Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by Kiltedninja
Man, I don't understand any of this crap, I'm just going on what you folks are saying. Isn't Natural selection the same thing as survival of the fittest? The best traits are the ones that survive? Then why don't we have any natural defenses? Claws or fangs or venom?

Darwin first used Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869. It is a metaphor, not a scientific description, and is both incomplete and misleading. Survival is only one component of selection, and for example where a number of males survive to reproductive age, but only a few ever mate, the difference in reproductive success stems mainly from ability to attract mates rather than ability to survive. In an evolutionary sense, fitness is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool, and should not be confused with physically fit meaning biggest, fastest or strongest, which does not necessarily lead to reproductive success. It is not generally used by modern biologists, who use the phrase "natural selection" almost exclusively.

You should have known this already. A lot of people seem to share the same silly misconception (and many others) as they never bothered to learn the theory.

To all of you who don't "believe" in evolution. I really recommend you spend some time learning it. It's really not a matter of belief but understanding. Here is a good place to start.

[edit on 26-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

well do not forget there is the theory of FEMA camps and a quick way to get yourself on the list buddy...

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Oh and claiming to be a scientist is all well and good but that doesn't make you a scientist anymore than claiming to be a banana makes you a banana, as I pointed out to someone else earlier. This is not asking for proof but simply pointing out the obvious.

Again, I said that fact that I am a scientist by profession is completely irrelevant.

It is more important to be a scientist in thought.

You could be a scientist too, all you have to do is stop believing and start observing.

Observe, critically think, analyze, and experiment.

reply to post by Jezus


Yet you make the claim that you are. If it is irrevelant why did you bring it up then? And I would really appreciate it you not make such knee jerk responses as to what I am or am not, you don't know me, don't pretend you do. I do observe and my beliefs are based off my observations. We all have opinions friend and just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am not paying attention like you in your self righteous crusade to demean beliefs not yours likes to think. It's an opinion call as the question has not been answered, and may never be answered.
To be a scientist does not mean I have to agree with you or accept whole heartedly what others attempt to feed me as fact. It's funny the sheer amount of people that believe only people like them or people they approve of or agree with can be certain things.


[edit on 26-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

well if evolution is so almost proven why should anyone worry about global warming wont we just evolve to accept this new temp range? The theory of evolution has just as many holes in it as the creationalist point of view.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Tell me how it's possible that natural selection and heredity would not lead to evolution? Explain what happened in E. coli long-term evolution experiment if not evolution?

Hi rhinoceros, I think that a certain type of evolution is possible; only with the right set of environmental circumstances though. In regards to E.coli, I haven't looked at this particular experiment yet.
what comes to mind, for me is Dinoflagellates Pfisteria. With this somewhat mutated Algea, new environmental conditions must have been present to produce this. Its proposed that it had something to do chemicals used in the treatment of effluent from pig-farming; left to "cure" in the sun, with chemical cocktail additives, to assist in the effluents break-down and dispersal. Maybe-chemically providing conditions never present before? Forcing change and mutation.
Who is to say that this is not possible in a Darwinian sense- however I'm sure you will agree that Hominids are more complex than Protozoans.
The study of Pfisteria is still in infantile development, eith researches and academics arguing over its validity and lack of evidential support.
Similar to the Darwinian idea that we are derived from more simplistic Hominid species; similarly unsupported via lack of evidence.
Evidence on the Hominid front, shows Neanderthals and Sapiens co-existing; verified by numerous examples exhumed from around Jericho.
Give me evidence to convince me otherwise, that Sapiens do not co-exist with other Hominids also.
Although it will probably be scoffed at; my belief is that Hominids were Genetically spliced with off-world beings to produce Sapiens Sapiens or modern man. Some may argue that this is an example of evolution in a sense; just not a natural one. And although it does elude to this in parts of the bible- no I am not a creationist! The Summerians wrote about this sort of thing also.

Originally posted by andre18

Originally posted by JPhish
i never suggested otherwise.

