Evidence of Evolution

[Chatha]

I didn't say it didn't exist. My original point is that we'd have to map out the exact lineage of such transformation from bacteria to man. You see, you are attributing Evolution to science, it is a characteristic of nature not science. Nature has it that the Artics is the windiest place on earth, which is a sure bet year round, but will it be so for ever? will the earth even be around? If I tell you I have a million bucks in the bank would you believe without seeing it? Sure I could be a rich man but It doesn't change a thing in such a circumstance.

[Dak]

are you leading up to some kind of 'the theory of evolution has not been conclusively proven' revelation (coincidentally ignoring the fact, which has been pointed out twice, that the mechanisms of evolution can be proven indipendantly of the history of any/all species)

[Chatha]

Its not too daunting for me to believe life was created by chance. All I'm just waiting for is the proof is all.

[Sayonara]

I agree with you but I am not trying to make the theory infeasible by stating anything personal or out of the ordinary. Do Buses not have road accidents on the way? Do they not break down on the way? Do drivers not quit? Are routes not altered from time to time? The event you cited is conditional as nobody is the creator of the universe. The subject is not even whether evolution takes place or not, but to what degree(bus stop)?

You are quite right - the atypical happens frequently (and usually when you are waiting for the bus, and already late). However that doesn't mean that a large-scale pattern does not exist, nor does it mean that the mechanisms in effect for the majority of the time are never in effect (which doesn't even make sense as a sentence, now I come to write it down).

 

There is no requirement for absolutes when you are dealing with dynamic populations, and even a mere desire for absolutes is impractical (for instance many individuals in a population will die before reproducing - that doesn't mean that inheritance doesn't work).

Imposing an artificial requirement for one is intellectually misleading.

 

 

I think there are creationists who believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Isn't it a mistake to paint all creationists with the same brush?

Hi troll!

 

Notice how I was talking about a specific claim' date=' and not the population it belongs to? Know what Venn diagrams are?

 

Good. Now change the record and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

 

 

Okay you are stating the obvious and starting to be assinine. We know about all the hoopla and jargon, but why is it that this same hoopla and jargon you cite proudly can't map out the exact lineage of specie changing to another specie. Why?

Because that's not its purpose.

 

How come you can imagine attributes for such a complex set of unknown systems as me (such as "proudly"), yet your powers of reasoning fail you on something so simple as the scientific method, which has been documented in excruciating detail for centuries?

 

 

Okay this is what Sayonara is saying

The bible is true because we have evil and good. We know we sin' date=' its everywhere, we sin against the people(justice). The consequences of sin is punishment and reward of good is wages, hence the bible is true. A place called jerusalem exists, with even a place where Jesus was born, hence the bible is true. Jesus has promised he will return, hence the bible has to be true. The bible has survived hundreds of years, hence it has to be true.[/quote']

Please show me where I said anything that could possibly in any way be remotely or vaguely similar to that, or mistaken for it by an insane person.

 

 

Well, to my understanding I am not demoting science, I am a chemistry student myself. I believe the selective breeding you are talking about still remains to a singular specie and does not produce a new one, at least not naturaly.

Clades, probably, for the most part. However if we could find a pre-human husbandry cow I can absolutely guarantee it would be reproductively isolated from modern animals.

 

It would be easier to demonstrate for plant than it is for animals, I suspect.

 

 

One of this days scientists will mate a cat with a dog by some synthetic process all in the name of trying to prove that we evolved from bacteria.

I think you may be letting your imagination run riot all of a sudden.

 

 

Okay assuming we indeed came from single celled organisms since we are multi-celled, how did cell organs know that coming together will make a cell?

There's no requirement for such knowledge.

 

 

We are back at square one. which still doesn't answer where life comes from

Answering that question is not within evolutionary theory's remit.

[-Demosthenes-]

Okay, I think there might be a need for a second installment of Demo's Evolution Hour.

 

There seems to be some problems with how species evolve into other species and such. Well usual it doesn't go like that anyway. When a niche becomes open (ex dinosaurs die out) then other organisms evolve into these unused niches (the evolution of mammals after dinosaurs died out). It is common to find whole groups of these mammals that are evolved from the same creature, such as the "bear-dog" and has been connected using fossils to the dog, cat, raccoon, bear, and other mammals. Well, how does this happen? How can an animal without wings somehow evolve into something that can fly?? A large part of this is mutation.

