The misinterpretation of evolution

[uzo]

lol ... I prefer to think that people are smarter than this.

So I'm just going to tell myself that everyone arguing that ID and Creationism has a place in the classroom are just trolling. Playing the devil's advocate, you wily controversial critters you!




... at least I hope you're trolling.

 

[Asita]

I understand evolution does not occur instantly, my point was, and perhaps you can clear this up for me, that I can't concieve how an aquatic species could possibly be born with amphibious traits that would better help it survive to reproduce but still allow it to scientifically be classified as a fish.

Your good friends Mr. Mudskipper and Ms. Lungfish would like a word with you.

It's not going to suddenly become an amphibian, so why would such traits be useful to it in an aquatic habitiat? why wouldn't such traits remain, as you say, junk?

Well for starters, it gives the species a new niche, meaning a better survival rate due to a lack of competition within that niche. Additionally, it can give the species a survival advantage in the case of allowing it to escape aquatic predators.

and if that's the case I don't see why any organisms at all would need to develop terrestrial traits if all the other organisms that are thier food are also aquatic.

And if the organism's food wasn't limited to the water? Say for instance it fed on lichen...or perhaps that it laid its eggs on the surface to protect them from predators, or it lived in an environment where water could dry up like in the case of the lungfish. Don't mistake a lack of imagination on your part for a lack of explanation.

and also, when does the species officially cease to be aquatic and become classifed as amphibian.

Well first off it's probably worth reminding you that those are terms we made in the first place based on comparative traits. Though for starters, you'd do what you do for any new organism you found and check off what traits it has. See here for how to classify an amphibian: http://www.suite101.com/content/the-characteristics-of-amphibians-a148785

also, when you get the chance, read up on the double-slit experiment and schrodingers cat. they both demonstrate a property of quantum physics that nothing in the universe happens until it is seen by a conscious observer, meaning that these genetic mutations are every possible mutation imaginable until the species starts using the genes to develop, then one is, in your opinion "randomly selected", in my opinion chosen as the one that it needs either to further it's own race, or if god wills it, make a tasty snack for another, better organism.

...Where are you getting your 'facts'? Schrodinger's Cat was a thought experiment intentionally constructed as a PARADOX, illustrating what Schrodinger saw as a problem in a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics. And the double-slit experiment was the demonstration of light's nature as a wave and particle. Best I can figure you're routing this through Relational quantum mechanics which says nothing about the need for a conscious observer (and indeed, makes a point of saying that any and all physical objects (macroscopic, microscopic, conscious and unconscious) qualify as observers.

 

[Fleaman]

I understand evolution does not occur instantly, my point was, and perhaps you can clear this up for me, that I can't concieve how an aquatic species could possibly be born with amphibious traits that would better help it survive to reproduce but still allow it to scientifically be classified as a fish. It's not going to suddenly become an amphibian, so why would such traits be useful to it in an aquatic habitiat? why wouldn't such traits remain, as you say, junk? and if that's the case I don't see why any organisms at all would need to develop terrestrial traits if all the other organisms that are thier food are also aquatic. and also, when does the species officially cease to be aquatic and become classifed as amphibian.

Alright, so I got really interested in this suddenly and read like a million Wikipedia entries and this is what I've got.

First, it's not that weird. Amphibians are still basically fish for half their lives after all. So you're a fish living in fresh water, and your habitat is subject to the whims of rainfall, it can pay to be able to survive on land for a while if your environment suddenly dries out. Lungfish can breath air, which they use to survive as they stub their way between tidal pools on their fins. This is tangential to how tetrapods, our salamandery fish ancestors, managed it, however.

As for "why", that's easy. The recent common ancestor of Tetrapodomorpha (ancestor of Tetrapoda) and lungfish, Rhipidistia were lobe-finned fish who shared a recent common ancestor with coelocanths, who as we know are saltwater fish and lived in the Devonian period, and therefore had to share the ocean with, thiiiis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileunkleosteusSannoble.JPG which is a great fucking reason to stop living in the ocean.

Here's the other reason: tetrapods wouldn't have been moving away from food, because land was already this thriving ecosystem. Tetrapoda get onto land in the late Devonian, 370ish million years ago, because when they got there they could snack on all of the arthropods that had figured it out a hundred million years earlier. Arthropods already have exoskeletons and legs, and so can move around and are basically immune to dessication off the bat. These would probably have been horrible millipedes of some kind. A lot of tetrapods were like 1m-2m though and would have called them "filling" instead.

