Can someone explain a part of evolution to me?

a reply to: Xenogears

Somebody'll figure it all out if, and when, it becomes profitable enough to do so.

Back in the '70s, I did some work in a lab with Hepatitis. I learned an awful lot. Can't imagine where we would be now if we'd been working at the DNA level back then.

It's well past my bedtime. See ya!!

If a generation is taught something, that generation believes it as fact. But two big questions remain. Why aren't cows immune to lightning? And at what point did animals stop eating their own feces? If those questions can be answered, I might start believing in evolution.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I used to date an evangelical that subscribed to the 6000 year old earth theory. They even have a ton of videos, websites etc. to promote it as a pseudo-science.

Pretty sure your friend is wed to the notion..

The girl I dated thought that the existence of Dinosaurs was a massive hoax, fossils and all.

originally posted by: everyonedies
Why can't creation and evolution co-exist?

the simple answer is that creationism borrows the results of the scientific method to undermine the conclusions of the scientific method. like that one kid in a group project who doesnt do any of the work, then steals your work and refinishes it into a contrary end product making everyone look incompetent and wasting your resources in an effort to look productive. maybe turning your model volcano into a chocolate fondue and explaining how all the dinosaurs were killed by eating too much candy. and everyone is too busy enjoying the chocolate to say hey, wait a minute...

I am sorry, but if your "friend" believes the Earth is 6,000 years old (why?!!!!!) he is clearly not open to scientific evidence and not very intelligent at all.

I could understand if he was a poor itinerate goat herder living in the Middle East 3,000 years ago. Possibly. Or maybe he is?

Are you perhaps not telling us the whole story here? You havent got hold of one of them time machines again, have you?

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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...

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Also, he will bring up that there's a lack of proof that species can entirely change over time. Such as oceanic species becoming land species.

Then, I bring up neanderthal and cromagnum(sp) and he mentions that we share some of the same genes but the DNA is entirely different...

Is he correct or on the evidence based side in any of this?

I can't really refute him because I have no good example of a swimming dinosaur becoming a flying creature after millions of years, etc, and I don't know enough about human evolution.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.

have you tried the abovetopsecret search engine? dozens of threads already exist pertaining to your questions, i strongly recommend you use it. it is the little magnifying glass icon next to your inbox at the top right.

Why even post if you wont answer the mans question? Not everyone wants to or knows how to use your broken search engine feature (that yes, NEVER works).

There is no conclusive evidence to support evolution as is at present, only a theory.

We are able to demonstrate that evolution works in practise using "genetic algorithms" which combine removal of the worse performers with breeding and mutation of the best performers. This has also been proved with bacteria and resistance to antibiotics - take a giant petri table, fill it with dye, agar jelly, various bands of different levels of antibiotics and eventually the bacteria will gain immunity and colonize every segment of the table.

For every two species found as fossils, we can always find something inbetween. If we are lucky, we find some recoverable tissue samples and compare the mitochondrial DNA, genetic DNA with other species across the world. That works fairly well.

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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...

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really - have we found fossil records showing the transition of our ancestor into both humans and primates?

Also, he will bring up that there's a lack of proof that species can entirely change over time. Such as oceanic species becoming land species.

Then, I bring up neanderthal and cromagnum(sp) and he mentions that we share some of the same genes but the DNA is entirely different...

Is he correct or on the evidence based side in any of this?

I can't really refute him because I have no good example of a swimming dinosaur becoming a flying creature after millions of years, etc, and I don't know enough about human evolution.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.

have you tried the abovetopsecret search engine? dozens of threads already exist pertaining to your questions, i strongly recommend you use it. it is the little magnifying glass icon next to your inbox at the top right.

Why even post if you wont answer the mans question? Not everyone wants to or knows how to use your broken search engine feature (that yes, NEVER works).

There is no conclusive evidence to support evolution as is at present, only a theory.

No, I'm afraid that's a lie. There is abundant evidence to support it.

And you also seem to be mistaking the word theory for the word hypothesis. Evolution as a 'theory' is not just a hypothesis but is generally accepted (amongst those with any knowledge of the difference between religious lies and scientific truth).

originally posted by: ttobban
a reply to: dfnj2015

Every living animal poops... that is correct.

I am of the thought paths lately that Swine DNA and Primate DNA were combined to farm minerals for some sort of science project that creator(s) could not physically achieve on Earth themselves... possibly not even being a physical entity to begin with. The swine was chosen for it's extreme abilities to adapt, its resilience, and its ability to reproduce swiftly... the primate was chosen due to its abilities to use tools and add emotion to decision making. It's quite possible that the DNA was clipped, allowing full use of a slave race to be in constant question as to what the unknowns are. Welcome to the human race. Maybe a chimp raped a pig one day, and it led to us having this chat?

Why do humans have pig skin and on rare occasions are born with ACTUAL pig tails? Why does burning human flesh smell like bacon? Why do we not see primates on rare occasions give birth to hairless human-like beings... and vice versa... why aren't humans seen to give birth to primate dominant traits? Why does DNA of humans vs. swine indicate such a high level of match of DNA? Why does this same level of DNA match between primates and humans occur?

