is it deemed 'impossible' to travel faster than the speed of light?
-What religion (if any) are true?
-What happens after we die?
-Where does the sun's energy come from?
-What happened in LOST?!?

 

[Frostbyte666]

Ahh, I love just how exactly you proved him right...

I don't really have a problem with that.

 

[Spearmaster]

Try to know exactly what your arguing about before you start arguing

I'm gonna have to say the same to you, seeing as your post contains several inaccuracies. I refer you as well to my earlier post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.380319.14951042].

What was inaccurate in my post?

Well, let's start with the first line.

"Evolution exist 100%, but what is not proven is the if, who, where and when of the issue."

Not only is it contradictory (exists 100% but not proven the "if" of it? What?) but we do know if, who, and roughly when (kinda have to accept a fair amount of years as a margin of error when dealing in geologic timescales) and sometimes even where.

"There is no proof that we evolved from another species,"

This is a silly statement. What else would we evolve from? Further, yes there is. We have identified quite a few direct ancestors of homo sapiens sapiens, which contradicts your next point, that "in the case of humans there is far to much scattered and missing evidence to form a conclusive theory that humans evolved from another species." Quite the contrary is true actually.

"To say that evolution is wrong or just a theory, not fact, because people may have not come from monkeys is ignorant."

You're right here--we DID come from monkeys. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8]
Sorry I just love that video. Aron Ra is just awesome. Gives me hope for my back-asswards state.

"Also to say that all theories of evolution are correct because a few are proven as fact is just as ignorant."

Do you mean like punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism with that? (Differing theories on essentially the timeline of evolution)

"Evolution is not one theory its a large group of many theories, more like a category of theories, so you cant really prove or disprove the whole thing without being wrong."

I suppose you could describe it that way, however I believe you just describe what is a scientific discipline, ie, biology, which evolution is the very foundation of.

Now, hopefully this post is coherent and accurate. It's 2:30 am and I just got finished dealing with a minor household disaster. I pre-emptively chalk up any mistakes or rambling to these factors.

Yes evolution exist 100% but not every detail of it is known, it was not a contradiction, we can prove evolution but we have less than perfect evidence as to what actually happened. That statement was for the people saying evolution does not exist at all.

A computer model was used to determine the date of the last common ancestor could have existed, and the only real evidence of that being correct are a fistful of fragmented, broken and incomplete bone fragments, I'm not even going to go into the inaccuracies of carbon dating but many of the remains being found are constantly being moved around in the supposed chain of evolution due to problems properly dating them.
They have a weak ever changing string of a few bones, mostly chimp-like and a computer generated DNA model that assumes there is a connection between them just to get a date. The claim is made that a theoretical computer model that assumes we have a common ancestor with chimps and a monkey skull they found that may be from around the same era is proof but without hard evidence it is little more than manipulated speculation, to many gaps are filled in by the assumption that they are correct, If the scientists that built the atomic bomb were this careless with what they call proof they would have failed and most likely died.

Show me a DNA sample from an ancient ape that will give proof to the fused chromosome. Saying it just fused without empirical evidence other than it has to work to make the theory work is erroneous.

I did read some of the links in your previous post and commend you on evolving enough to learn how to Google "How to prove evolution" but most people want empirical evidence not arguments slanted and oversimplified supporting the theory you believe in without the existing counterpoints.

Evolution is a constant ongoing theory and is presumed as fact for those that want to believe it is which are the scientist that have an agenda to prove it right which leads to a high possibility of corrupt data/evidence therefore people like me need better proof that a pile of monkey bones and a computer model giving a date to when we shared a common ancestor with monkeys if we ever did, then there is the "reason" for evolving but I wont get into that.

On the issue of evolving from another species, if we evolved AS a species through natural selection we may have just looked different 1 million years ago but still have been human.

Want me to believe evolution 100%...find me my monkey/fish link.
Just because evolution makes more scientific sense than creationism does not mean that it is 100% infallible and correct as it stands now, it needs more/better proof.

Damn, late for work...

 

[evilneko]

-snip-

Do you truly believe we have so little evidence, as you claim?
Do you truly believe there are any credible, scientific alternatives to explain biodiversity?
Do you truly believe that there is any sort of conspiracy theory, as you claim?

You keep saying you accept evolution but then keep throwing out creationist canards as if they held any weight.

 

[Spearmaster]

-snip-

Do you truly believe we have so little evidence, as you claim?
Do you truly believe there are any credible, scientific alternatives to explain biodiversity?
Do you truly believe that there is any sort of conspiracy theory, as you claim?