There would also have been proper vascular plants by then too. There were so many trees in the Devonian, they breathed up all the CO2 and caused an ice age in the Carboniferous. By the late Devonian, land plants would have enabled stable wetlands to exist, so that's the sort of environment we're talking about.

So really, by the time fish are all getting their diversity on, land was the place to be, because by then everyone else was already ON land, leaving the ocean to be populated only by assholes. Here's some fossil record:
Probably very long ago - Cyanobacteria and lichen colonize rock and start making it into soil.
488-443Ma - Annelid fossils. Worms burrow and shit, rapidly developing soil.
476Ma - Plant spore fossils.
430Ma - Plant mosses and proto-vascular plants fossils.
415Ma - Arthropod tracks on land.
390Ma - Lungfish breath air.
363Ma - Acanthostega, a 4-legged air-breathing fish that was, interestingly, much too shitty to live on land. Had a neck to raise its head, and probably hunted in very shallow water.

So now this is making tons of sense now that we're not talking about mudkips flopping about pathetically on coastal rocks. We have brackish, resource-rich swamps, where the oxygen dissolved in the water is thin due to decaying plant matter, so you want to start breathing air. Fins get stronger and adapt to propelling on sandbanks and through vegetation. So now a gigantic centipede coming up to the bank for a drink counts as a food source, because you can pull yourself out of the water to snap him up like a crocodile.

 

[BrassButtons]

You know, it really boggles my mind that people can fail to learn even the most basic things about science (like what the words "theory", "law", and "hypothesis" mean) but still think they understand something as complex as Evolutionary Theory well enough to form an intelligent opinion on the subject. Does this happen in any field outside of science? Are there people who can't grasp addition, but who insist that all of calculus is wrong and should be removed from schools?

How can somebody be told--with citations--that they are getting the absolute most basic facts wrong, and then not question whether they actually understand the topic as well as they thought they did? Many people in this thread have misused the word "theory" and had the mistake pointed out to them. Of those, how many people actually admitted to being wrong? How many went on to admit that perhaps they were wrong about other things as well? I can't recall a single instance of this.

It hurts my brain. It really does.

 

[NattyMichael]

Really? 50% of America still don't belive in evolution, it's scientific fact and shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as creation theories. A god could still be real but creation sotries are stories made by religions to explain creation when they couldn't. Now we can pretty much with the big bang theory and evolution. People who think or even belive in creation sotries, not theories, are wrong, there is indisputible evidence for evolution.

 

[Jon Quixote]

You greatly misunderstand me sir. The "nub-fish" story was a vastly simplified example for the benefit of some individuals, but if you truly want to debate with me, I'll humor you.

I understand evolution does not occur instantly, my point was, and perhaps you can clear this up for me, that I can't concieve how an aquatic species could possibly be born with amphibious traits that would better help it survive to reproduce but still allow it to scientifically be classified as a fish. It's not going to suddenly become an amphibian, so why would such traits be useful to it in an aquatic habitiat? why wouldn't such traits remain, as you say, junk? and if that's the case I don't see why any organisms at all would need to develop terrestrial traits if all the other organisms that are thier food are also aquatic. and also, when does the species officially cease to be aquatic and become classifed as amphibian.

also, who are you to say every event in the universe is guided by an inconcievable force? science is already discovering countless forces in the universe that were invisible to us just decades ago. but we know not EVERYTHING in the galaxy can be even be predicted by us because of something called the "Uncertainty principle"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle which means that not everything is predictable, even if it is influenced, so we are never "destined" to do something.

also, when you get the chance, read up on the double-slit experiment and schrodingers cat. they both demonstrate a property of quantum physics that nothing in the universe happens until it is seen by a conscious observer, meaning that these genetic mutations are every possible mutation imaginable until the species starts using the genes to develop, then one is, in your opinion "randomly selected", in my opinion chosen as the one that it needs either to further it's own race, or if god wills it, make a tasty snack for another, better organism.

also, if you plan to complain to me "what are these invisible forces you speak of? huh? huh? can't tell me that can you?" dark energy and dark matter just to name two off the top of my head.