I find that it is scientifically logical to find resolve in a scenario of which either a male primate impregnated a female swine, a male swine somehow impregnated a female primate, or the DNA was extracted from the 2 to create a super race of intelligent mineral miner.

This is a joke, I presume.

originally posted by: Tempter
The OP is trolling ALL of you.

This is scientific fact.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Ghost147
But... Polar bears and grizzlies are different species.... Why would we not reference them in speciation?

That's all good. But a bear is still a bear.

You wanna see 40 or 50 pairs of bears give birth to ... oh, I don't know ... Sasquatch? That's 'evolution'. It's not mutation. It's not speciation. It's a new distinct life form.

It's the problem with the age-old Evolutionary Argument people aren't putting their fingers on.

It doesn't take a great deal of time for this to occur. It happens very quickly. It's how complex life persists ... without a giant re-set. The trick is: Evolutionary events aren't something you routinely encounter on a time-scale. Mutation - yes ... Speciation - maybe ... but Evolution follows major catastrophe/Earth Shattering Calamity. Always has ... always will.

We're almost out of the Dark Ages. There's still hope for Science.

Am I missing something or are you suggesting evolution occurs after a catastrophe when 'life forms' literally give birth to different 'life forms'? Such as Triceratops giving birth to the first Monkeys.

If so, that may even be weirder than religious people not believing in evolution at all. At least they have their silly books on which to base their silly opinions. Your beliefs are based on...

originally posted by: mersaultdies
Am I missing something or are you suggesting evolution occurs after a catastrophe when 'life forms' literally give birth to different 'life forms'? Such as Triceratops giving birth to the first Monkeys.

Nothing as dramatic as monkeys flying out of one's butt ... but ... nothing one could consider a smooth transition.

Not my field of study. Had to be aware of it. Nothing more than a personal curiosity in these threads on ATS some days.

If so, that may even be weirder than religious people not believing in evolution at all. At least they have their silly books on which to base their silly opinions. Your beliefs are based on...

Conversations ... much like what's going on in this thread.

What's remarkable to me is the gulf of time from then to now ... four decades. People that are no longer with us. How smart we were ... how much smarter we've become, and yet, age-old answers still elude us.

not sure if its been shown but u can see evolution at work in this study done by harvard.

originally posted by: TheScale
not sure if its been shown but u can see evolution at work in this study done by harvard.

Did you hear the guy say Evolution? Or, did you hear the guy say his E. coli bacteria mutated?

Were the E. coli bacteria still E. coli bacteria at the end of the experiment?

Right. There's been nothing but a mutation. ... And this is why people are always confused by this argument.

-Sigh-

a reply to: Snarl

Why is this such a constant struggle for people whom don't accept evolution?

They always assume that "evolution states that speciation is one species to some other random thing that isn't even remotely similar all of a sudden in one generation".

Yet every time they make that claim, every single response they get is "evolution does not describe one species suddenly giving birth to another, it describes variation through reproduction. It describes adaptation through mutations. And when those mutations accumulate in a population, that population eventually diverges from the original population."

And then they're given multiple examples

And then they're given tons of citation that shows how their concept is actually a misconception.

And then they repeat the same nonsense over and over again.

I mean honestly, if I made a claim about their religion that was blatantly and obviously incorrect (for example, I mistook Jesus for satan, something just ridiculous) and those people provided evidence to show how my false premise was in fact false, then I'd accept that I misunderstood.

I just don't understand this willful ignorance

originally posted by: Ghost147
I just don't understand this willful ignorance

I get that.

Do you not understand that I cannot fathom yours??

There has never (and I mean frikkin' EVER) been proof of Evolution presented to (or by) the Scientific community. Never ... effin' ... EVER. Whose 'ignance' is willful?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: TheScale
not sure if its been shown but u can see evolution at work in this study done by harvard.

Did you hear the guy say Evolution? Or, did you hear the guy say his E. coli bacteria mutated?

Were the E. coli bacteria still E. coli bacteria at the end of the experiment?

Right. There's been nothing but a mutation. ... And this is why people are always confused by this argument.

-Sigh-

whats the difference? if it mutates, its changed according to its environment. or are u looking for that big leap? well keep pushing it for many generations and i bet u that youll see a significant change between what u started with versus what u now have.

a reply to: TheScale

Here ... no signs of evolution. Same bacteria even.

Did you come unarmed for this debate??

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: TheScale

Here ... no signs of evolution. Same bacteria even.

Did you come unarmed for this debate??

i think your definition of long term and mine on the scale of evolution is very different. keep on going for a couple hundred years and get back to me. btw last sentence in the second paragraph shows some strange behavior. im curious, did u read that wiki post? they even mention things evolving in many different areas they studied

originally posted by: TheScale
keep on going for a couple hundred years and get back to me.

Okay. Hold your breath. LOL

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: TheScale
keep on going for a couple hundred years and get back to me.

Okay. Hold your breath. LOL

not everything is learned overnight. just look through our history over the last few hundred years. much of what we thought to be true then has been proven to be false. some things take time and we may never see the outcome in our lifetime. evolution is a much better theory then thinking that poof we just suddenly existed out of thin air though.