You keep saying you accept evolution but then keep throwing out creationist canards as if they held any weight.

I don't "believe" anything from a scientific standpoint, I need empirical evidence to make a decision in either direction, I'm just stating that rather than whining about how all theories of evolution are absolute fact you could be more objective rather than subjective about the theories you defend as absolute fact.

"Do you truly believe we have so little evidence, as you claim?"
empirical evidence, yes, although the evidence that exist is profound some people like more solid fact before they make up their minds.

"Do you truly believe there are any credible, scientific alternatives to explain biodiversity?"
Never said I did and neither did the people that thought the earth was flat or everything revolved around the earth till there was new evidence.

"Do you truly believe that there is any sort of conspiracy theory, as you claim?"
There can be, denying the possibility is ignorance.

"You keep saying you accept evolution but then keep throwing out creationist canards as if they held any weight"
Seeing how you are willing to dismiss any and all claims that that may differ from what you believe as "creationist canards" you might as well be holding a bible yourself.

Do you truly believe evolution is perfect as it stands today with no more evidence being needed, if so why are scientist wasting their time still studying it?

 

[runic knight]

I don't "believe" anything from a scientific standpoint, I need empirical evidence to make a decision in either direction, I'm just stating that rather than whining about how all theories of evolution are absolute fact you could be more objective rather than subjective about the theories you defend as absolute fact.

"Do you truly believe we have so little evidence, as you claim?"
empirical evidence, yes, although the evidence that exist is profound some people like more solid fact before they make up their minds.

"Do you truly believe there are any credible, scientific alternatives to explain biodiversity?"
Never said I did and neither did the people that thought the earth was flat or everything revolved around the earth till there was new evidence.

"Do you truly believe that there is any sort of conspiracy theory, as you claim?"
There can be, denying the possibility is ignorance.

"You keep saying you accept evolution but then keep throwing out creationist canards as if they held any weight"
Seeing how you are willing to dismiss any and all claims that that may differ from what you believe as "creationist canards" you might as well be holding a bible yourself.

Do you truly believe evolution is perfect as it stands today with no more evidence being needed, if so why are scientist wasting their time still studying it?

If I may ask, since you seem to imply it here, what exactly about evolutionary theory are you protesting about? You suggest it is a collection of theories, it doesn't have enough empirical evidence and that you require more solid fact before making your mind. Then you seem to jump on him about saying evolution is perfect and what not, but I am curious your complaint. You mention empirical evidence yet ignore the hundreds of directly observed, countless indirectly observed and many tests of the predictability of the theory. It has been used to predict what sort of fossils will be found in what layer of earth from what time. It is a functional predictive model...that is kinda the highest point of a theory to get to before all that is left is fine tuning.
From what I have seen, you have insinuated things that suggest you know nothing of how science works at a fundamental level (that little comment about scientists having an agenda to prove right rather then, you know, the process itself being one of rejection of false ideas at the very core.) and so much of your posts reek as though you will bring up the idea of macro evolution being impossible but micro evolution as ok. So, what is it that are at fault in the theory. If it is "we are not 100% sure", then you are an idiot I am afraid. We are not 100% about gravity, yet we are confident enough in what we know to hold true that we sent men into space. We are not 100% about the existence or composition of atoms, yet we rely on what we do know to make the world we live in today. We may not be 100% about evolutionary theory (as stated in a previous post, the process of it is a fact, the theory about it is an explanation of that fact), but we rely on what we do know to predict species changes, guild animal traits in breeding, guide plant traits in agriculture, explain existence of traits like sickle-cell anemia in people, to predict in what layers of the earth from what period we will find transitional fossils of what creatures. That last one, the ability to predict things accurately is the strongest test of the theory and evolution has been doing that pretty well.

So, I will ask again, where does your complaint with it lay, or is it merely one of semantics with others in the thread?

 

[Spearmaster]

snip

"No, I'm afraid you're going to have to, because radiometric dating (I'm pretty sure Carbon Dating is not still applicable there, due to the extreme age of the subject matter) is generally considered not just accurate, but redundantly accurate - as in, dating with various different isotopes will give you very similar values."