You're going to try and pull the "uncertainty principle" as an argument against a mechanistic, deterministic universe? Sorry: does not apply. (It's like when evolution deniers like to cite the 2nd law of thermodynamics, only to forget that living things aren't closed systems.) In the case of the uncertainty principle, the observer effect, and quantum indeterminacy, well, those things are quantum phenomena. They happen on the sub-atomic level. They do NOT generally govern how matter acts on the chemical level. Once you're talking about atoms and molecules (DNA included), a certain degree of certainty is an emergent property of the smaller, admittedly wierder, quantum scale. And genes -- which are stretches of DNA, often scattered throughout the genome -- are VERY LARGE molecules, even as molecules go. There isn't any quantum anything that could possibly subject mutations to the type of "uncertainty" you're talking about. It's just irrelevant.

If you're going to blabber about quantum mechanics, cosmology, or fundamental forces, do please try to understand them a little bit before putting your fingers to a keyboard. (Dark matter and dark energy, incidentally, are precisely what they sound like -- matter and energy, respectively -- and not forces at all, which would make them only tangentially related to whatever incoherent argument you're trying to construct here.)

At any rate, I didn't claim that everything in the universe is guided by an "inconceivable force." Don't put words in my mouth. I said that it's patently absurd to imagine that everything in the universe is guided by an omnipotent spirit (or spirits), because that would require believing that the laws of probability and chance (which are both mathematically and empirically verified) are illusory. We know that chance exists, because if you flip a coin a thousand times, you're apt get results which are very close to 500 heads and 500 tails. Anyone can verify this. And it's utterly incompatible with the notion of an interventionist, theistic god (but not a hands-off, deistic god, for which there can never be any evidence for or against anyway, and so doesn't matter very much).

But that's all just a barely-relevant aside.

Getting back to evolution, what you're offering here is the "argument from ignorance." Because you, personally, can't imagine or understand how evolution happened, it didn't happen. This fallacy pops up all the time, but it's easily dispelled. All it takes is an explanation from someone who does understand (or simply can imagine) a pathway by which the evolution occurred. In the case of the evolution of amphibians, I think other posters have already done a fine job offering some citations. I'll further point out that the Devonian fish which gave rise to amphibians already had lobe fins and swim bladders; these are the organs that evolution modified into limbs and lungs. (Mutations, remember, add variation to populations; evolution acts on the variation that's already present, when situationally beneficial mutations spread throughout a population of interbreeding organisms.)

So the questions before us then, as I understand your asking them, are (1) why would a fish develop legs? (2) why would a fish develop lungs? and (3) why wouldn't these developments get swamped back out of existence by the selection pressures of an aquatic existence?

In brief, the answers are pretty simple: as far as evolution is concerned, it's always the same answers (which is a testament to evolution as a good theory: it's simple, elegant, and has massive explanatory and predictive power). It simply must have been that some population of fish found such features useful at the time. Lobe-finned fish with leg-like structures would have been able to crawl along the seabed and rummage for prey that fish without such structures couldn't exploit. Likewise, any kind of mutant fish with a modified swim-bladder capable of respirating air, even if it's just for long enough to flop into the next disappearing puddle over, would be at a tremendous advantage should it wind up in a lake that was drying out (see lungfish and mudskippers, as others have mentioned). As for why these populations might remain on the land... well, plants had already conquered the land long before amphibians ever showed up. (That's where all the oxygen in the atmosphere came from!) So, once again, there's food that isn't being eaten: a resource waiting to exploited by the first species to come along and fill an as-yet unfilled ecological niche. And it only had to happen once: you get one breeding population of lobe-finned, lung-breathing fish with a genetic predisposition for crawling onto the land and eating plants or insects or whatever, and natural selection is going to take off like a speeding bullet (speaking in terms of geological time, that is), in favor of this particular trait. So you get a land-dwelling species diverging from aquatic ancestors, and from there, that land-dwelling species (again, over the massive span of geological time) winds up diverging into all the land-dwelling vertebrates we know (plus a few dinosaurs and mammals that found it convenient to return to the sea).

And, of course, it helps that all the geographic, anatomic, stratigraphic, and genetic evidence concurs with a story much like this.

 

[Navvan]

To any who actually wish to know what you are actually debating. From reading a variety of posts in this thread chances are what you think you know about evolution is wrong. This goes for both sides of the debate.

Spoiler: Read this if you actually want to know about evolution, and why it is not something that's existence can be debated in the manner you are doing so.

Motives and Credentials.

After witnessing the gross misunderstanding of Evolution lately both from supporters and those opposed to it I decided to post this description of what it is, what it predicts, and what it is not. I am by no means an expert in the field of evolution, nor have I done any work in the field of Evolution beyond that of a typical biology major. I have however worked with and was taught by two experts in the field of biology, am graduating soon with a Bachelors in Biology, and have already completed my coursework relating to biology for my degree. I would like to point out that while I do agree with everything that I'm posting it is not my opinion. It is textbook definitions and well accepted science.

