Evolution

[The_old_worm]

Now before I get into this I want to make sure that everyone knows my position.  Evolution can NOT be proven 100%, in fact nothing can, and science does not try to assert that it can.  If you want a discussion on truth, we are having a good one on the religious thread.

Evolution is a theory, which, by definition, means it is unproven. Many theories are out there about the origins of the universe, in fact, all religions that I know of have some kind of creation myth, and yes, I said myth. The difference between each theory is that of evidence. If a theory has evidence, and is supported by logic, and observations, then it becomes valid(this does not mean it becomes true, just valid).  Theories that have more evidence and are the most simple, are the most likely answers.

The theory of Evolution does not include the Big Bang, neither does it speak of abiogenesis, it only speaks of change in animals over time.  Disproving the Big Bang, or abiogenisis does nothing to the the evolutionary theory, but I realise that this is going to come up, so I will discuss it.

Creationists will constantly pick at the details of the evolutionary theory, claiming to have found holes that disprove the theory.  Yes, there are holes, any historical theory will have holes, but the evidence that has been found, in completely independent fields, with no concern for each other's theories, fit the predictions made by the evolutionary theory.  The person who denies this, is the same that would refuse to believe that there is a road in front of him, claiming that the missing bricks disprove the existence of the road.

[The_old_worm]

The burden falls on the Creationist shoulders to falsify the evolutionary theory.  It is established as a valid theory due to the mountains of evidence found in it's favor, and by predictions made by the theory, that we, in fact, later find out to be true. Because of it's simplicity, evidential support, along with it's logic, and compatability to observations made of the world, it is, by far, the most likely theory out there.  Give me a creation myth, that fits the evidence, ALL of the evidence, that we find, and you'll have a valid theory.

Some of the areas of evidence for evolution are vestigial organs, vestigial genetic structures, beneficial mutations observed in nature, speciation observed in nature, geologic positioning of fossils found and their progressive complexity through that order, residual behaviors in animals, and especially in humans that are easily explained with evolution, morphological progressiveness in evolutionary trees (now I say progressive, I only mean from one creature to another, not from poor design to good design) genetic similarities predicted by evolution, changes in species through human manipulation, transitional fossils found.  So, to answer Ordos' question on the religion thread, yes, the scientific method HAS been used on the evolutionary model, and evolution has passed each time.

These are the topics that we can argue about evolution, if you want to get into the Big Bang, or Abiogenesis, then we can, but I thought I'd start with this.

[The_old_worm]

And just to clear this up, Ordos, you need to learn a little about the evolutionary theory, your statement on the religious thread, shows the same kind of ignorance that is seen in most creationist arguments.  Realise that you can take ANY theory, simplify it to the point of absurdity, and convince people that it is stupid.  Creationists also do this with their watchmaker argument "If I put all the pieces of a watch into a bag, shake it up over billions of years, will I have a watch?" Of course not, but evolution is MUCH more complicated than this.

If Noah's flood is responsible for the death of the dinosaurs, then why do we find the order of species according to the depth that we dig?  It's amazing the ridiculous arguments that people will come up with to defend their precious faith.

Instead of taking shots at the theory, why don't you give us some reasons why it is impossible.  Refute the evidence that I have stated above in a way that is consistant with your theory.            

[gryphon]

My god ! Another one if these topics, you guy's have yoined the wrong forum you know. ;D

I thought of where to posts this, in religion or here, but her eis mayby more aproprate. So some comments to Ordos45 in religion. [ O, forgot, nice to see you found some time to post again. ]

"Oh wait you can't live a thousand years to prove it!"

We don't have to, by studiing animals with a shortet live spann we can see the changes over multiple generation. Look at the worms of Chernobil [ don't know how you spelll it in English ], other little creatures that just live for a couple of years.

These studies havn't proven Darwin's evolution theory wrong sofar.

"Its streams have fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs side by side, same era!"

I fail to see your point. according to the evolution theory a form of the humans species lived together with the dino's. Why is this not possible ? Are you under the impressino that ALL life died together with the dino's ?

You are suggesting this with the rest also.

