Evolution: PROVE IT!

reply to post by bastet11


Yes, but that's an appearance. In the same way that there is an appearance of a deity in a grilled cheese sandwich or a cat in the clouds.

Our mind like to perform closure. There are plenty of examples of it in psychology. Our mind places an idea of order upon that which isn't actually ordered.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom

Originally posted by james404

Proof is for mathematics.

Exactly true. Consider this. Suppose evolution does not occur. One species cannot evolve into another. This would imply that every species that exists today has always existed. We also know that some species become extinct, and we have reasonable estimates for the number of species that become extinct.

Now, if we consider the number of species that exist today, then extrapolate backwards, we quickly find that the number of species existing on Earth, say a million years ago, reaches an impossible number.

I know I didn't explain this well, I hope what I was trying to say was clear. TIme limitations.

I think I get where you're going with that. If you can express evolution in terms of mathematics, then it can be proved by deduction. Not the best example, though, because it relies on the assumption that evolution is the only way for one species to produce another. I guess you could add "suppose evolution is the only mechanism for speciation" but that's begging the question.

I heard a similar line of reasoning by creationists that the Earth can't be more than 6,000 years old because the magnetic field is observed to be weakening. If we extrapolate back more than a few thousand years, the field would be too strong to support life.

reply to post by james404


Except that the typical argument doesn't actually refer to any data set. Yes, the magnetic field is currently weakening, but it has historically fluctuated quite a bit. It's been both stronger and weaker at various times.

As for speciation, we've observed evolution producing speciation.

Originally posted by bastet11
My husband is a PhD in biochemistry, works as a R&D scientist. He likes to talk about the "miracles" in evolution at times. But he says the one thing he cannot figure out is why everything that has evolved seems to have been deliberate and intended..in other words..that although evolution is a fact in his opinion..it appears to have been set down by a "designer". Funny, huh?

Actually my cat says much the same thing.

After a few days of reading evolutionism/creationism threads over my shoulder, Purrfect sat down on me for a serious talk. - And you know what, it all made sense.

When you look carefully at humans, silly, furless two-legs that they are, you see they actually are quite useful.
Just having two legs might seem dangerous, and they do fall over a lot, but it means they can reach the high cupboard where the dry catfood lives.
Yes, they lack claws, and are hopeless at climbing trees, but their hands are superbly adapted for stroking cats.
They can't purr, poor things, but some can sing quite nicely while they're stroking their cats.
They are able to carry bags, which means when they go out and hunt for cat food and milk, they can bring back plenty.
They can open cans and milk bottles for us.
They have the ability to catch fish for us.
They have even developed a lifestyle which attracts delicious rodents to the houses they build for us.

Purrfect calculated the odds carefully, and decided there was only one chance in a zlanzillion of all this happening by random chance. As we all know unlikely things never happen, this is proof humans were designed by the great cat god for the express purpose of serving cats.



Or, to put it another way, evolution is not random. Evolution is the survival of what works. A long enough period of evolution is likely to produce something that works very well, such as the relationship between man and cat. Yes, it's not only the physical attributes that evolve, behaviours too can have a physical basis, and thus evolve.

When we look at the lifeforms on earth, which have all evolved together for so long, we see an extroardinary panorama of living things that not only work, but often look beautiful and bring happiness. It's easy, if you have a reverent outlook, to see this as proof of a designer. However, science can explain all this without any need for a designer.

Of course, absence of proof is not proof of absence, it just means that spiritual ideas don't have a place in the science lab.

Originally posted by Griffo


EDIT: you have a picture of a troll as your avatar. Coincidence?

edit on 14/11/2010 by Griffo because: (no reason given)

Thats an Orc, get it straight!