What is Evolution?

What comes to mind when you think evolution is likely not evolution, but one out of many predictions made by evolution. Evolution is rather straight forward, is observable, and does not require any fossils to validate itself. For those not wishing to read my quite literally textbook definition here is a more concise definition.

Evolution is a change in the traits of a population over time. Change being either the fixation of new traits, or changes in the distribution of already existing ones.

"Evolution in a broad sense, [is] the origin of entities possessing different states of one or more characteristics and changes in those proportions of those entities over time. Organic evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits. Such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon."1

This is observable, and has been observed in the same manner we have observed any other scientific theory.2,3

What causes Evolution?

This is where terms like Natural selection and mutation come into play. However, those are not the only things that cause evolution. Genetic drift, gene-flow, artificial selection, biased mutation, and many other things can cause evolution. The only criteria for causing evolution is to cause what was described above. The following are explanations and textbook definition of the key concepts in evolution. Those are Natural selection, Genetic drift, Mutation, and Speciation. Keep in mind that both my explanations and the textbook definitions are summaries of topics that are actually quite complex and involve a multitude of concepts themselves. I would be writing a a series of textbooks if I hoped to explain them completely.

Natural Selection is commonly referred to as "Survival of the fittest" and the "Driving force of Evolution". This means that some trait allows an organism to be able to reproduce better than fellow members of your species and that the genes that allowed you to do so will make up a greater proportion of future populations. This is logical not theoretical, and again is observable.

"Natural selection [is] the differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics. To constitute natural selection, the difference in survival and/or reproduction cannot be due to chance, and it must have the potential consequence of altering the proportions of the different entities. Thus natural selection is also definable as a deterministic difference in the contribution of different classes of entities to subsequent generations. Usually the differences are inherited. The entities may be alleles, genotypes, or subsets of genotypes, populations, or, in the broadest sense, species. A complex concept..."

This definition then refers to read an entire chapter dedicated to the topic, so again keep in mind its actually rather more complex than "Survival of the fittest" even though that is the simplest explanation. Again this is both observable, and has been observed. 2,3

"Genetic Drift random changes in the frequencies of two or more alleles or genotypes within a population." 1

Simply put this accounts for observed randomness in some evolutionary patterns. Genetic drift can actually counteract Natural Selection or accelerate it. That is having a trait may make one more fit but your trait may be drowned out due to random chances. As predicted by probability Genetic drift can have extremely important effects on evolution in small populations, but becomes less influential in larger populations. Look up things like the founder effect and bottleneck if you wish to learn more.

Mutation is commonly referred to as the fuel for evolution. It allows room for new previously non-existing traits to appear in a population, and allows that population to become drastically different once accumulated.

"Mutation [is] an error in the replication of a nucleotide sequence, or any other alteration of the genome that is not manifested as a reciprocal recombination." 1

There really isn't much more to say about this, but that mutations are clearly observable.

"Speciation [is] evolution of reproductive isolation within an ancestral species, resulting in two or more descendant species." 1

Speciation is arguably the most important part of evolution. It is when the entire theory comes together to explain the origin of new species to which the theory was meant to explain. Once a new species occurs it can undergo different evolution than its ancestor or sister species and become something drastically different. One becomes two, two becomes four, and so forth.

Again it is observable and has been observed. A semi-personal experience I have with this is that the Dean of the biology department in the university to which I attend and the man who taught me (and everyone else in my Evolution lecture) the more intricate details of evolution does work on this very subject. He studies the speciation that is currently happening between flies that live on two different species of goldenrod. Other examples of speciation have been observed of course, but that is an example that has always stuck with me. If you wish to see the example I am talking about see section 5.5.2 in my 3rd citation or my fourth citation.4

Predictions of Evolution

This is what many non-scientist find so controversial. Most predictions are uncontroversial, that a speciation will occur under certain conditions, that evolution will occur under selective pressures, and other such things that have been validate to the same level of gravity. That is, we have observed it directly.

