What questions do you have about evolution?

What questions, concerns, or problems do you have with evolution? I am curious about what makes people not believe in evolution, and what problems people have found with it. Maybe this thread can be used to clear up some misconceptions?

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human

A good example of a transitional species that is alive today is the Platypus.

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

www.talkorigins.org...

Hopefully this will clear some stuff up.

Why don't you believe in evolution?

I have a problem with evolution i would like cleared up

Why does an orange taste the way it does?, why does it taste so good?, how does a #ing orange understand what taste is and what impact that may have on it succes as a plant?

Thats what i would like to know. Why do things evolve to taste good.

Because one might argue god just left all these wonderful tasty fruit treats for us to enjoy.

Originally posted by Johnze
I have a problem with evolution i would like cleared up

Why does an orange taste the way it does?, why does it taste so good?, how does a #ing orange understand what taste is and what impact that may have on it succes as a plant?

Thats what i would like to know. Why do things evolve to taste good.

Because one might argue god just left all these wonderful tasty fruit treats for us to enjoy.

They did not evolve to taste good for us, we evolved so that they tasted good to us. The taste tells you what the ingredients are and give you a certain craving when you need certain food. It is a system so that you know what to eat for what vitamins. It tastes good so you know to come back to it.

Say you have a craving for fruits, it means that you need something the fruit has. It could be vitamin, a mineral, whatever. The fruit may have had some part in the evolution, but that would be so that it spreads it's seeds through poop, for lack of a better word.

reply to post by Phlynx


No that isnt right, im sorry man im not sure your qaulified to answer questions on evolution.

Humans will someday evolve not physically but mentally and be drunk with god-like powers.

If by some off chance you really want to learn about evolution of taste receptors.

WARRNING: There is no magic in the following links.

www.biomedcentral.com...
mbe.oxfordjournals.org...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

P.S
Oranges taste like dog #.

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by Johnze
I have a problem with evolution i would like cleared up

Why does an orange taste the way it does?, why does it taste so good?, how does a #ing orange understand what taste is and what impact that may have on it succes as a plant?

Thats what i would like to know. Why do things evolve to taste good.

Because one might argue god just left all these wonderful tasty fruit treats for us to enjoy.

They did not evolve to taste good for us, we evolved so that they tasted good to us. The taste tells you what the ingredients are and give you a certain craving when you need certain food. It is a system so that you know what to eat for what vitamins. It tastes good so you know to come back to it.

Say you have a craving for fruits, it means that you need something the fruit has. It could be vitamin, a mineral, whatever. The fruit may have had some part in the evolution, but that would be so that it spreads it's seeds through poop, for lack of a better word.

I'm not gonna argue evolution, just your point. What about stuff that tastes good that is bad for us. I love chocolate. Certainly I can't survive on chocolate alone.

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by Johnze
I have a problem with evolution i would like cleared up

Why does an orange taste the way it does?, why does it taste so good?, how does a #ing orange understand what taste is and what impact that may have on it succes as a plant?

Thats what i would like to know. Why do things evolve to taste good.

Because one might argue god just left all these wonderful tasty fruit treats for us to enjoy.

They did not evolve to taste good for us, we evolved so that they tasted good to us. The taste tells you what the ingredients are and give you a certain craving when you need certain food. It is a system so that you know what to eat for what vitamins. It tastes good so you know to come back to it.

Say you have a craving for fruits, it means that you need something the fruit has. It could be vitamin, a mineral, whatever. The fruit may have had some part in the evolution, but that would be so that it spreads it's seeds through poop, for lack of a better word.

I'm not gonna argue evolution, just your point. What about stuff that tastes good that is bad for us. I love chocolate. Certainly I can't survive on chocolate alone.

Chocolate has things you need in it, but chocolate is purely a human invention, and a mix of many things. It is created to fit your tastes, not what you need. Created by humans for pleasure.

Originally posted by Johnze
reply to post by Phlynx

 

No that isnt right, im sorry man im not sure your qualified to answer questions on evolution.

I am fine with this being said, but you did not offer where I am wrong, and you didn't prove how you qualify to tell that I am wrong.

Please tell me where I am wrong. Read the links that where posted, that gets at what I said. We evolved to it, they didn't evolve to us.

Here's an easy one.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by randyvs]

Hello, thank you for giving the skeptics an opportunity to ask questions. Usually when I ask questions about evolution, first my intelligence gets insulted, and then my question is not really answered. I appreciate the desire to answer questions we may have. I am not a hard core skeptic to evolution, I just have some difficulties with the theory.

For starters, if there are transitional fossils, what did humans evolve from? Some people say monkeys, I guess that's the mainstream view, others say primates, others say cro-magnum. It's just hard to know what actual evolutionary biologists believe.

My second question is, and usually when this question is asked, it is rarely answered but instead the common response is "drink," if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (this would make more sense if humans evolved from a now non-existent species like cro-magnum).

What, in your opinion, is a practical purpose of evolution? Other than simply the curiosity of finding out where we came from, is there any scientific discoveries that evolution is giving to society?

I have more questions, but I'll let you answer those first.

I find myself defending the theory of evolution all the time for what it is.

But I have some questions just for Shts n giggls

How do non poisonus fox snakes know to imitate poisonus rattle snakes?

There are places where there are human and dino prints side by each in the same strata, how does that happen?

