Can someone explain a part of evolution to me?

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

I will get to that when I have a moment, thank you.

Be believes in mutation, adaptation, and micro evolution, though. He realizes changes can happen over time, but doesn't believe humans would ever grow wings or gills, for instance - not even billions of years down the road.

He just cannot fathom that millions of years ago, something was in the water, but in modern day is in the sky.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: windword

So I suppose here's a question - does such a family tree exist that goes back all the way, and has a lot of proof and almost no gaps? If such a website exists, it'd be super helpful.

Yes, if you piece them together. I'm sure someone has put together some cute animation on YouTube, from Blue Green Algae, atmospheric and climate changes, tectonic drift, migration, food supplies........to today's evolutionary end.

But, let me ask you and your friend, do you have a chart or website that scientifically explains how everything happened within the past 6000 years that we can take seriously?

a reply to: deadlyhope

If the discussion is with someone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old, it's already over. It's your time to waste, and that's exactly what you'd be doing.

a reply to: deadlyhope

This friend rejects all of the arguments for evolution, demanding more and better proof, but he believes the Earth is only 6000 years old. With such standards, may I ask what in the hell convinced him that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: TzarChasm

Okay taking your suggestion...

Threads say macro evolution cannot be proved.

One of the most popular replies says it's not a fact, but the best we can come up with .

Very popular thread showing evolution might be proven wrong..

Yet another popular thread saying evolution is a farce

Many threads saying "I have the answer and it's evolution" but then turning into a crap show

Many, many posts saying "this has been done a thousand times before let's just not"

Okay I'm lost at what you want me to find.

Please, if you can, link me a website that shows a species to species transition proving evolution to be fact?

For the record, I'm an atheist - I don't believe in creationism.

I do enjoy debating creationists, and everyone refuses to give or just doesn't have solid proof of evolution that I can use against them.. only possibly valid maybe kinda evidence that some thing that lived long ago has some commonalities with modern day animals.

I still believe in evolution as there's really not many other answers other than creationism... I just don't have the evidence supporting my position yet, and apparently most others don't either.

ok, here is another suggestion - my last suggestion to you in this thread. give up the evolution vs creation fight, give up trying to prove them wrong, give up trying to be rightest person in the room. trying to outwit a creationist is not going to make you a better person. count your blessings and be happy you have that much. people tend to respect you more for that than for always trying to be the cleverest monkey of the bunch. being smart doesnt always mean being right.

Google. Activating dinosaur DNA in chickens

This proves that chickens (and other organisms) contain DNA from past ancestors. There are articles and videos

a reply to: yadda333

Oh, no clue. 6000 year old Earth is crazy to me.

I usually just have no way to refute his claims is all. He brings up things I have no counter argument for.

And for the record, it's not fighting or anything. I enjoy this friend because beyond his religious belief, he is more intelligent than most people I know. His knowledge of mechanical engineering and systems, electricity generation and such, of nature and just science in general is astounding.

But when he says that carbon dating assumes the same amount of carbon has always been around, which is not okay to assume.. I have no literature or counter proof to deny his claim.

I'd simply like more ways to deny his claims - even if neither of us change, I do enjoy exchange with him.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I have bad news on two fronts.

First, if your "friend" thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, that tells me that they are a religious person. Nothing wrong with that at all, but in the discussion of evolution or any science that directly contradicts the Biblical or religious creation narrative, you are going up against "God".

You're going to lose that one because "God" can do anything -- stage ancient fossils, manipulate carbon dating, and pre-erode landscapes just to test one's "faith".

Second, the science of evolution is extremely complicated and requires a fairly substantial understanding of biology and even organic chemistry to understand (paleontology and geology don't hurt either). Further complicating that, evolution as a scientific process is ongoing in nature -- it's not a "fixed" science like chemistry. Evolution as a science is itself evolving as we understand more about the process itself.

Trying to explain the science of evolution to the uninitiated is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to someone who's never studied physics. It's almost impossible because most folks simply don't have the scientific background to understand the fundamentals.

My ex-mother-in-law was an evolution critic (from a religious standpoint) and would periodically mock my man-came-from-monkeys (nonsense) belief in evolutionary science. I would always tell her that it was simply too complex for me to explain to someone who hadn't even graduated from high school.

One day, she poked at me one time too many and I'd had enough. So I said "fine". I sat down with her at her kitchen table, took out a quadrille pad, and scribbled out the most complicated math problem I could come up with off the top of my head.

I slid the paper across the table to her and told her to solve the problem. Of course, she couldn't because she didn't even know basic algebra. I went though all the prerequisites necessary to be able to solve a problem like that. Years of high school algebra, trig, and calculus. Years more in college...