Radiometric dating science is completely sound, what is not is anywhere from 10 thousand to 5 million years worth of unknown variables that some of the bones were in, unless they were encased in solid rock there's now way to tell from the surrounding geological data what value a bone should read, some of the finds were surface finds from water erosion and water can leech isotopes, I read that is some cases finds could not be dated by conventional means and were dated using other methods, questionable information given about what state the find was in or just placed where they seem to fit but I cant find it to cite so that's just hearsay.
How accurate is radiometric dating in years? If something is dated 500,000 years old what is the consensus on margin of error?

"You know what? I'm not buying it. At all. Gonna need some citations."

What aren't you buying? The computer model used to date a most recent common ancestor between men and chimps is solely based in the assumption that we do have a common ancestor. See the problem there? Because the computer model matches up with chimp(like) remains supposedly dated close to the time frame given many assume this proves humans evolution from a common ancestor. The problem that I have is that the computer model that uses DNA back tracking to support the dating is begging the question by already assuming that there is a shared ancestor. Also 7 million years of evolution leaves a lot of bodies, I would like more of a link than 10 examples gives us.

"Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. The evidence for chromosome fusion is absolutely overwhelming."

I like how the link you posted used terms like "The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong" and cites no empirical evidence. Absolutely overwhelming, yes, absolute fact...we don't know yet.

"The shit we are bringing up is, for all intents and purposes, representative of the scientific consensus in the field, and it's simplified because, no, most people don't want to slog through scientific papers or do the experiments themselves."

So its a scientific consensus? Like a vote or a show of hands? What majority of scientists do they use? simple majority? 60%? 80%? sounds more like opinion that fact...I'm gonna need some citations.

"Oh look, THIS old chestnut! "The scientists are biased!" Yeah, prove it, or fuck off and take this tripe with you."

Thanks for taking a hatchet to my original post, over 70 words in a statement and you only respond to the 10 you can try and dodge, not only did you take the term completely out of context you also misquoted it in your response and your argument against it was a temper tantrum, is that how you are proving evolution? taking the 10% of it that works for you and ignoring the rest? Now who is biased???

"Yeah. But according to our current understanding of science, and the current evidence we have, these are the best explanations."

Finally, you got it. Was that so hard? That's all I really wanted was an acknowledgment that with evolution everything is not known and its not 100% but its the best we got. Therefor the argument between the 0% evolution people and 100% absolute fact people has no place in science because they are both wrong. Which was the point of my original post.

captcha: against the grain...nice

 

[Spearmaster]

I don't "believe" anything from a scientific standpoint, I need empirical evidence to make a decision in either direction, I'm just stating that rather than whining about how all theories of evolution are absolute fact you could be more objective rather than subjective about the theories you defend as absolute fact.

"Do you truly believe we have so little evidence, as you claim?"
empirical evidence, yes, although the evidence that exist is profound some people like more solid fact before they make up their minds.

"Do you truly believe there are any credible, scientific alternatives to explain biodiversity?"
Never said I did and neither did the people that thought the earth was flat or everything revolved around the earth till there was new evidence.

"Do you truly believe that there is any sort of conspiracy theory, as you claim?"
There can be, denying the possibility is ignorance.

"You keep saying you accept evolution but then keep throwing out creationist canards as if they held any weight"
Seeing how you are willing to dismiss any and all claims that that may differ from what you believe as "creationist canards" you might as well be holding a bible yourself.

Do you truly believe evolution is perfect as it stands today with no more evidence being needed, if so why are scientist wasting their time still studying it?

If I may ask, since you seem to imply it here, what exactly about evolutionary theory are you protesting about? You suggest it is a collection of theories, it doesn't have enough empirical evidence and that you require more solid fact before making your mind. Then you seem to jump on him about saying evolution is perfect and what not, but I am curious your complaint. You mention empirical evidence yet ignore the hundreds of directly observed, countless indirectly observed and many tests of the predictability of the theory. It has been used to predict what sort of fossils will be found in what layer of earth from what time. It is a functional predictive model...that is kinda the highest point of a theory to get to before all that is left is fine tuning.
From what I have seen, you have insinuated things that suggest you know nothing of how science works at a fundamental level (that little comment about scientists having an agenda to prove right rather then, you know, the process itself being one of rejection of false ideas at the very core.) and so much of your posts reek as though you will bring up the idea of macro evolution being impossible but micro evolution as ok. So, what is it that are at fault in the theory. If it is "we are not 100% sure", then you are an idiot I am afraid. We are not 100% about gravity, yet we are confident enough in what we know to hold true that we sent men into space. We are not 100% about the existence or composition of atoms, yet we rely on what we do know to make the world we live in today. We may not be 100% about evolutionary theory (as stated in a previous post, the process of it is a fact, the theory about it is an explanation of that fact), but we rely on what we do know to predict species changes, guild animal traits in breeding, guide plant traits in agriculture, explain existence of traits like sickle-cell anemia in people, to predict in what layers of the earth from what period we will find transitional fossils of what creatures. That last one, the ability to predict things accurately is the strongest test of the theory and evolution has been doing that pretty well.