Mutation

A lot of people think that all mutations are bad, and in the individual sense they usually always are. For populations it is a different thing, first you have to understand the scope of time, millions and billions of years for a positive mutation to occur. Mutation can bring new alleles (or the genetic material that is responsible for traits) into the population, giving evolution the raw material to work with. If the mutation works then Natural Selection will work on it (the ones in the population with the positive mutation will live and reproduce more often than those who don't) until this positive mutation becomes more common.

 

How?

Mutation is caused sometimes by "copying errors" in genetic material during cell division and sometimes by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses, these are called Mutagens.

[Dak]

One of this days scientists will mate a cat with a dog by some synthetic process all in the name of trying to prove that we evolved from bacteria.

 

I think you may be letting your imagination run riot all of a sudden

 

we've already crossed sheep with goats to make geep. i have absolutely no idea what the point was, but there you go. its been done (although it was a chimeric cross in the histological sence, ie parts of its tissue were goat, parts were sheep, there were no cells which were half-goat half-sheep). it happens natuarally, too apparently (resulting in chimeras in the genetic sence, ie some genes from goats some from sheep, genome consistent across all cells)¹

 

im not sure how that can be used to prove we come from bacteria.

[Sayonara]

im not sure how that can be used to prove we come from bacteria.

That was the bit that was my point.

[Dak]

oooooooooooooooooooooooh, right.

 

i knew that. ahem. --(tum te tum te tum)

[Chatha]

I guess we actually did evolve from the smallest known units, especially since function follows form. But what a journey this must have been. No need to necessarily put life in the equation since there will be no life without organisms, or organisms are life. Life is probably just a configuration of energy/organs.

[darth tater]

 

Hi troll!

 

Notice how I was talking about a specific claim' date=' and not the population it belongs to? Know what Venn diagrams are?

 

Good. Now change the record and stop embarrassing yourself.

.[/quote']

 

Well. if anyone is embarrassing himself, I would think it would be the one who has been reduced to name calling--wouldn't you?

[Sayonara]

Well, the name-calling is a bit unfair, seeing as you could actually be that thick. But I'm not embarrassed by the fact that I called you a troll so not in this case, no.

 

FYI, you have not "reduced" me to anything. In case you didn't notice there was a response in there too.

[darth tater]

Well' date=' the name-calling is a bit unfair, seeing as you could actually be that thick. But I'm not embarrassed by the fact that I called you a troll so not in this case, no.

 

FYI, you have not "reduced" me to anything. In case you didn't notice there was a response in there too.[/quote']

 

So, since in your opinion I am a troll, it is perfectly appropriate to call me a troll?

 

May I then assume that it is therefore perfectly appropriate to call you a pompous ass?

 

As to your response, (I usually ignore responses from name callers) if you are qualifing your use of the word "creationist," then I have no problem with it.

[Sayonara]

May I then assume that it is therefore perfectly appropriate to call you a pompous ass?

Call me Susan Gobblehat if it makes you happy. I don't care what you think of me.

[hyebeh]

there is also a common misconception among christians. A scientific "theory" has some pretty damning evidence backing up and is pretty much assumed true unless proven false. Scientists don't just throw around the word theory lightly. (e.g. gravity is actually the theory of gravity but throw yourself off your roof and tell me if gravity exists)

[hyebeh]

furthermore, in saying that cell parts must have known to come together, you are forgetting that these cell parts had millions of years randomly bouncing around to come together. Sure, the odds of such an event occuring are small but it was bound to occur in the enormous amounts of time that they were given. It's like that old saying with the monkeys and the typewriters.

[j_p]

There have been a lot of threads about the validity of Evolution' date=' and well I'm going to post all the evidence that I know and from my biology texts so that there will be no confusion. I wouldn't like to over-step my bounds, but I would like to invite others to post on this thread other evidence or insights that I have missed (I hope to just cover the basics with this first post) and we could possibly use this as a reference in the future.

...

[/quote']

 

It was a valiant effort. And a very tidy presentation.

 

You should do some reading on the political theories of Darwin's time; particularly Malthus?