I'm going to post this on here, because Romantic Rebel posted this in the "FALSIFY IT!" thread, as it's incredibly useful over here.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I have several links I would like to share and have you and anyone else to go over. I would like to see what you believe and the proof you have to offer to support that belief.
Seven Evolutionary left over in the human body
10 signs of evolution in modern man
Early humans used brain power
Darwin Today Question and Answers
Evolution @ At
Who's your daddy?
What does it mean to be human?
Human evolution in 3d
Human Evolution
Human Evolution [2]
Funny article
Family issues lol
Top ten myths about evolution
Introduction to Evolution
15 answers to Creationist
The Bio Code
Understanding Evolution
Evolution PBS
The Evolution psychology to human sex and gender
Evolution 101 natural selection
Exploring life's origins
Not just a theroy
HIV not so ancient history
Top ten mysths about evolution (and one extra)

RR through together a great number of great sources on evolution and this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking to see in this thread.

Just some more resources on what is quite possibly the most damning evidence in support of evolution: Phylogeny.

This is a series of 4 videos, with more coming, by YouTube user AronRa, whose expertise is actually in phylogeny.

Conduct a little thought experiment...............................Imagine what you would expect to see from a system that did 'evolve' according to conventional science - where if a creature can replicate (slightly imperfectly) and survive - it will - no matter how disgusting, repulsive, destructive etc

Then imagine whatever concept you have of a 'creator' - would come up with.



So..............what does the world you live in more closely resemble!?

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


An evolved world. We have disgusting things like the blob fish and incredibly beautiful creatures. But the similarity is that they all follow the process by which evolution occurs.

A world with a creator would..well...it would have massive numbers of anomalies. We don't have any anomalies.

I rarely comment but i grow extremely tired of seeing these mind numbing threads.

Unless you have a time machine no one will ever be able to prove anything there will always be those that think a great and mighty one clapped his hands and it all came to be.


One good example along the lines of evolution ( and it happens overnight)

findarticles.com...


whale leg fossil
google results 251,000
( perhaps someone needs to learn to use the internet)

"In the same way that there is an appearance of a deity in a grilled cheese sandwich or a cat in the clouds."

That just made me laugh, odd how we cant except a scientific theory yet there are still masses that will flock to a burnt cheese sand which.


Remember arguing on the internet is like the special Olympics, win or lose your still retarded.

Another proof of evolution, I posted a this in the FALSIFY IT! thread in response to allegations of there being no transition between reptiles and mammals.

It is a list and detailing of the evolutionary transition from reptile to mammal.

Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- An early captorhinomorph reptile, with no temporal fenestrae at all.
Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian) -- The earliest known synapsid reptile. Little temporal fenestra, with all surrounding bones intact. Fragmentary. Had amphibian-type vertebrae with tiny neural processes. (reptiles had only just separated from the amphibians)
Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian) -- The second earliest known synapsid. These early, very primitive synapsids are a primitive group of pelycosaurs collectively called "ophiacodonts".
Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian) -- A slightly later ophiacodont. Small temporal fenestra, now with some reduced bones (supratemporal). Braincase still just loosely attached to skull. Slight hint of different tooth types. Still has some extremely primitive, amphibian/captorhinid features in the jaw, foot, and skull. Limbs, posture, etc. typically reptilian, though the ilium (major hip bone) was slightly enlarged.
Varanops (early Permian) -- Temporal fenestra further enlarged. Braincase floor shows first mammalian tendencies & first signs of stronger attachment to rest of skull (occiput more strongly attached). Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature (slight coronoid eminence). Body narrower, deeper: vertebral column more strongly constructed. Ilium further enlarged, lower-limb musculature starts to change (prominent fourth trochanter on femur). This animal was more mobile and active. Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, showing the initiation of sphenacodont features while retaining many primitive features of the ophiacodonts. Occiput still more strongly attached to the braincase. Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall. Stronger jaw muscles. Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian. Neural spines on vertebrae longer. Hip strengthened by fusing to three sacral vertebrae instead of just two. Limbs very well developed.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, 270 Ma) -- More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor, but as it is known from very complete fossils, it's a good model for sphenacodont anatomy. Medium-sized fenestra. Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum, but there was no eardrum yet, so these reptiles could only hear ground-borne vibrations (they did have a reptilian middle ear). Vertebrae had still longer neural spines (spectacularly so in Dimetrodon, which had a sail), and longer transverse spines for stronger locomotion muscles.
Biarmosuchia (late Permian) -- A therocephalian -- one of the earliest, most primitive therapsids. Several primitive, sphenacodontid features retained: jaw muscles inside the skull, platelike occiput, palatal teeth. New features: Temporal fenestra further enlarged, occupying virtually all of the cheek, with the supratemporal bone completely gone. Occipital plate slanted slightly backwards rather than forwards as in pelycosaurs, and attached still more strongly to the braincase. Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Still no secondary palate, but the vomer bones of the palate developed a backward extension below the palatine bones. This is the first step toward a secondary palate, and with exactly the same pattern seen in cynodonts. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle). The amphibian-like hinged upper jaw finally became immovable. Vertebrae still sphenacodontid-like. Radical alteration in the method of locomotion, with a much more mobile forelimb, more upright hindlimb, & more mammalian femur & pelvis. Primitive sphenacodontid humerus. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian. The neck & tail vertebrae became distinctly different from trunk vertebrae. Probably had an eardrum in the lower jaw, by the jaw hinge.
Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -- The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Probably arose from the therocephalians, judging from the distinctive secondary palate and numerous other skull characters. Enormous temporal fossae for very strong jaw muscles, formed by just one of the reptilian jaw muscles, which has now become the mammalian masseter. The large fossae is now bounded only by the thin zygomatic arch (cheekbone to you & me). Secondary palate now composed mainly of palatine bones (mammalian), rather than vomers and maxilla as in older forms; it's still only a partial bony palate (completed in life with soft tissue). Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Dentary now is 3/4 of lower jaw; the other bones are now a small complex near the jaw hinge. Jaw hinge still reptilian. Vertebral column starts to look mammalian: first two vertebrae modified for head movements, and lumbar vertebrae start to lose ribs, the first sign of functional division into thoracic and lumbar regions. Scapula beginning to change shape. Further enlargement of the ilium and reduction of the pubis in the hip. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian) -- Another early cynodont. First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The temporal fenestra increased still further. Various changes in the floor of the braincase; enlarged brain. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge. Single occipital condyle splitting into two surfaces. The postcranial skeleton of Dvinia is virtually unknown and it is not therefore certain whether the typical features found at the next level had already evolved by this one. Metabolic rate was probably increased, at least approaching homeothermy.
Thrinaxodon (early Triassic) -- A more advanced "galesaurid" cynodont. Further development of several of the cynodont features seen already. Temporal fenestra still larger, larger jaw muscle attachments. Bony secondary palate almost complete. Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. Dentary still larger, with the little quadrate and articular bones were loosely attached. The stapes now touched the inner side of the quadrate. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge, a ligamentous connection between the lower jaw and the squamosal bone of the skull. The occipital condyle is now two slightly separated surfaces, though not separated as far as the mammalian double condyles. Vertebral connections more mammalian, and lumbar ribs reduced. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. Ilium increased again, and all four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Tail short, as is necessary for agile quadrupedal locomotion. The whole locomotion was more agile. Number of toe bones is 2.3.4.4.3, intermediate between reptile number (2.3.4.5.4) and mammalian (2.3.3.3.3), and the "extra" toe bones were tiny. Nearly complete skeletons of these animals have been found curled up - a possible reaction to conserve heat, indicating possible endothermy? Adults and juveniles have been found together, possibly a sign of parental care. The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.
Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier) -- We're now at advanced cynodont level. Temporal fenestra larger. Teeth differentiating further; cheek teeth with cusps met in true occlusion for slicing up food, rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). Dentary still larger, forming 90% of the muscle-bearing part of the lower jaw. TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian: A new bony jaw joint existed between the squamosal (skull) and the surangular bone (lower jaw), while the other jaw joint bones were reduced to a compound rod lying in a trough in the dentary, close to the middle ear. Ribs more mammalian. Scapula halfway to the mammalian condition. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus) -- Temporal fenestra larger still, for still stronger jaw muscles. True bony secondary palate formed exactly as in mammals, but didn't extend quite as far back. Turbinate bones possibly present in the nose (warm-blooded?). Dental changes continue: rate of tooth replacement had decreased, cheek teeth have better cusps & consistent wear facets (better occlusion). Lower jaw almost entirely dentary, with tiny articular at the hinge. Still a double jaw joint. Ribs shorten suddenly in lumbar region, probably improving diaphragm function & locomotion. Mammalian toe bones (2.3.3.3.3), with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America) -- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina) -- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.
Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America) -- (Formerly lumped with the herbivorous gomphodont cynodonts.) Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). Costal plates completely lost. More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. Possibly the first steps toward coupling of locomotion & breathing. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time. The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals. Recent discoveries seem to show trithelodontids to be more mammal- like, with tritylodontids possibly being an offshoot group (see Hopson 1991, Rowe 1988, Wible 1991, and Shubin et al. 1991). Bear in mind that both these groups were almost fully mammalian in every feature, lacking only the final changes in the jaw joint and middle ear.

Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- These are tritylodontids, an advanced cynodont group. Face more mammalian, with changes around eyesocket and cheekbone. Full bony secondary palate. Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion (which some earlier cynodonts already had). Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. More flexible neck, with mammalian atlas & axis and double occipital condyle. Tail vertebrae simpler, like mammals. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones and hind limb muscles; this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. Probably cousin fossils (?), with Oligokyphus being more primitive than Kayentatherium. Thought to have diverged from the trithelodontids during that gap in the late Triassic. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals (presumably during the late Triassic gap) or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma) -- These are trithelodontids, a slightly different advanced cynodont group. New discoveries (Shubin et al., 1991) show that these animals are very close to the ancestry of mammals. Inflation of nasal cavity, establishment of Eustachian tubes between ear and pharynx, loss of postorbital bar. Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel, and mammalian tooth occlusion. Double jaw joint, with the second joint now a dentary-squamosal (instead of surangular), fully mammalian. Incipient dentary condyle. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing; postdentary bones further reduced to tiny rod of bones in jaw near middle ear; probably could hear high frequencies now. More mammalian neck vertebrae for a flexible neck. Hip more mammalian, with a very mammalian iliac blade & femur. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. Probably had coupled locomotion & breathing. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral (the true ancestor is thought to have occurred during that late Triassic gap). Pachygenelus is pretty close, though.
Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas) -- A recently discovered fossil proto-mammal from right in the middle of that late Triassic gap! Currently the oldest known "mammal." Only the skull was found. "Some cranial features of Adelobasileus, such as the incipient promontorium housing the cochlea, represent an intermediate stage of the character transformation from non-mammalian cynodonts to Liassic mammals" (Lucas & Luo, 1993). This fossil was found from a band of strata in the western U.S. that had not previously been studied for early mammals. Also note that this fossil dates from slightly before the known tritylodonts and trithelodonts, though it has long been suspected that tritilodonts and trithelodonts were already around by then. Adelobasileus is thought to have split off from either a trityl. or a trithel., and is either identical to or closely related to the common ancestor of all mammals.
Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Eyesocket fully mammalian now (closed medial wall). Hindbrain expanded. Permanent cheekteeth, like mammals, but the other teeth were still replaced several times. Mammalian jaw joint stronger, with large dentary condyle fitting into a distinct fossa on the squamosal. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma) -- A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma) -- A group of early proto-mammals called "morganucodonts". The restructuring of the secondary palate and the floor of the braincase had continued, and was now very mammalian. Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Triangular- cusped molars. Reversal of the previous trend toward reduced incisors, with lower incisors increasing to four. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Once thought to be ancestral to monotremes only, but now thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma) -- A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials. Triconodont molar has with more defined cusps. This fossil is known only from teeth, but judging from closely related eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) it had finally lost the reptilian jaw joint, attaing a fully mammalian three-boned middle ear with excellent high-frequency hearing. Has only 8 cheek teeth, less than other eupantotheres and close to the 7 of the first placental mammals. Also has a large talonid on its "tribosphenic" molars, almost as large as that of the first placentals -- the first development of grinding capability.
Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma) -- An advanced eupantothere. Fully tribosphenic molars with a well- developed talonid. Known only from one specimen. From Asia; recent fossil finds in Asia suggest that the tribosphenic molar evolved there.
Kielantherium and Aegialodon (early Cretaceous) -- More advanced eupantotheres known only from teeth. Kielantherium is from Asia and is known from slightly older strata than the European Aegialodon. Both have the talonid on the lower molars. The wear on it indicates that a major new cusp, the protocone, had evolved on the upper molars. By the Middle Cretaceous, animals with the new tribosphenic molar had spread into North America too (North America was still connected to Europe.)
Steropodon galmani (early Cretaceous) -- The first known definite monotreme, discovered in 1985.
Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma) -- A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits, known from some nice skulls. Placental-type braincase and coiled cochlea. Its intracranial arteries & veins ran in a composite monotreme/placental pattern derived from homologous extracranial vessels in the cynodonts. (Rougier et al., 1992)
Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma) -- The first definite marsupial. Known only from teeth.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous, Mongolia) -- Small, slender animals; eyesocket open behind; simple ring to support eardrum; primitive placental-type brain with large olfactory bulbs; basic primitive tribosphenic tooth pattern. Canine now double rooted. Still just a trace of a non-dentary bone, the coronoid, on the otherwise all-dentary jaw. "Could have given rise to nearly all subsequent placentals." says Carroll (1988).

