Evolution happens. That's a fact.

reply to post by Seektruthalways1


Most of us CAN. 7000 years ago we couldn't. About 10% of people with a European origin can't, they are lactose intolerant.

Again, fossil records show evolution very far back. That's the most we can get. It's a lot more proof than creationism so don't criticize lack of evidence.

How have I lost? Not a single valid point has been made against evolution. You also act like it's just me that believes this. It's the majority of intelligent Human beings that believe this.

reply to post by SpearMint

it's an extremely slow process

Well you practically said it yourself OP. I thought you would agree.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint

 

it's an extremely slow process

Well you practically said it yourself OP. I thought you would agree.

No I didn't, I said it's a slow process. You said the theory suggests that it would take an infinite amount of time to get started. This means it would never start. So how does it suggest that.

reply to post by Lionhearte


I would like you to stop referring to evolution as being my “god” or my religion. My religion is completely separate from evolution. Comparing evolution to religion is ridiculous, two completely different things. One can believe in god, religion, and in evolution.

As for throwing out data and evidence…that is bad science if it is done without reason. A good reason to throw out data would be when there is a suspected quantitative error or procedural error. If your data is consistent and then suddenly you get something different that should be the same, some kind of error most likely occurred.

The bacteria study is interesting. But to claim macro-evolution doesn’t occur based on one study is not fair, especially since macro-evolution can take a long time to occur. I have read of a study just like what you posted, in which macro-evolution did occur. I think the E. coli suddenly gained the ability to grow on something previously toxic to them. Macro-evolution is really just a large accumulation of micro-evolutions leading to speciation. When you look at macro-evolution, you look at the drastic changes. The accumulation of small changes eventually becomes a big change over a long period of time.

Sexual reproduction is much more complex, and it comes with its rewards. Increased Variation. With more variation comes a better chance of a creature that has an edge in fitness occurring. All it takes is the smallest edge in fitness for the mutation take (if the conditions are right). This increase in variation is even more important for more sexual reproducers, because the time between generations if much longer than say E. coli.
The best way for drastic macro-evolution to occur is when there are niches that are unoccupied. Fish won’t be likely to evolve to walk on land, because the niche it would move into is likely already filled by other creatures that have evolved to specialize in it. However when there were no land animals, if a fish were to mutate and be able to live on land, there is no competition. The fish will thrive even if it would otherwise die in the water.

The fly study is one of the many that have been done.

Prokaryotic cells are much more limited in what they can do. Saying that mutations being naturally selected within eukaryotes must be more efficient than prokaryotes is ridiculous when you factor in the fact that prokaryotes are much more limited as far as what they can do than eukaryotes.

reply to post by SpearMint



Process-

a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner:

So by it's own definition the word process already suggests something that happens very slowly.

What you really said was, " An extremely slow process " Am I wrong about anything so far ? Negative.

Sorry. But that's exactly what you said.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Process-

a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner:

So by it's own definition the word process already suggests something that happens very slowly.

What you really said was, " An extremely slow process " Am I wrong about anything so far ? Negative.

Sorry. But that's exactly what you said.

LOL by its own definition (the one you gave), suggests that the word process pertains to something that is always slow? ROFL.

Simply put, a process is a series of things happening. Evolution is a slow process. Not impossibly slow though. All evidence shows that. Life itself shows that.

When it comes down to it, we really don't know exactly how everything started. That's why it is still being studied. If we knew it was a fact then we wouldn't need to study it anymore. The evidence is there though supporting the theory. Let data be data.

Okay I'm done, it is obvious that nobody will change their mind. Creationists will continue to believe what they want to believe, and people that understand evolution and accept reality will see evolution as being a part of life. There's 0 evidence for creationism & god, and the ONLY people that believe in it are religious (that says a lot right there). Also, most people that are highly educated understand and accept evolution (I almost feel silly saying "believe in evolution", because its not a belief its reality). The people with the best brainpower making cutting edge advancements in technology mostly accept evolution (That says a lot too). I don't care if creationists believe what they want, as long as they don't suppress science, don't suppress knowledge to their friends and children, the development of mankind, or knock on my front door trying to save me from hell.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
There's no evidence for "macro-evolution", huh? Have you ever heard of creatures called "dogs"?