Where things become controversial (for non-scientist) is that evolution predicts that man evolved from an ape ancestor, and that every living species has some common ancestry. So far these predictions have been in line with evidence uncovered through paleontology and genetic analysis. We know speciation can occur, as stated above through speciation that is happening today. It is therefor no stretch to think it has happened in the past, and that a large number of these events can result in a numerous amounts of different organism that we see today

We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between reptiles and birds which are actually so closely related that they belong to the same phylum. We can actually turn on some genes in birds so that they grow traits associated with reptiles, such as facial structure and the presence of teeth. In fact, this sometimes happens naturally and is the origin of ?hens teeth?. We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between reptiles and mammals. We have fossil evidence that shows intermediates between ape and human. These are by no means complete, but we do not need completeness for the individual components to be evidence towards something especially if that something is already predicted by a well established scientific theory.

I will not reference them here as the diversity of information is to great for me to do it any justice within the time frame I wish. However if you would like to find the sources yourself I encourage you start with the following. Look up Synapsids, in particular Cynognathus, for the mammal-like reptiles and homo species for human-ape intermediates. Looking up the reptile bird connection is rather straight forward, but I point you to the most common example (there are many others) of Archaeopteryx.


Controversy in Evolution

I add this section not because its particularly important for the layman to understand evolution, but because many opponents to evolution will point out that "Not all of the science community agree on evolution' as if it there was a significant part of the scientific community that thinks evolution is not the most inclusive and well tested theory in determining the origin of species.

Evolutionary scientists disagree on a number of fine points within evolution. The major dispute is between those who think Gradualism is the most important contributor, or if punctuated equilibrium is. Both of these theories fall under what I previously described as evolution, the definitions I gave, and the predictions I stated.

"Gradualism [is] the proposition that large differences in phenotypic characters have evolved through many slightly different intermediate states."

"Punctuated equilibrium [is] A pattern of rapid evolutionary change in the phenotype of a lineage separated by long periods of little change; also; a hypothesis intended to explain such a pattern, whereby phenotypic change transpires rapidly in small populations, in concert with the evolution of reproductive isolation. "

Both are currently valid hypothesizes, and each have some convincing evidence. That is why its controversial. Both can occur, but which is the typical case is what is considered controversial.

What evolution is not.

Evolution is not a belief, a religion, or a creed. It says nothing about the origin of life in the way its typically talked about. Although chemical evolution (notably different than Biological evolution) is a hypothesis for the origin of life we currently lack the experimental evidence to elevate it to a scientific theory. Evolution says nothing about the existence of god except that some of its predictions conflict with creationist stories. Most notably that god created man as man is currently today.

The End
If you choose not to believe a prediction that evolution makes is not correct based on faith that is fine. Just recognize that it is the equivalent of not believing your going to fall to your death from jumping off a cliff. That is to say the combination of observed phenomenon evidence, and rational extrapolation says that you will.

I have no problem with you believing in creationism, or another explanation instead of Evolution. That is your personal decision and while I disagree with it I'm not your puppet-master.

I do have a problem when you suggest that evolution is not accepted science, or state that pseudo-scientific ideas like Intelligent design are just as valid and well supported concepts and/or that both should be taught in a science classroom. As such expect me to completely dismantle a reply that states such things. Such things are never going to be taught as science, because a trained scientists knows what science is, and that such theories are not science. To force them to teach it would be the equivalent of forcing a English teacher/professor to teach math alongside English. Regardless of whether or not it is true it would be both be confusing, detrimental to teaching the subject and silly to do so.

 

[IkeGreil29]

Ballz, man. It's hard to explain why. I don't think there's a single answer, and what's more, probably a combination of everything you said has caused it. It's sad to think of it, and what's more, that people who believe in it cannot grasp the concept well enough.

 

[Sparkytheyetti]

Reason why intelligent design has gotten so much attention media wise is because big wigs in the government were hard right wing Christians. People get pissed because we have separation of church and state. Some very devoted groups see it as a way to get church back into the schools, because without god were all doomed.

 

[Balvale]

Hold on, intelligent design does NOT conflict with evolution - it simply stats that the world is too complex without there being some hyper-intelligent beings having helped spur things along - be it aliens or God. Whether that indicates the world is a few thousand years old or a few billion is irrelevant to intelligent design as a whole.

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, a concept of intelligent design, is in direct conflict with evolution.

The definition: A single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Evolution runs counter to this. Parts of a system can and do have functions (see bacterial flagellum) and will not necessarily lead to collapse. These parts evolve over time and end up in their present form.

 

[Defenestra]

A hypothesis is good if it explains more than it assumes, and can be used to make at least reasonably accurate predictions.

The explanation of species development provided by the evolutionary hypothesis as it currently stands explains a great deal, and makes assumptions that are backed up nicely by biochemistry. Since the evolution hypothesis has endured tremendous efforts to disprove it, and remains reliable, it is now considered a Theory.

