Evidence of Evolution

[FreeThinker]

I have no problem with evolution (at least in some form, if not exactly Darwin's original version). What I have a problem with was your statement that science could either answer all[/b'] our questions or none at all. I don't think your statement showed much 'freethinking'.

 

Science is the only tool we have for answering our questions. Will it answer all the questions? I dont know, but it has answered a lot of questions thus far ( including the way life devlopes on earth).

[Dr. Dalek]

Science is the only[/b'] tool we have for answering our questions. Will it answer all the questions? I dont know, but it has answered a lot of questions thus far ( including the way life devlopes on earth).

 

Actually there are still a lot of questions regarding that part.

Science has yet to create life in a lab to prove how exactly it could happen in nature, but they keep getting closer.

[Sayonara]

Logically it never can be. If eating the apple is wrong, then a being who never does anything wrong (because they cannot choose to do so) can never eat the apple.

That only stands up if this being understands that eating the apple is wrong.

 

It is my understanding that in the Eden scenario, that's the lesson God is teaching man. He doesn't tell them eating the fruit of the tree is wrong; he simply forbids it and allows them to make their own mistakes, as one might teach a child.

[Royston]

While I was researching I found an article on wikipedia. One part described a study done on human and chimp babies. The study was made to compare how the two different species learn while young. It was determined that young chimps learn from experience while baby humans learn by imitation.

 

Contrary to this, they've also discovered Orangutans (not sure about chimps) learn through imitation. In a national park in Borneo the Orangutans were found washing clothes, simply by mimicking other people. They've also learned to use a saw, and hit nails into wood using a hammer, albeit a little clumsy, but a definite similarity to humans.

 

I'll try to find a link.

[Edtharan]

There is evidence of learning by lower primates than chimps (Monkeys). They watched one memebr of the troup perform actions (in this case it was washing sweet potatoes to get sand off it) and then performed this same action. So the statement about only humans learning from mimicry is wrong.

 

That only stands up if this being understands that eating the apple is wrong.

That is a good point. Scince Adam and Eve knew nothing of good and evil until they ate form the tree, how were they to know that what they were doing was wrong?

 

One might say they knew it was wrong because God told them not to, but how would they have known that to break the rules was wrong if they had no knowledge of right and wrong (good and evil)?

 

So God is punishing Adam and Eve for a mistake He/She/It made. This is another case where God says that XYZ is GOod and ABC is evil and then goes and does ABC.

[Cthulhu]

There is evidence of learning by lower primates than chimps (Monkeys).

 

dude, you are going to get torn to pieces if you tell a chimp that they are a monkey.

[Dr. Dalek]

dude, you are going to get torn to pieces if you tell a chimp that they are a monkey.

He didn't call the Chimp a monkey, he said monkeys were lower primates than monkeys.

There is evidence of learning by lower primates than chimps (Monkeys). They watched one member of the troop perform actions (in this case it was washing sweet potatoes to get sand off it) and then performed this same action. So the statement about only humans learning from mimicry is wrong.

 

I know Humans aren’t the only animals that learn by imitation, I merely said that Human Babies learn through imitation as opposed to baby chimps which learn from experience.

Also there are other animals that learn through imitation besides primates a common example would be the Parrots, Ravens and other talking birds.

[Edtharan]

dude, you are going to get torn to pieces if you tell a chimp that they are a monkey.

Actually I ment that it was monkies that were being studdies and that they were a lower primate than chimps (and besides it is Orangutans that tear you to pieces if you call them monkeys - from Terry Pratchett's Discworld)

 

I know Humans aren’t the only animals that learn by imitation, I merely said that Human Babies learn through imitation as opposed to baby chimps which learn from experience.

Ahh, ok. Sorry. Although I do think that both can still learn both ways, I just can't remember any evidence for that position.

[Dr. Dalek]

Ahh, ok. Sorry. Although I do think that both can still learn both ways, I just can't remember any evidence for that position.

 

They probably do learn both ways but to what degree, and how does that degree change between species.

 

It would be interesting if an animal psychologist were to use tests on different animals to determine a profile of how they learn, what types of intelligence they have and to what degree. Different animals could have a Sort of intelligence "Pie Chart" that profiles how they learn and think.

 

The chart would be used as a baseline for how much different mental aspects such as experience, intelligence, instinct, and emotions contribute to their behavior.

[Tolmosoff]

I don;t know why Christians and evolutionists keep hammering each other.

 

I. # Evolution = Our created evolution in its creation ( Capable to evolve of animal species ) was create into his creation tp protect his creation from extincion in an ever changing environment.