Yes you did. You said "i still consider them human none the less"

That is out of context. Simply because I consider them human, does not mean that i believe that we possess Neanderthal genes or that we descended from them. What you’ve done is a classic package-deal fallacy.

neathderthals were not human. You suggested they were, they're not.

I didn’t suggest they were; I’m telling you that based on what I consider a human being to be, they were. Please, what do you believe qualifies someone as a human being? i have a feeling I’ll enjoy your answer.

Here's the ORIGINAL quote that’s not quote-mined and taken out of context by you. Read it over again, i'm sure you'll get it this time.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by JPhish

 

We don't cary neathderthal genes and we evolved as a seperate line in paralel with the neathderthal line.

i never suggested otherwise.

Nice straw man attempt though.

[edit on 4/27/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
According to preliminary analysis we share 99,5 % of our genes with Neanderthals.

That’s really high buddy. Unless I’m mistaken, there's nearly as much genetic disparity between current races of humans at the moment.

That means we've got about 100 genes that they didn't have. Assuming modern human population hasn't gone thru a bottle neck since Neanderthal's extinction it means that the two species did not interbreed successfully.

That’s assuming a lot.

Also there's no way 100 genes came to be during the short time between their extinction and present day.

There are several ways.

[edit on 4/27/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by BrianP


Brian...'evolution' would require an extreme environmental force exerted over thousands and thousands of generations.

Your 'clever' tongue-in-cheek dismissal of Climate Change notwithstanding....an event that occurs with even a few decades, or even a few hundred years will significantly affect Humans....because of our life-cycle.

As intelligent (I hope) thinking beings, WE are able to anticipate, and possibly use whatever technology we possess, to ameliorate the negative impacts of Climate Change.

Because we use tools, we have 'changed' the vectors of 'natural selection', as hypothesized.

In layman's terms: We now control our own destiny, and that includes our evolution.

Prior to self-awareness....the forces of 'natural-selection', AKA 'survival of the fittest' were simply a microcosm of larger forces at work. As Humans, we have 'skewed' the normal progression of our species....because we CAN intervene. NO OTHER species (that we know of on Earth) has been capable of this.

AS TO 'self-awareness'....OK, got it...here we are....you and I are 'aware'. WHEW!! .... Now, look around, using that great ability of 'awareness'.... and consider the other species on this planet. Some may be doomed, because of natural occurences. What is important to note, however, is when OUR influence results in a species' lack of survivability. AND, I'm not just talking about over-hunting....because, that happens in nature, sometimes. IT IS when our tech might cause an extinction, that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

There is, of course, the argument that...'survival' of the best trumps.....

OK. I will grant that as a premise. It has worked for us in the past, but is it really the template we want to impose as we move forward??? Aren't we more compassionate than that???

My rant....is......over.........

Similar to the Darwinian idea that we are derived from more simplistic Hominid species; similarly unsupported via lack of evidence.

Hi, KRISKALI777

What is more simplistic? Where is this lack of evidence shown? Certainly not in the fossil record, that's for sure. There's plenty of evidence around.

Have you heard that us humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and that chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes? Question goes, how about our common ancestor? Did it have 23 or 24 pairs of chromosomes? The answer is 24. Our common ancestor that lived some 5 to 7 millions years ago had 24 pairs of chromosomes. How do we know this?

You know how our chromosomes are linear instead of circular? Every time you copy them (for cell division) you're going to lose a little from their ends. So there are these sequences of DNA at their ends that we call telomeres. The only place you find them at is at the end of chromosomes. Well that's rule, but there's one exception. It's chromosome 2. There are telomere sequences not only at its ends, but also in centerish parts of it. But why? They serve no purpose what so ever there. What are they doing there then? Well the answer is that after our species diverged, in our lineage two chromosomes fused together.

This particular chromosome also has two centromeres. Centromeres are places where certain strings attach during cell division. And the genes we find in this one chromosome, we find identical sequences in chimp genome, the only difference is that in their case these sequences are divided into 2 seperate chromosomes.

What is this, if not undeniable evidence for common descent? What alternative explanation could there possibly be?

en.wikipedia.org...(human)

These extra telomere sequences and that extra centromere sequence are like the tail bone of human DNA.