Yes, but there are limiting factors. A dog will never be the size of a house, nor smaller than a penny. A dog will never grow wings, nor will it gain the ability to breath underwater. It will never evolve to the point of climbing trees and swinging from vine to vine with their tails. This is speculative, not science.

Or are we going to try the tired-ass argument that a "breed" isn't a species? If dogs, wolves. foxes are different "species" then so are Mastiff's and Chihuahuas.

Yes, we could use that argument, because it's actually true. Dogs, wolves, and foxes ARE the same kind of animal, as they can all breed with each other (certain dog breeds have been able to mate with foxes). So, no. Your argument is invalid, as Mastiff's and Chihuahuas are the same kind of animal.

Below are some other links to academic papers which clearly and indisputably establish that macro evolution occurs, has been witnessed, and can even be reproduced.

Macro-Evolution Article

Right here in the beginning, when they define the terms, under Macro-Evolution, last sentence -

Macroevolution refers generally to the formation of major groups of organisms from other groups that are distinctly different. For example, the evolution of mammals from earlier non-mammalian tetrapods, or the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals. The mechanism for this process is generally considered to be the same as for microevolution, but carried on accumulatively over many millions of years, resulting in the ever-increasing diversity of life we see today.

Whenever someone says the phrase "over many millions of years", they're basically saying "long ago and far away.." so essentially, whenever someone says "over many millions of years", you know that a fairy-tale is coming next.

Time is the magic ingredient that Evolutionists think solves their problems. It really doesn't. It's just a statement of faith, and Evolutionists indeed have a lot of faith.

The rest of this two-page article offered no proof.

Three-Spined Sticklebacks

Excellent, I'm really glad you brought up the Sticklbacks. Truly, with enough faith, you can believe anything! I won't be referring to you, directly, milominderbinder, but instead will describe some details about this story, so that the readers can be spared all the links, and they can see how ridiculous this all is.



Here's the critter in question.
It's similar to the Ninespine Stickleback fish, which obviously has nine spines instead of three. Both have two spines sticking down from their pelvis, but they're usually larger in the Threespine Stickleback. These two fish are perfect examples of the failed predictions of the Religion of Evolution.

Both of the fish live in the ocean but swim upstream to reproduce in freshwater, yet according to the evolutionary story, some populations of each species were trapped in lakes when they did this, so they changed their lifestyles to live exclusively in freshwater.. when this happened, they lost their pelvises and the spines that grew from them. Woops! Why did this happen?

Well, the argument I'm getting from the article you posted and from other Evolutionists (I call them that, because they're Evolutionary Cultists, so Evolutionists is fitting), is that such spines are very beneficial to fishes that live in the ocean, because if a predator fish tries to eat the Stickleback, it can use its spines as a defense mechanism (on its back and pelvis) to ward off predators. It would also work in freshwater, except there are some predators in the lakes that can use this disadvantage and turn it around on the Stickleback, making them easier to catch.

This makes them prone to things like the Draonfly Larvae, which also live in freshwater. They have a labium, which is essentially a big "claw" it can protrude from under its mouth, grab onto a fish, pull it in, and have a nice tasty meal.

Here's a quick video on how it works -



It's quite amazing. However, it as it is, the pelvis and spines of a Stickleback make it very easy for a predator like the dragonfly larvae to catch and eat them - as a result, Evolutionists say that the Sticklebacks have lost their pelvises and pelvic spines over the years.

..wait. Evolutionists want us to believe this happens because of random mutations in certain genes, by sheer coincidence? That the mutation produced a less prominent (or weaker)) pelvic spine, and this "lucky" fish was more likely to live on and pass its genes?

(Continued in Next Post)

reply to post by milominderbinder(Continued from Last Post)

Before I continue on any further, I'd like to make a quick notation (if you had gotten bored reading my posts or not, here is my response to the original assertion you made), I apologize for seemingly dragging this on, but I'm trying to make a point. The best interpretation I can give after viewing the data, is that the pelvic/spine-free Sticklebacks did, indeed, evolve from those that had pelvic spines. This isn't Macro-Evolution, however - remember, loss of information is easy to understand given what we know about genomes, so the idea that the sticklebacks without pelvic spines came from the sticklebacks with pelvic spines is not a problem.