That seemed to do the trick. I never heard about "evolution" again.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Can anyone with an open mind and critical thinking skills really reject the age of the planet or evolution? Fair enough, quibble over the number of millions, but to stick to 6000 years sounds more like he's trying too hard. "This is my anachronistic position and I'm sticking to it!"

You won't ever change his stance and there's absolutely nothing science can offer to make a difference. ATS has had 100s of threads on this topic and not a single anti-evolution OP has conceded an inch of ground after 400 pages.

a reply to: BadBoYeed

Very interesting! I hope they succeed in making a Dino chicken, it'd be a kick in the butt for a lot of people.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Well of course we won't grow wings or gills, our environment doesn't push us in those directions.

And how can you believe in the small changes but not see all those small changes adding up over long periods of time into big changes?

Seems like nothing will ever be enough proof for "your friend". No matter what you show him his argument will always be "well what about this other thing I don't understand". All the while never actually seeking understanding.

originally posted by: deadlyhope

But when he says that carbon dating assumes the same amount of carbon has always been around, which is not okay to assume.. I have no literature or counter proof to deny his claim.

Actually it assumes that the decay rate of certain carbon isotopes has remained constant since the birth of the universe and has nothing to do with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

a reply to: Kandinsky

The search engine really didn't help in my opinion..

Criticism of evolution seems very popular, so tons of stars and flags on threads that claim evolution is false.

Less stars and flags on those saying it's true, and I can see why.

It's extremely hard to prove as correct.

Do we actually have a fossil record showing every step between a modern day animal/human and one that existed millions of years ago?

I'd like to see that if we do, it'd be very good evidence for my stance.

If such evidence does not exist.. I do not blame others for not agreeing with my stance. Thinking something is true despite evidence is called faith. Why is my faith better than their own?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: deadlyhope

Can anyone with an open mind and critical thinking skills really reject the age of the planet or evolution? Fair enough, quibble over the number of millions, but to stick to 6000 years sounds more like he's trying too hard. "This is my anachronistic position and I'm sticking to it!"

You won't ever change his stance and there's absolutely nothing science can offer to make a difference. ATS has had 100s of threads on this topic and not a single anti-evolution OP has conceded an inch of ground after 400 pages.

its almost like someone already said that. repeatedly. in this very thread. thanks for confirming it.

*le poof*

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

You are likely correct.

I guess sometimes I hope that others can transition, like myself.

Not specifically on the evolution topic.

Just many topics in general.. I am older, I do not have the same opinions as I did years ago. Evidence has proven me wrong on many things and will likely keep proving me wrong.

Didn't come from the oceans eh?



Fish vs human emryos

Bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics that used to work on them is one prime example.

Here is a non-bird dinosaur fossil that was found with feathers though, indicating that birds did in fact evolve from certain dinosaurs.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Have a friend that's open to scientific evidence, and actually really intelligent in a myriad of scientific topics, but evolution is one where he won't yet follow modern science thought. He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...

The thing with a 6000 year old earth, is that evolution is just one of a plethora of completely unrelated scientific fields that disprove the very concept.

Bassically if you believe a 6000 year old earth, you reject anything else we view in reality.

The existence of light, gravity, tectonic plates, virtually everything in geology, ice caps, mountains, all of it disproves a 6000 year old earth.

Physics, chemistry, astronological evolution, they too disprove a 6000 year old earth.

Hell, we have trees older than 6000 years, among other living plants.

The only thing that evolution disproves about a 6000 year old earth is the relationship life on earth has, and the timeline in which it diversified.

As for speciation (when one species diverges from another) we also have many examples of this occurring both in laboratory settings and in the environment.

We have directly caused speciation to occur and have witnessed it.

I find that when discussing speciation with a person who completely rejects the concept of evolution, you need to start from the basics.

You need to explain what a species in, because they view everything from a visual standpoint alone, not an internal (biological) one.

They believe "kinds" of animals exist, which is an absurdly loose term they use to group what they believe are related animals, on their appearance alone.

Then you can explain that evolution is merely change through reproduction. It's not an instantaneous event. A lizard isnt going to give birth to a chicken. From generation to generation spanned over hundreds, thousands or more years we can see the subtle changes accumulate.

If you need direct links I can provide them, I'm just on my phone now so it's quite time consuming to do so currently.

An old topic of mine, which you can find Here, explains all of his questions in extreme detail, with examples and citation

Believing in micro evolution, but not evolution is just myopic. They are the same thing - only the time scales are different.

It's like saying 1 & 10 are different species because 1 has only one digit, and 10 has two. It's impossible to get to 10 from 1. But it's ok to say 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4 etc... but denying you'll ever reach 10. Stoooopid

a reply to: Bone75

Hmm looked up carbon dating again for a refresh, interesting.

One question - it says things will be harder to date if they died after the 1940's due to nuclear bombs the like.

Is this to say that dating can in fact be messed with and unreliable, or am I reading into it wrong?