Looking forward to your reply.

p.s. Here I make a prediction based on the theory of evolution. In all humanoid fossils older than 7 million years you're going to find a genome that is spread into 24 pairs of chromosomes.



[edit on 27-4-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by JPhish
That’s really high buddy. Unless I’m mistaken, there's nearly as much genetic disparity between current races of humans at the moment.

You're mistaken.

That’s assuming a lot.

You think? I don't, plenty of evidence around that we haven't gone thru a bottle neck since.

There are several ways.

Such as?

Good thread, I must warn you though that trying to explain the evidence that leads to this theory of evolution to a creationist is like telling a junky to give up heroine.

The evidence is there, its happening to them, they'll deny it or blame somebody else and eventually become abusive even if you think you're trying to help them. Best just leave them alone, they'll evolve out if it or at least their future generations will.

It is worrying that in some US states, creationism is being advocated outside religious studies and being brought into scientific teaching. A science advisor to the government over here in the UK mentioned that creationism should be explained to pupils within science lessons so that they could see the differentiation. Even though he was trying to separate the two subjects even the idea of it being added to the curriculum or uttered in a science class resulted in him being sacked and then dragged through the mud by the tabloids.

People just want to stop talking or even discussing creationist ideas because it gives them a foothold they don't deserve.

reply to post by alienbennit


"People just want to stop talking or even discussing creationist ideas because it gives them a foothold they don't deserve. "

Bad idea. If you don't challenge their lies, people might think they're true. That would put us into a theocracy spiral. And me into the mountains with my guns.

In my opinion most creationist arguments ridicule the scientific theorys which I think is a very childish way of defending your beliefs. Belief in God does not have to necessarily conflict with science. God might of created Evolution, Physics etc. So what is the big issue?

I think open minded curiosity (not blind faith) and a quest for the truth would be a good starting point.

Originally posted by bharata
In my opinion most creationist arguments ridicule the scientific theorys which I think is a very childish way of defending your beliefs. Belief in God does not have to necessarily conflict with science. God might of created Evolution, Physics etc. So what is the big issue?

I think open minded curiosity (not blind faith) and a quest for the truth would be a good starting point.

The creationists are convinced that they're on a mission from God and any methods they use are justified. Exactly the same thinking that fueled the Inquisition. And probably headed in the same direction if we allow it to proceed as the IDers wish.

Originally posted by bharata
In my opinion most creationist arguments ridicule the scientific theorys which I think is a very childish way of defending your beliefs.

Not even once in my life have I seen an argument coming from the creationist side that has managed to ridicule any scientific theory. Pastafarians on the other hand have managed to ridicule ID(iots) quite well

reply to post by griffinrl
What evidence? Because you said it's there?Evolution is a myth,a modern day fairytale whose new magical ingredient is time,lots and lots of time (instead of a magic wand).Go ahead Dorothy, click your heels and see what happens.

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by griffinrl

 

What evidence? Because you said it's there?Evolution is a myth,a modern day fairytale whose new magical ingredient is time,lots and lots of time (instead of a magic wand).Go ahead Dorothy, click your heels and see what happens.

So, scientific studies don't do it for you, but "It's a miracle" is okay? You talk about myths like you don't believe in them. So where, then, does the Great Sky Fairy fall in your worldview?

reply to post by Gawdzilla
Science is GREAT & since the Creator created all sciences i suggest you try using them for a change, it might help you understand how he did it all! Answer me this non scientifically then, Why is YESHUA the single most written about person in history,why is he the focal point for civilization,why is it that no mater what you say or do HE'S still there, all the words ever spoken,all the deeds ever done,all the wars ever fought,all the thoughts ever taught have neither thawarted HIS message,altered HIS course nor have they changed this world a percentage as much as this ONE single,solitary man,and you think you have the intellect to challenge or dispute him, come on,think about it before you reply, PLease...

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
What evidence?

Evidence from paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, comparative physiology and biochemistry, antibiotic and pesticide resistance, studies of complex iteration, speciation and interspecies fertility.

What evidence is there against evolution? Oh yeah, nothing.