Continuing on, when another mutation occurred that resulted in even smaller or weaker spines or pelvises, it would be naturally selected, and over time, then, the sticklebacks lost their pelvises and spines completely simply because a bunch of lucky mutations happened over the years, and those lucky fish lived on. Right.. No, I believe that the genome of these fish were designed to find such solutions, because the two fish actually found two completely different solutions to their problems.. what do I mean?

First, since Evolutionists assume the Threespine Sticklebacks (now referred to as 3S-S) and Ninespine Sticklebacks (now referred to as 9S-S) are closely-related, they thought that essentially the same genes would control the loss of the pelvis/spines in each species. As a result, they PREDICTED that when they compared freshwater 3S-S, they'd find that essentially the same genes were mutated in each species.

Of course, like most evolutionary predictions, this one turned out to be dead wrong.

The genes responsible for the loss of the pelvis and pelvic spines in 9S-S and 3S-S are on different chromosomes. In the 9S-S, the responsible gene is on chromosome number 4, and in the 3S-S, it's on number 7. The authors think they have ruled out that the same gene somehow "jumped" chromosomes, so they think these two incredibly similar fish simply found different genetic solutions to the same problem.

Now, I know I talk a lot, but there's a reason I'm even mentioning any of this, so bare with me. Continue reading the article and you'll see that the researchers also found that gender is determined by genes on chromosome 12 in the 9S-S, but it's determined by the genes on chromosome 9 on the 3S-S, which is incredibly surprising. As the article says -

“This is very surprising because these species are fairly closely related,” even though they diverged 13 million years ago, Shapiro says, noting that “mammals have not changed their sex-determination mechanism in more than 150 million years.”

Now, you know where I stand on the whole "millions of years" dogma, as for the reason why? Simply because it requires one to use scientifically irresponsible dating techniques. I could discuss that more later, though; because his point is clear - Evolution would predict that the genetic control of gender would be very similar in species that are supposed to be so closely-related. Except, you know, it's not.

I believe this is a fine example of the absurd lengths to which one must go in order to believe in evolution. Remember, Shapiro (the scientists in the article, quoted above), is forced to believe that these two species of Sticklebacks are closely-related, because he must continue to believe in evolution. So what does he do when he sees that the gender determination genese are different between the two? He assumes that one species changed how it determined its gender.

Think about that.

The species are SUPPOSED to be closely-related, so it's ASSUMED that their "recent" common ancestor had a genetic means by which it determined gender.. so both of these species inherited that mechanism. So, for some unknown, magical, fairy-tale reason, one (or both) fish species studied here found a "better" mechanism for gender determination (through random mutation, of course!) and thus "changed" to a new mechanism over time.

I would really like an explanation for WHY the ancestor's mechanism wasn't good enough. As far as I know, there is none. There's no explanation as to how one mechanism of gender determination could be in place until the other became fully functional.

There's not even an explanation of how the old could be "turned off" once the other is ready to go. instead, it's all taken off faith - that these two species MUST be closely-related, and therefore any changes between them MUST be the result of evolution that took place after both evolved from their common ancestor.

Simply amazing! If you don't see something wrong with this, I'm afraid no one can help you.

do you like to hump things whats with the avatar ? lol..

You post an evolution topic in the Metaphysical forum?

Short and Sweet - yes evolution is a valid theory *claps*

~ Love is an art

Originally posted by CloonBerg
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

I would like you to stop referring to evolution as being my “god” or my religion. My religion is completely separate from evolution. Comparing evolution to religion is ridiculous, two completely different things. One can believe in god, religion, and in evolution.

I'm not referring to evolution as your "god", I'm referring to "time" and "chance" as your "god" - big difference. I know there are some people who like to have a taste of everything; god, religion, evolution.. but I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. If a "god" needs to rely on Evolution to work, he is cruel, wasteful and stupid.

