Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar


And yet, your Physiological responses at elevations of more than 13,000 ft above sea level will be nowhere near as efficient as for example, a Tibetan who possesses the proper mutation on EPAS1, the gene thst regulates transportation of hemoglobin. You are making a very slight, short term adjustment whereas 90% of native Tibetan(and Denisocan) are born with this beneficial mutation which allows them not just to survive, but to thrive in an environment and ecological niche that would be hostile to the vast majority of HSS

Source please?

But, you're saying these tibetans are evolved? They're still homo sapiens. What you're describing is similar to the loss in skin pigmentation for those who migrated north (less annual sunlight, less required skin pigment) Map of Skin Pigmentation. Using your same logic, you are saying these northern folks who mutated to have paler skin are evolved? Humans are still humans. Fish are still fish. Assuming these adaptive mechanisms can gradually accumulate to the point of "evolving", for example, a fish into an amphibian, is exactly that... an assumption.

You still don't get it. Please pay attention to the video.

originally posted by: cooperton
I explained to you evolution, what did I say that was wrong? Your ad hominem attacks are making conversation difficult.

What makes conversation difficult is your ignorance of science and scientific research. No ad-hominem here, I am really sorry that your teacher could not create positive interest in science in you. Now, why are you avoiding to talk about other spiritual teacher. What kind of school did you attend???

originally posted by: cooperton
Have you ever heard of Satan's clause? It is to possess the little kids with material possessions rather than grander spiritual truths. Your material reductionist viewpoints really fit this clause.

Satan is just another fairy tale... and material possession - culture raised and perfected by organized religions from first polytheistic religions... Just look Vatican and pope in gold...there are records that priests in ancient Egypt had more goods then Pharaoh?!

Evolution of religion can teach us a lot, don't you think so???

originally posted by: cooperton

According to the theory, it is the process by which the diversity of life arose from beneficial mutations leading to an organism being more fit for the environment and thus having increased "fitness".

the briefest of summaries of MES gives us the following...

1.All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
2.Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrasts with the saltation theory of William Bateson (1894).[6]
3.Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
4.The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
5.Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
6.In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.

Again, this is an extremely brief overview of an extraordinarily broad topic that includes geology, paleontology, anthropology, biology, genetics and on and on... so for you to summarize it as a quaint 2 sentence blurb echoing Darwinian thought and excluding the century and a half of work done in the meantime is just odd to me.

My problem isn't so much with evolution, because the data does make us assume that it would be possible (remember, its a theory) for the observable adaptive mechanisms to be able to accumulate in a fashion that ultimately gave rise to the great diversity of life.

As has been touched upon already, the ad hoc "it's just a theory" is such a tired and lazy response. Seriously. Evolution, is indeed a fact. The theory part is the explanation for HOW it works. Not whether or not its actually true.

Rather, my main issue is with abiogenesis; life from non-life.

Then you should really be starting a whole new thread because , like so many before you, you now try to shackle the origins of life to the processes that allow life to change over time. If the title of the thread is "Is there evidence for evolution, show it to us" and your retort is that you don't have an actual issue with evolutionary theory, it is what allowed for life to begin that you have the main issue with then its completely off topic.

I know this has nothing to do with evolution, but if evolution is true, we are left with this problem: how did life occur from non-life? How could polymerase and all its necessary cofactors have been generated by accident, when DNA is what codes for these proteins??? Do you see the issue here? Let's say we have a rudimentary DNA strip that codes for polymerase, as would have had to have been the first gene because otherwise replication is impossible. Even if, against all odds, a DNA strip was randomly generated that coded for RNA polymerase.... it would not have RNA polymerase to make the RNA! nor would have it DNA polymerase to replicate itself. Creationism, or matter from consciousness, in my opinion, is a better explanation regarding the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma: it was all created in unison.

Please start a thread on the incredulousness of abiogenesis and/or Panspermia and I'd be happy to address all of this. It has nothing to do with the topic of the OP however.

1. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. (wiki)

2. Topic is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

3. Abiogenesis is not theory yet. It is just hypothesis how life might have formed in beginning, but as I've already said - it is not topic here. Just to note that there are several promising experiments that are working toward proving abiogenesis.

You're acting like there is anything more to learn... I "learned" the theory of evolution when I was 13... it is not a hard concept to swallow, especially because at that age I dismissed my teacher's interpretation of holy texts, so naturally I was willing to accept whatever science proposed as an explanation for our becoming. Get off your pedestal and keep searching for answers.

Perhaps you should get off of your own pedestal because you don't even understand with Modern Evolutionary Synthesis states yet admonish all who oppose your dragons by way of bible hypothetical musings. When you can demonstrate something beyond a 13 year olds misunderstanding of what Modern Evolutionary Synthesis actually postulates then there might be a conversation to be had. You don't appear terribly interested in doing the actual legwork as far as really learning what any of the current research regarding evolution actually states though. It's too bad because there are literally volumes of research and work posted on ATS discussing all of these topics that make you so incredulous. The answers are there for anyone willing to do the actual research and engage in actual due diligence.