The explanation of species development provided by the Creationism or Intelligent Design hypotheses demands large assumptions, and raises as many questions as it answers. It suggests that the evolutionary process would not have been capable of producing complex life as we know it, and that an outside force acted to make life possible. Which raises the question of where this, even *more* complex, entity came from. If we assume that the creators or shapers of life for our world were living beings from another one, then their own origins pose the same question. If we assume that the designer of life is an eternal being external to this universe, then we have basically assume an entire whole other universe in order to explain a pheominon in our own, and we are likewise no closer to havng any sorty of meaningful understanding.


So the ID and Creationism hypotheses are pretty much useless. Claiming that somehow both are true is simply silly, because it takes a theory which does explain the current situation just nicely, and tacks on extra bits that make a stack of assumtions that offer no power of explanation or prediction.


Just because there are two ideas does not mean that we should compromise and try to find some middle ground. It is entirely possible that one of them is completely wrong. It's also possible that both are, but if one of them has evidence, and can be backed up with experimentation, then that one is probably the true one. If the other one is basically Bronze Age poetry, thenI'm really not sure why this is considred any kind of competition.

 

[Ritter315]

Oktalist: "The theory of gravity cannot be proven" -I've heard of this arguement too many times, its insanity. Gravity CAN BE OBSERVED concretely, meaning that if you just off a building you will hit concrete. In all seriousness though, gravity in the sense that its observable is proven, at least there is great amounts of evidence for it. Evolution does NOT have the same testable, observable evidence that gravity does. I've never understood this arguement myself.
"but if tomorrow an object fell differently, gravity would be disproven and we'd have to look for a new theory. Similarly, every fossil and extant organism we have ever seen has been consistent with the theory of evolution, but if tomorrow we found a fossil that didn't fit the theory" - Those who are completely different. One is the reversal of an idea taken for granted while the other is the unearthing of evidence.

"The existence of the Roman Empire cannot be proven because no-one has ever witnessed it." -Do I even need to explain why this is an utterly stupid statement. " All we have are these bits of old pottery and coins and stuff that we dug out of the ground" - Also mountains of books, laws, decrees, entire bastions of written information as well as historical, cultural and social remnents of that society of the Roman Empire AS WELL AS historical data of the barbarian tribes that conquered it. I know you're using hyperbole, but when you do at least try to use GOOD exaggerations. "Oh no wait, the Romans are mentioned in the Bible, so that proves they existed." -A historical document DOES prove a lot when linked with evidence...like the bible yes exactly. Thank you for my point.

"We have witnessed evolution, in bacteria and in moths and elsewhere" -I've already explained this, slight variation IS part of evolution but it does not prove the ENTIRE theory as a whole. The only part it proves is natural selection and the resulting speciation as well as genetic mutation etc etc.

"If you're under the impression that evolution means a creature changing from one form to another within its own lifetime" -Did I say that? NO! NO I did not say that. What I said was that genetic mutation across ANY amounts of observable generations for all of human history has NEVER been proven that an organism can evolve into a higher form of life, not even in the slightest amount. "Also "higher form of life" is another of your own inventions, having nothing to do with evolution" - A superior form of life, I'm not going to argue termiology.

"Actually you would have a harder time trying to prove that natural selection doesn't happen" -...It does happen, I've stated that before. But the odds of evolutionary means of the origin of LIFE is very slim odd-wise.

"If you think that extant species and the fossil record are not concrete evidence for evolution then you have a bigger problem" - yes thats what I'm suggesting, because in no case was any animal found was proven to have ANY offspring, let alone offspring that lived long enough to reproduce and NO Evidence to suggest that these fossils are related in a long span of time rather than seperate species.


"I can only conclude that they have a form of mental illness." - THis is why I dislike most evolutionists, because they insult their intellectual opponents with the class of an ape...all things considered that shouldnt be suprising. Haha, evolutionary humor.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Only 19 percent of the general public believes that life developed without any assistance or direction from a Creator.

Protip: Don't try to use C.S. Lewis. He was not a scientist. That is like bringing Richard Dawkins in as an expert on theology. Falconsgyre has tackled the rest of your post. And that part I quoted? An irrelevant logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_populum

 

[BrassButtons]

Evolution does NOT have the same testable, observable evidence that gravity does.