The bacteria study is interesting. But to claim macro-evolution doesn’t occur based on one study is not fair, especially since macro-evolution can take a long time to occur. I have read of a study just like what you posted, in which macro-evolution did occur.

It's not unfair, it's observable science. If it doesn't happen, we can take a leap of faith and say that, "well, perhaps it didn't work this time because of X-theory or Y-theory, we'll just leave it at that," sure, I'll give you that. Yet if it continues to happen, eventually you'll either need to change the theory, or drop it. I'd like to see this article, if you could provide one, please.

Macro-evolution is really just a large accumulation of micro-evolutions leading to speciation. When you look at macro-evolution, you look at the drastic changes. The accumulation of small changes eventually becomes a big change over a long period of time.

..that's a leap of faith, and should not be considered science. It's speculative, sure. As I said before, "given enough time" seems to be the excuse over and over again.

Sexual reproduction is much more complex, and it comes with its rewards. Increased Variation. With more variation comes a better chance of a creature that has an edge in fitness occurring. All it takes is the smallest edge in fitness for the mutation take (if the conditions are right). This increase in variation is even more important for more sexual reproducers, because the time between generations if much longer than say E. coli.
The best way for drastic macro-evolution to occur is when there are niches that are unoccupied. Fish won’t be likely to evolve to walk on land, because the niche it would move into is likely already filled by other creatures that have evolved to specialize in it. However when there were no land animals, if a fish were to mutate and be able to live on land, there is no competition. The fish will thrive even if it would otherwise die in the water.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to state here - it seems to me that you are saying that Evolution is slowing down, because there is not a drastic need for it? I really hope not, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd really like to be able to see pigs fly one day.

Prokaryotic cells are much more limited in what they can do. Saying that mutations being naturally selected within eukaryotes must be more efficient than prokaryotes is ridiculous when you factor in the fact that prokaryotes are much more limited as far as what they can do than eukaryotes.

Right, I know about prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Just as the human body has distinct, smaller organs that each perform specific functions, eukaryotic cells have distinct, smaller organelles that each perform specific functions. Prokaryotic cells are smaller than eukaryotic cells and don't have distinct organelles. And while humans, animals, plants and many microscopic organisms are made of eukaryotic cells, bacteria are made of a single prokaryotic cell.

I'm also aware of Dr. Margulis and the persecution she suffered at the hands of stuck-up Atheists such as Dr. Coyne (a very ridiculous man who, I have quoted, as defining truth as "those people who are capable of judging the evidence and say 'it's true', make it true" - so basically, if his colleagues say it's true, it's true! Lol! Dogma! Dogma!) and from P.Z. Myers.

I don't agree with everything Margulis says, but I applaud her for speaking honestly in her field. Now I'm just off-topic.. blargh

reply to post by SpearMint


No, I'm sorry, but what is SAD is people accepting at face value what they have been indoctrinated with since childhood.

Evolution is fact, if you are talking about change occurring over time.

If you are talking about extreme change over extreme periods of time, it is a belief in a theory that is many times removed from any observable testable science.

It doesn't matter what you cite, it is impossible for evolution as secondarily stated in this post to be considered a fact, and the fact that you do and feel sad for those that disagree with you is quite ironic.

Accept it as a belief system and you will be much better off.

I don't expect you to. I don't expect most people to have the intellectual curiosity or the wherewithall to question the paradigm and logically evaluate the real evidence in order to come to any conclusion aside from the established paradigm...

Just remember this quote from yours truly, which is true... "The only historically accurate scientific fact is that science is never currently accurate".

And of course, your response will predictably be, that we improve the accuracy over time. Sorry, you cannot improve accuracy multiple levels from an original fallaciously established "FACT". You have to pitch it and start over from scratch.

The modern scientific paradigms do NOT do this, nor have they ever. That, my friend is the best illustration of human nature. There is a better way but it would mean ending indoctrination and teaching REAL science, which people like yourself love to claim would stifle progress.