So, I will ask again, where does your complaint with it lay, or is it merely one of semantics with others in the thread?

Was that a question or just an attempt to answer your own question by trying to discredit and insult me for others reading this post?

I will sum it up nice and simple, Evolution is fact, many evolutionary theories are proven fact but that does not mean that every evolutionary theory should be thought of as fact without demanding more evidence, yes evolutionary theories are doing quite well but it has some problems some people feel it has just ignored in a rush for a simplified answer. I'm not a creationist and I cant freely accept evolution as it is without answering more questions.

We know we are looking at something, but without the whole picture can we be sure exactly what we are looking at? If everyone just blindly accepted scientific consensus and never demanded better proof we would have never found out the earth was round. I try to keep and open mind, not a narrow one, even with a modern theory like evolution.

So basically evolution is doing good but we need to fight the whole war before declaring total victory.

People in this forum were arguing an all or nothing stance on both sides leaving no room for change or possibility so I played devils advocate to both sides and the evolutionist side seemed to jump on me so I went with it.

 

[runic knight]

Was that a question or just an attempt to answer your own question by trying to discredit and insult me for others reading this post?

I will sum it up nice and simple, Evolution is fact, many evolutionary theories are proven fact but that does not mean that every evolutionary theory should be thought of as fact without demanding more evidence, yes evolutionary theories are doing quite well but it has some problems some people feel it has just ignored in a rush for a simplified answer. I'm not a creationist and I cant freely accept evolution as it is without answering more questions.

We know we are looking at something, but without the whole picture can we be sure exactly what we are looking at? If everyone just blindly accepted scientific consensus and never demanded better proof we would have never found out the earth was round. I try to keep and open mind, not a narrow one, even with a modern theory like evolution.

So basically evolution is doing good but we need to fight the whole war before declaring total victory.

People in this forum were arguing an all or nothing stance on both sides leaving no room for change or possibility so I played devils advocate to both sides and the evolutionist side seemed to jump on me so I went with it.

Nah, I just toss slightly insulting phrases in as an old habit. Pay no heed

You... didn't really answer my first question. You just restated yourself. You didn't explain what the problems are or what sub-theories you are talking about or why, if you agree that some theories are fact, how evolutionary theory (I assume as a whole), something that explains the lesser theories that you called facts, is not accepted.
Evolution, the theory of explaining diversity of life because of traits based by generations, natural selection influence, sexual selection influence and all that, what exactly are you rejecting on it? Is it the explanation, is it mechanisms, is it claims derived from either or is it functional application of it? Because all of those are empirically tested and hold out pretty well.

I... ok..? I think at this point it isn't a matter of victory, but of evidence and functionality. Evolution produces a model we can use to predict and an explanation of how that works. It is the only theory that actually works concerning diversity of life. Seems kinda irrationally stonewalling it at this point to meet a criteria that is ill defined at the moment and that doesn't seem to be needed to be met for other theories... or are you like this with all of them? Do you present the same protest towards gravitational theory as a whole, because of issues with the theory on a quantum level?

Actually, people were arguing mostly against creationism. This isn't even an "all or nothing", creationism is flat out wrong, regardless of evolution's stance. No dichotomy here about one being wrong the other right by default. Now, add on evolution as the current explanation for diversity of life and, well, there is no alternative. Scientifically, it is the only explanation that works, has held up and is available. Creationism is not science, has been disproven, is not internally consistent and is just garbage. I can understand supporting upholding aspects concerning intellectual integrity when presenting an argument, but there is a point where it is no longer beneficial. This comes off as that sort of point. Heavily so. we have the working model theory (evolution), we have crackpot religious garbage (creationism), and at the moment, that is pretty much it. If there is a better explanation out there, yeah sure, it would compete with evolution , but there isn't. And even if there was, chances are it would be worked into the theory, or fused together, since as you admitted, a number of sub-theories about evolution are already proven facts.

Also, since I liked this and is based off a comment made earlier.
http://macromeme.com/dog/science-vs-creationism-logic.html