How many years of research did it take for you to reach this conclusion? There are a lot of scientific journals with papers on various aspects of Evolutionary Theory that claim to involve exactly the kind of evidence you say does not exist--how many of them have you reviewed? What problems did you see with their methodology? What qualifications do you have that allow you to spot those problems?

"Also "higher form of life" is another of your own inventions, having nothing to do with evolution" - A superior form of life, I'm not going to argue termiology.

Where in your research of Evolutionary Theory did you come across the idea that evolution means changing from inferior to superior forms of life?

But the odds of evolutionary means of the origin of LIFE is very slim odd-wise.

Where in your research of Evolutionary Theory did you come across the idea that the origin of life is a part of it?

yes thats what I'm suggesting, because in no case was any animal found was proven to have ANY offspring, let alone offspring that lived long enough to reproduce and NO Evidence to suggest that these fossils are related in a long span of time rather than seperate species.

Are you a paleontologist? If not, how many years have you spent studying fossils as a hobby?

 

[Asita]

Oktalist: "The theory of gravity cannot be proven" -I've heard of this arguement too many times, its insanity. Gravity CAN BE OBSERVED concretely, meaning that if you just off a building you will hit concrete. In all seriousness though, gravity in the sense that its observable is proven, at least there is great amounts of evidence for it. Evolution does NOT have the same testable, observable evidence that gravity does. I've never understood this arguement myself.

You mean besides the direct observation of speciation and the application of selection pressure used by man in horticulture and animal breeding to change things like the wild banana into the dessert banana? The same application that led to EVERY breed of dog? You know, changing this into this and this among other things? Besides the fact that all lines of inquiry from molecular biology, to genetics, to comparative physiology, to fossil records, to observed natural selection to controlled instances of speciation all point to the same conclusion?

"Actually you would have a harder time trying to prove that natural selection doesn't happen" -...It does happen, I've stated that before. But the odds of evolutionary means of the origin of LIFE is very slim odd-wise.

The origin of life is abiogenesis, a different subject in and of itself. Evolution describes the change of existing life, not its inception, and relies on it no more than atomic theory relies on baryogenesis.

"If you think that extant species and the fossil record are not concrete evidence for evolution then you have a bigger problem" - yes thats what I'm suggesting, because in no case was any animal found was proven to have ANY offspring, let alone offspring that lived long enough to reproduce and NO Evidence to suggest that these fossils are related in a long span of time rather than seperate species.

So basically what you're saying is that you want to dismiss the entire field of paleontology out of hand, and that a chain of progressively similar fossils such as seen in the history of the horse simply don't count? And that you somehow know better than the people who quite literally devote their lives to the study of fossils? Geez, tough crowd.

 

[evilneko]

I've already explained this, slight variation IS part of evolution but it does not prove the ENTIRE theory as a whole. The only part it proves is natural selection and the resulting speciation as well as genetic mutation etc etc.

I'm sorry, how does it not?

At the broadest, most fundamental level, evolutionary theory consists of three parts:

1. Random mutation
2. Descent with modification
3. Natural Selection

The first two are where the changes come from. The third is how the changes either propogate through a population or die off. In this tiny quote, you've actually shown and accepted the entirety of evolution. I'm not quite sure how you didn't realize this. I expected you to stop short of granting speciation, but you went all the way. So what's your beef?

What I said was that genetic mutation across ANY amounts of observable generations for all of human history has NEVER been proven that an organism can evolve into a higher form of life, not even in the slightest amount.

And yet you accept speciation.

I'm confused now.

But the odds of evolutionary means of the origin of LIFE is very slim odd-wise.

We're talking evolution here, not abiogenesis. And the odds argument is a pathetic argument anyway.

yes thats what I'm suggesting, because in no case was any animal found was proven to have ANY offspring, let alone offspring that lived long enough to reproduce and NO Evidence to suggest that these fossils are related in a long span of time rather than seperate species.

Not...sure...if...serious....

THis is why I dislike most evolutionists, because they insult their intellectual opponents with the class of an ape...all things considered that shouldnt be suprising

Hey, not everyone can be as cool, calm, and professorial as C0nC0rdance, potholer54, cdk007, Genie Scott, etc. When you deal with people who constantly shut their eyes, plug their ears and shout "GODDUNNIT GODDUNNIT GODDUNNIT" at the top of their lungs when presented with the facts...some people run out of patience and say things that maybe they shouldn't. Even I've been guilty of that in this very thread.