It is the opposite, teaching people beliefs as fact is what stifles progress and most progress even currently is achieved, not through postulation and use of the paradigms, but through trial and error and accident. It has always been the case and it is likely to remain that way as long as we are human.

Jaden...

I hope that this Drivel wasn't too much for you (insert sarcasm)

Originally posted by milominderbinder

1) It is based on observation and experiment
2) If observations and experiments continue to support the theory, it may become widely accepted
3) If it becomes widely accepted, it may be used to explain and possibly predict natural phenomena.

Let's see here, all of your quoted theories with the possible exception of plate tectonics can be observed and experimented upon because they exist now as they did millenia ago. The mathematical theorems shouldn't even be compared with evolutionary theory whatsoever, so you can eliminate almost half from your list.

The remaining biological processes can be observed and experimented upon today - cell theory, germ theory of disease (and believe me, this one has a LONG way to go in the facts department).

So to say the evolutionary theory can be experimented upon and can be observed in action based on a mere sliver of history is not only highly speculative, it is irresponsible. While theories may indeed be widely accepted, they are the best the scientific community has to go on, and in the case of evolution, it ain't much. The theory has so many holes in it that half the time a new skeleton is dug up somewhere, it throws a huge monkey wrench into the "accepted" theory and the hood gets popped and the theory gets a tuneup. So let's not cling to that theory so tightly, okay? There is no proof that fish crawled out of the sea and grew legs. The only thing the fossil record proves is that there were fish that swam, there were fish that could crawl, and there were animals that had legs. The rest is speculative. Let's not forget that all three still exist today, so where is the evolution? If animals allegedly evolve from one thing to the next, why are there still the same creatures coexisting together? There are no facts - only guesses. And scientists love to fill in the blanks when they don't know something, don't they? The earth was once flat, remember?

reply to post by CloonBerg

There's 0 evidence for creationism & god, and the ONLY people that believe in it are religious (that says a lot right there). Also, most people that are highly educated understand and accept evolution (I almost feel silly saying "believe in evolution", because its not a belief its reality). The people with the best brainpower making cutting edge advancements in technology mostly accept evolution (That says a lot too).

I'd put this guys intelligence up against anyone in this thread.

reply to post by Lionhearte


Very thoroughly explained and referenced. Much more so than the OP. Unfortunately, you have a cross as your avatar, so the OP will simply disregard your post as religious zealotry. Pity he's so ignorant.

Evolutin will happen when Wolverine be real

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Process-

a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner:

So by it's own definition the word process already suggests something that happens very slowly.

What you really said was, " An extremely slow process " Am I wrong about anything so far ? Negative.

Sorry. But that's exactly what you said.

...What exactly is your point here? I'm not even sure what side you're on. That definition does not mean a process is slow in any way, but yes evolution is a slow process which is what I said in the beginning. I have no idea what you're getting at or why you're even posting. Just before you were saying evolution would take an infinite amount of time to begin.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

Very thoroughly explained and referenced. Much more so than the OP. Unfortunately, you have a cross as your avatar, so the OP will simply disregard your post as religious zealotry. Pity he's so ignorant.

edit on 23-5-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

Ignorant? I'm probably one of the most open minded people in this thread, not once have I accused someone of being wrong without evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by n00bUK
Goosebumps - useful if we had fur because it would fluff up and make more insulation. Good for people who had fur but for us goosebumps are useless.

Partially wrong. Goosebumps also make the pores clench up, therefore retaining heat. When it's hot our pores open to let excess heat out, when it's cold they tighten up to keep heat in.

reply to post by SpearMint




evolution would take an infinite amount of time just to get started.

Well you got that right ! How is it you have so much trouble nailing down exactly what you said ?

"Extremely slow process"

Your saying, " I didn't say that " isn't true. Do you wish to redact the statement so we can move on ?
Or explain how your ststement and mine are so different if you rather ?

reply to post by AwakeinNM

EVOLUTION is no longer a THEORY. It has not been a theory for some time now as it is a provable FACT.

I have encountered people on this board who use that as a way to obscure reality of the facts and since we have mapped the entire Human Genome as well as many other species....there is no way to disprove EVOLUTION.
Try if you can! Split Infinity