Scientists and creationists are both right and both wrong.

 

2. # Big Bang. Can God that we worship be called The God anomoly, God particle or God is that ( Big Bang ) ?.

 

My belief is that creation and science work together as one.

[iNow]

I don;t know why Christians and evolutionists keep hammering each other.

 

I. # Evolution = Our created evolution in its creation ( Capable to evolve of animal species ) was create into his creation tp protect his creation from extincion in an ever changing environment.

Scientists and creationists are both right and both wrong.

Nope, not quite. Creationists are purely wrong... There is nothing "right" about their claims. They have failed every single test put their way. Not one testable prediction made has supported their arguments. It's all based on belief and faith, which are properties of the mind, not properties of reality.

 

Now, sometimes science makes mistakes, so don't get me wrong. There are even sometimes disputes over minor details of particular areas of study, but evolution itself is quite plainly not wrong, and there is mountains of evidence accumulated over 150 years to support this assertion.

 

 

 

2. # Big Bang. Can God that we worship be called The God anomoly, God particle or God is that ( Big Bang ) ?.

The god YOU worship can be called Zeus or "my pretty pink pony" for all I care. It's not science, and has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

 

You do know, don't you, that this is a science forum, not a fantasy land believe whatever stupid thing you want forum?

 

 

My belief is that creation and science work together as one.

While I personally disagree with the conclusion you've drawn, there is no problem here because you clearly stated it was just your own belief. However, for that reason, it's not science and can be safely dismissed.

[PhDP]

(at least in some form, if not exactly Darwin's original version)

 

To be fair, nobody really believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. At best, scientists accept a modified form of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

 

In any case, very few people actually believe in evolution, they either accept a caricature of it, or are not willing to accept all the consequences.

[GutZ]

“Of course we must be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” Richard Dawkins

 

This is my qualm with Richard. He proclaims himself to be open-minded but he rejects the possiblity of certain things. As soon as you reject any possibility you have closed your mind to ideas. I think that's a dangerous thing for a human being who is not infalliable to make.

 

Sure I am not saying you should believe in imaginary things. The chance of a God existing is limited to the what currently understand about the universe. If there is some physical aspect to God's action we should be able to see it. We don't, so we limit the possibility. If there is no bases to the idea it not worth approaching.

 

We are also not invalid either, we have the ability to filter out information that is not relevant. I don't have to close my mind to a possibility of God because I can deduct from what we know (assuming it correct) that if a God exists it doesn't affect the world physically, and that if there is physical presence, it has to match up with what is real. So it's not a concern for me, I haven't seen evidence for it, so I don't bother with it. For other it is. That's up to them.

 

We have a certian degree of faith in science as well. We assume that because something repeat continously it's based on what we call reality. Gravity is real, we test it constantly. But we start still deducting based on our own perception.

 

My point is we are limited and we are not perfect. The moment we tell our selves something is impossible without having evidence for it, we stunt our growth.

 

I don't see why any door should be closed indefinitely. From what I read and listen to from Richard, he doesn't actually practice that quote, which is the trouble with quotes, the worthiness of a quote is dependant on who states it. It never based on merit of what is actually being said.

[Ophiolite]

May I remind participants that this resurrected thread is about Evidence for Evolution. Interesting as some of the latter points may be it would preferable to either let this thread lapse once more into silence, or to focus on delivering Evidence for Evolution.

 

(Or to directly disputing said evidence, with contrary evidence. Lets leave the philosophy for an appropriate thread.)

[Darwinsbulldog]

Some resources about the evidence for evolution:-

 

Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

 

Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful:The New Science Of Evo-Devo and the Making Of The Animal Kingdom. London, Phoenix.

 

Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. London, Viking.

(see also his book "The Greatest Show on Earth".

 

Also, any books or papers at all by a chap named Charles Robert Darwin.

 

http://darwin-online.org.uk/

 

Any google scholar search will turn up enough material to keep anyone going for a 1000 lifetimes.

 

If one wants to know experimental techniques for evolutionary biology, then consult books like:-

 

Garland, T. R., Michael (2009). EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION: concepts, methods, and applications of selection experiments. Berkeley, University of California Press.

 

A great general text is:-

 

FREEMAN, S. H., & Herron, Jon C. (2007). "EVOLUTIONARY ANALYSIS". New Jersey, Pearson, Prentice-Hall.

 

and for the more mathematically minded:-

 

Nowak, M. A. (2006). EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS: Exploring The equations of Life. London, Harvard University Press.