Man is supposed to have decended from a single pair of parents that lived about 270,000 years ago,( by DNA research ), but a couple generations of inbreeding amoungst a few rich families who wanted to creat super humans from their superior DNA degenerated into produing total tards

Why do we allow our swivilization to be ruled by royal families that interbreed and then complain that everything is Charlie Foxtrot?

DNA research shows dog dna was split from wolf DNA about 90,000 years ago...
who bred them apart?


just wundering

Originally posted by randyvs
Here's an easy one.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by randyvs]

Some cells will mutate when they duplicate and add on pieces of itself extra in that process. I'm also using this question answer thing so I can learn more about evolution. I do not know everything.

Originally posted by filosophia
For starters, if there are transitional fossils, what did humans evolve from? Some people say monkeys, I guess that's the mainstream view, others say primates, others say cro-magnum. It's just hard to know what actual evolutionary biologists believe.

We evolved from ancestors that where primates, who where monkeys before. I am not an evolutionary biology btw, this is just as much a learning process for me.

My second question is, and usually when this question is asked, it is rarely answered but instead the common response is "drink," if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (this would make more sense if humans evolved from a now non-existent species like cro-magnum).

In evolution this tends to happen, where one species decides to branch off while the other doesn't. In this instance, the one mutation was fine, and didn't cause the other to go bad. Monkeys could stay in trees, swing around, and get there fruits, something just gave the other mutation a use. Only the bad species or the obsolete ones die out. Seeing as how the monkey's and other animals we are related to are not bad or obsolete, they stay.

What, in your opinion, is a practical purpose of evolution? Other than simply the curiosity of finding out where we came from, is there any scientific discoveries that evolution is giving to society?

The practical purposes help us understand our impact on the environment, and they also allow us to understand virus and bacterial mutations so we can make new medicines, and always be prepared. Vaccines can be one discovery evolution has given to society. You have to make a new vaccine for each evolved strain of a virus.

I think that while evolution is natural, at a certain point, it becomes man-made. You mentioned that chocolate, while it tastes good, is not exactly good for us because it was made by humans for pleasure. So, primates at one point evolved into humans, if that happened, there is no reason they wouldn't do it again. However, with universities and scientists teaching monkeys how to use sign language, they may evolve faster than nature allows.

Which really begs the question: how is it that humans are so much more intelligent than all the other species. And I don't believe dolphins are as smart as humans. No other species creates society. They all have their own hives and communities, but nothing like humanity, so whenever an evolutionist tries to say we are no different than animals I just have to shake my head in disapproval. Humans are the only species that have the awareness to realize they are smarter or dumber than other species.

Originally posted by Danbones


How do non poisonus fox snakes know to imitate poisonus rattle snakes?

What I can assume is that it is in there DNA, and they could be ancestors of a rattle snake, but I am just guessing on this one.

There are places where there are human and dino prints side by each in the same strata, how does that happen?

I don't know the answer to this one.

Man is supposed to have decended from a single pair of parents that lived about 270,000 years ago,( by DNA research ), but a couple generations of inbreeding amoungst a few rich families who wanted to creat super humans from their superior DNA degenerated into produing total tards

In a society without doctors, etc the stupid people who resulted from inbreeding would die out.

Why do we allow our swivilization to be ruled by royal families that interbreed and then complain that everything is Charlie Foxtrot?

I don't think this is an evolutionary matter.

DNA research shows dog dna was split from wolf DNA about 90,000 years ago...
who bred them apart?

archaeology.about.com...

I am doing a lot of research with these questions. Keep on bringing questions. I want to learn more.

Originally posted by filosophia
I think that while evolution is natural, at a certain point, it becomes man-made. You mentioned that chocolate, while it tastes good, is not exactly good for us because it was made by humans for pleasure. So, primates at one point evolved into humans, if that happened, there is no reason they wouldn't do it again. However, with universities and scientists teaching monkeys how to use sign language, they may evolve faster than nature allows.

Which really begs the question: how is it that humans are so much more intelligent than all the other species. And I don't believe dolphins are as smart as humans. No other species creates society. They all have their own hives and communities, but nothing like humanity, so whenever an evolutionist tries to say we are no different than animals I just have to shake my head in disapproval. Humans are the only species that have the awareness to realize they are smarter or dumber than other species.

You do bring up a good point. Want to know what separates us from other animals? We have developed language, and we have "special" thumbs that other species don't have. We also have highly sensitive hands, and better brains. Language is what has made us so smart. Language has strengthened our thinking. We wouldn't be able to think about this stuff if it wasn't for the words we have to think with. you can only get so far thinking the way another animal does. We are just extremely developed animals.

I do wonder what will happen to these animals we are teaching. I always wonder if dogs and cats think in our language, but cannot vocalize it because they do not have the right vocal cords.

reply to post by Johnze


I can answer that. The Orange didn't evolve to taste good to us, we evolved to appreciate the taste of the Orange.

Humans evolved to enjoy sweet foods because very few things in nature are simultaneously sweet and poisonous.

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by Johnze

 

I can answer that. The Orange didn't evolve to taste good to us, we evolved to appreciate the taste of the Orange.

Humans evolved to enjoy sweet foods because very few things in nature are simultaneously sweet and poisonous.

Thank you for saying what I said in a much easier way to understand. Star for you.

Orange peels aren't to good though.

reply to post by Phlynx


you

Some cells will mutate when they duplicate and add on pieces of itself extra in that process. I'm also using this question answer thing so I can learn more about evolution. I do not know everything.

You know what Phlynx. I respect the hell out of your answer