From Talk Origins

evolution is ultimately about bio-chemistry. chemistry is the study of how molecules combine to creat various materials and it defines and explains various properties of the different materials.

DNA is a set chemicals that are comprised of 4 different molecules called nucleotides (I am not sure of the spelling of the word and it isn't in my dictionary). DNA is chains of these nucleotides. Since we are talking about chemistry DNA has to behave according to well defined and time tested mathematical laws.

These DNA chains can be described as vectors where each vector has as components 1 of 4 nucleotides. Thus, a species should be able to be defined as a permutation of vectors where each vector is a permutation of nucleotides. Distance between vectors is mathematically well defined. So the difference between species can be defined as a distance between vectors. At what distance does a new set of vectors become a new species?

Science has of yet to define from a bio chemical point of view where one species starts and another begins.
Science has of yet been unable to define how outlying stimuli effect how the DNA chemistry is stimulated to change to match the environment. (I also wonder how the DNA knows what the environment is going to be in 1000's and 1000's of years. DNA must be psychic.)

The 'theory' is not well defined from a mathematical perspective.


Hence, evolution is not well defined from a mathematical standpoint and as such is not proven. Evolution is sophistry which appeals to the intuition and not much more.

Lord Kelvin made a remark something like: If one can not put a number to a phenomenon then one doesn't really have any knowledge of what is happening. They may have the beginings of knowledge but they don't really have knowledge.

I am not religious. I think life is more mysterious than people will ever be able to understand. Scientists can't always be trusted because as people they are often mistaken or just plain dishonest. There is little or no integrity in science as scientists will say anything for a grant (or for tenure or to get published). Money corrupts!

I also wonder how one cell organisms turned into multicelled organisms. Evolution is supposed to mean gradual change over a period of time. Where are the 2 celled entities, or 3 celled or 4 celled. It seems that single celled entities simply errupted into multimillion celled entities with no intermediate steps.

Maybe evolution is true but it is far from proven. ( I don't believe the Bible either.)