 

[AMMO Kid]

The misinterpretation of evolution is that it is completely flawless. When you get down to the details there really is no solid piece of evidence for evolution, just many pieces of "evidence" that lead people to one conclusion. It's okay to believe in evolution if you want, but please don't go around thinking that it is a flawless gem and other belief systems are full of holes and unprovable.

The mechanism of evolution is flawless, since the burden of evidence for that is so incredibly massive. I wasn't aware there were any competing theories regarding the mechanism of evolution either. Which do you mean exactly?

So one can't 'believe' in evolution. That you're going to fall if you throw yourself out a second story window isn't a 'belief' either.

But that's my point. The mechanism of evolution isn't flawless. Every single point that evolutionist have brought to the table for evolution can be debated against by other evidence. The only problem is that evolutionists are supported by the media and other sources these days more than Creationism, so when people hear about the "facts" discover by evolution they don't hear about the counter arguments and evidence against it. Therefore, most people in the civilized world who take what people tell them without doing their own research will be totally unaware of the arguments against it, many of which hold very good points, and they believe that evolution is a flawless theory that cannot be disproven. Like I said before, believe in evolution if you want, but there is as much evidence supporting the Bible as there is evolution. Here is a quote from legendary scientist George Wald. Many people have disputed that Wald didn't mean what he said in this quote, but what he said is what he said.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." George Wald

And I have no idea what your point was in your second paragraph. Please elaborate a little more.

 

[Olrod]

The misinterpretation of evolution is that it is completely flawless. When you get down to the details there really is no solid piece of evidence for evolution, just many pieces of "evidence" that lead people to one conclusion. It's okay to believe in evolution if you want, but please don't go around thinking that it is a flawless gem and other belief systems are full of holes and unprovable.

The mechanism of evolution is flawless, since the burden of evidence for that is so incredibly massive. I wasn't aware there were any competing theories regarding the mechanism of evolution either. Which do you mean exactly?

So one can't 'believe' in evolution. That you're going to fall if you throw yourself out a second story window isn't a 'belief' either.

But that's my point. The mechanism of evolution isn't flawless. Every single point that evolutionist have brought to the table for evolution can be debated against by other evidence. The only problem is that evolutionists are supported by the media and other sources these days more than Creationism, so when people hear about the "facts" discover by evolution they don't hear about the counter arguments and evidence against it. Therefore, most people in the civilized world who take what people tell them without doing their own research will be totally unaware of the arguments against it, many of which hold very good points, and they believe that evolution is a flawless theory that cannot be disproven. Like I said before, believe in evolution if you want, but there is as much evidence supporting the Bible as there is evolution. Here is a quote from legendary scientist George Wald. Many people have disputed that Wald didn't mean what he said in this quote, but what he said is what he said.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." George Wald

And I have no idea what your point was in your second paragraph. Please elaborate a little more.

You may need to provide some of this "evidence" that you claim exists.

To quote Wikipedia: CITATION NEEDED.

There's as much evidence supporting the Bible's story of creation as there is supporting the Ancient Greek, Egyptian or Aztec's stories of creation.

 

[Asita]

But that's my point. The mechanism of evolution isn't flawless. Every single point that evolutionist have brought to the table for evolution can be debated against by other evidence. The only problem is that evolutionists are supported by the media and other sources these days more than Creationism, so when people hear about the "facts" discover by evolution they don't hear about the counter arguments and evidence against it.

I've yet to see a counter argument that doesn't rely on either a logical fallacy or a phenomenal misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. And I've seen a LOT of creationist arguments firsthand.

there is as much evidence supporting the Bible as there is evolution.

Now, I'd love to see what you supply here, because the Bible is outright atrocious when it comes to its depiction of biology. Famous example: Jacob getting Laban's flock to breed patterned sheep based on what they looked at while breeding. That's demonstrably inaccurate.

Here is a quote from legendary scientist George Wald. Many people have disputed that Wald didn't mean what he said in this quote, but what he said is what he said.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." George Wald

And I have no idea what your point was in your second paragraph. Please elaborate a little more.

And thus you prove my point about fallacies with an attempt at Poisoning the Well by way of Appeal to Authority. Incidentally, it's worth noting that the Spontaneous Generation disproved by Pasteur bears more in common with Creationist claims (things like rats and maggots appearing without cause and fully formed, particularly in corpses) than abiogeneis (which posits the development of MUCH simpler, single celled organisms).

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Like I said before, believe in evolution if you want, but there is as much evidence supporting the Bible as there is evolution.

That is a bold statement. Got any sources to back it up?