[... hang on, let me check.... Oh, wow, I love google: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html]

 

and Adam Smith. You will find the socio-economic environment in which Darwin developed his theories interesting.

[admiral_ju00]

I guess we actually did evolve from the smallest known units, especially since function follows form. But what a journey this must have been. No need to necessarily put life in the equation since there will be no life without organisms, or organisms are life. Life is probably just a configuration of energy/organs.

 

You do know that in order for an evolution to *occur*, there doesn't have to be any new speciation or growth of an extra appendage.

 

Evolution quite simply is the change of genetic makeup within a population/or organism. Doesn't matter how significant or trivial the genome change is, as long as the alleles and or traits are expressed, the organism(or at a macro level, species) has changed(evolved) into something it wasn't just a generation or a few ago.

[Guest Grail]

As for the documented appearance of new species we have seen ans document many such occurances both natural and unnatural. In the unnatural catagories you expermentation with bacterium exposed to chemical agents, the groups that survive and are exposed again and again to different agents and the generation in which they change from one species into a new one has been documented. ( tested by continually introducing the new batchs to the original) the same has been done with fruit flies. As for natural, we have such strange combinations as whale-dolphins. ( a new one was just born in captivity recently.)

 

As for wether smaller organisms can envolve in new larger, we need merely look at fossil records demostrating the conditions on earth at the time the mammals replaced the dinosaurs, and realize that modern large lands mammals would have had to come from the smaller ones alive at the time. The human record looks pretty obvious too when one sees all the fossel records lined up one after another.

 

As for the creation of life, we have demontrated prelife structures can form on early earth conditions but to truly replicate its transformation from structures to life we would need much larger experiments than has been done. Since the first life had the whole planet.

 

The modelling of the first lifeform can be seen using computer models. There is a particular program I am think of but I will have to look it up.

[Kleptin]

I think the main problem with the debate on life is arrogance.

 

For many people, especially christians, they cannot grasp the concept that saying "only humans have a soul" is a very arrogant, very stupid thing to say considering there is nothing that seperates us from other life forms.

Another problem is that we place life on a giant pedestal. Life is just a term referring to specific proceses that occur in the body, nothing to do with a spirit or soul or anything that we can't create.

[-Demosthenes-]

...considering there is nothing that seperates us from other life forms.

But, of course there is definitely a difference.

Another problem is that we place life on a giant pedestal. Life is just a term referring to specific proceses that occur in the body, nothing to do with a spirit or soul or anything that we can't create.

I would venture so far to say that life is very difficult to be made from abiotic matter.

[Kleptin]

There is a difference, we are human, so we like to think we are special.

You can venture to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make life from abiotic matter, you would be 100% correct in saying that life is very difficult to be made from abiotic matter. But it has been done.

 

Radiation caused the mutation and combination of several amino acids to form a protein, proteins began to link...

[Mokele]

There is a difference, we are human, so we like to think we are special.

 

Technically we are special, in our own way. Just like every species of beetle is special in it's own way.

 

But it has been done.

 

No, it hasn't. Anyone successfuly producing abiogenesis would be on the front page of every paper in the world, and would have the Nobel Prize the moment someone verified it.

 

Radiation caused the mutation and combination of several amino acids to form a protein, proteins began to link...

 

Caused a mutation in what? Mutations are part of DNA (and RNA), not protiens.

 

Furthermore, as prior links in the page state, RNA is now believed to have been the start of life, not protiens.

 

Mokele

[-Demosthenes-]

No, it hasn't. Anyone successfuly producing abiogenesis would be on the front page of every paper in the world, and would have the Nobel Prize the moment someone verified it.

Not by us, but technically it had to happen for there to be any life at all.

[uncool]

Not quite, demosthenes. It is possible that there was an infinite regress of life (alien scientists) or that there was an immaterial creator.

Not saying that I believe this, but it is possible.

-Uncool-

[Kleptin]

Yeah, mutation was a bad word. But I never said DNA, nor RNA, amino acids began to chain because of radiation from the new sun, forming proteins. The proteins went further on, chaining themselves in order to create the bare minimum of genetic material, which led to reproduction, which lead to mutations, which lead to evolution when it was coupled with the harsh factors of the then noxious atmosphere of the earth....