But, hey, if it makes you feel good believe your professors. And you religious people keep believing your priests.

This is what I think. If you want to debate I will here you out but keep your stupid links to yourself.

No missing link, no proofs.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


A bunch of bs that proves nothing!

reply to post by DrunkYogi


Which missing link are you talking about?

reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13


You mean a systematic listing of the transitional forms between reptiles and mammals that we have in the fossil record?

How is that

A bunch of bs that proves nothing!

?

All of those fossils are on the record and they show the transition directly from reptile to mammal.

Please, show me how it is 'bs'

reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13


For one thing, you should be in the FALSIFY IT! thread, for a second thing, there is a more or less proper definition of species delineation that deals with fertility of offspring. For another thing, this statement is silly:

This is what I think. If you want to debate I will here you out but keep your stupid links to yourself.

So...if I want to provide a transitional form or a citation for my explanation of genetics...I cannot use outside sources....um....how am I supposed to do that? I don't have a genetics lab nor do I have a library of fossils. And the links aren't stupid, they're quite informative.

As for multicellular entities, it's been answered. You don't get bicellular organisms because that would actually require more coding than a 'colony' creature.

And as for this:

I am not religious. I think life is more mysterious than people will ever be able to understand.

Well, that's odd coming from a person with a Bible-quote name...
And no, it isn't that mysterious.

Scientists can't always be trusted because as people they are often mistaken or just plain dishonest.

That's why the scientific method set up a self-regulatory system to prevent fraud.

There is little or no integrity in science as scientists will say anything for a grant (or for tenure or to get published). Money corrupts!

...no, they won't. Because the second they're seen to be frauds their career is over

Click here for more information.

Without rhetorical statements I can give proof of human evolution and that proof is me.

I have flat feet. It was passed down from my grandfathers side and my family has flat feet now.

Call it a genetic mutation, or a scrambling of genes, or even a simple on off switch of the DNA.

There is one benefit from having flat feet. That is when stepping bare foot in sand dirt or snow, it acts like a

snow shoe of sorts and the foot sinks less than a normal arched foot would.

I have kids, and they got the flat feet. Humans have evolved in 3 generations. (My recent family tree)

Now that I am right in the middle of this evolution, my kids will spread these new flat feet throughout humanity

and quite possibly spread it to the whole human species within 20 or so generations. That is if they reproduce. It

is very well possible these flat feet could eventually evolve into some very strange looking feet over time with

natural selection. But I will let time tell.

I am sure many other members here have small human evolutions on their own body. Its right in front of us and

apart of each generation.

Nice thread OP, it really got me thinking!

reply to post by myster0


If you were to attempt categorise all of the insects on earth you'd never do it as as you got closer to the end over a million new insects would have evolved. Many of the original insect species would remain as they were. It's due to environment and adaptability, similar also to bacteria and viruses.
A different example is to put a known bacteria into a petri dish and kill 99.9% of them with a toxin. Allow the 0.1% to recover and repeat the process. Eventualy the toxin has no affect and the bacteria has evolved into a new form, resistant to that particular toxin. This is exactly how viruses work also, they mutate (evolve) and readily differ from the 'parent' virus, sometimes in as much as a few hours.
I agree that human evolution is much more difficult to prove and it's a hypothesis but then again many things are, it doesn't mean that they have no validity. A black hole has never been seen, only the affects of a black hole on another entity have been studied but we know that this fits the hypothesis of what a black hole is theorised to be and how it should behave so this validates that it is there. Sort of, LOL!.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Do you believe everything scientists say? Do you know for a fact these fossils are what the experts say they are? As I said your post is BS and you don't know what you are talking about. However that doesn't seem to detract you from spouting off BS. There is a difference between species variations and evolution. There is a difference between sophistry and science. You don't seem to understand these differences. You don't know what you are talking about. Ah, but what fun would it be to be human if we couldn't make fools of ourselves? So, have fun!