A lot of creatuse survied the horrible disaster that is supposed to have struk the dinosaurs. Our verry first, far ensesters are among those. Evolution didn't start all over again.

"Also, I could have sworn this is a strike against it all.  Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a cat, or a cat give birth to a human?  Its impossible.  It also means, you can't have evolution then."

What do you mean with that ? Evolution did not create the same creautes, not ALL creatures are supposed to be the same because we are supposed to have the same ensester. We have evolved differently.

But to give a suitable counterpoint. The combination of a Donky and horse povide a animal that is unable to procreate itself. That change didn't even take thousend years as you suggested ;). Just one generation, and guess what . . . .  it is unable to mate with other animals, not even of his OWN species.

[Edric O]

As I am neutral on this issue, I'm just posting to remind you all that Christianity DOES NOT equal Creationism. Please don't treat them as if they're equivalent. Although creationism is certainly favored by Christianity, there are very many non-creationist Christians.

Ok now. Carry on... ;)

[The_old_worm]

ok, hopefully Dezertfish will come to this thread and read the rest of my response.

Why does a beginning necessarily represent a supreme being.

[Acriku]

About the Big Bang, I have one thing that isn't really evidence-supported:

How do we know something cannot come from nothing? We did not make or even know the rules of the universe, and for sure we cannot know them all.

[The_old_worm]

Actually, Dezertfish, I agree, Lucy has been classified as a species of Ape because that is what she is. That does not decrease her significance to evolution though. She is an Ape that shows hominid characteristics, in fact, in the evolutionary model, you would expect to find this. That is where the deception takes place, while naming Lucy a species of Ape sounds bad to evolution, it actually supports it by showing an Ape with human characteristics, yet you seem to have decided to leave out that part.

                                                                                                                                                                                                           And let's talk about Lungs. Is it possible that fish, at some point in time, spent more and more time on land? There is a catfish that when caught in a dried up pool, will "walk" on it's fins for long distances to find water, and of course we have the lungfish.  Is it not possible that as they spent more time on land, some cells inside their body may have developed the ability to absorb oxygen from air.  Fish already had this capability from water, all it takes is more efficiency in different cells.  Could it be that the larger the surface area of these cells, the more oxygen the fish could get from the air, and the longer the air could be held on those cells, the more oxygen it could get? therefore, a concave surface, absorbing more oxygen while taking less space inside the fish could have appeared, eventually closing off to a sack, that would hold that air in for longer periods of time? There you have your first alveoli, from there it just increases in number of sacks and so forth. It is evidence of this process that we see a primitive lung in the lung fish. Now, I'm not saying it happened exactly like this, but do you deny that it is possible?

The problem with your argument is that many complex structures such as the eye, have function at their most basic levels. Perhaps feathers evolved for warmth, as animals became warm blooded, just as fur would have. And why not, feathers are made of the same stuff as scales are. Why could there not have been some kind of adaptation, (which even you admit happens with microevolution) to change scales into feathers and fur?

[The_old_worm]

Alright, let's get into some of the other evidence that you asked me to explain. vestigial structures.  Why do some whales and snakes have residual hip bones. They serve no purpose. Evolution predicts that they should. How about wisdom teeth in Humans. Why does God's crowning achievement in creation not have enough room in their jaw for all of their teeth. Evolution predicts this because our ancestors had larger jaws than we do. The eyes displayed in every stage of degeneration in cave fish. The wings of flightless beetles under fused wing covers, hollow bones in flightless birds etc... I could go on, but you get the point. When looking at their evolutionary lineage, these structures make sense, but why does God put useless structures on his creations?

Evidence from morphological tree. Why are many structures obviously similar to other structures in creatures even though they serve different purposes? In some cases, the vestigial characteristics of the structures are actually harmful to the overall function. Why can we see in animals, a progression from one structure to the other, simply be examining their evolutionary line, or through relatives with different levels of that function? Doesn't this demonstrate a possible progression from one structure to another?

What's so special about beneficial mutaions? This is evolution in action. If you believe in microevolution, then you can't possibly believe in beneficial mutations, because small changes can greatly affect the animal's appearence. Too many of these beneficial mutations leads to speciation, which is the definition of macroevolution.

I'll have to go back and read your post, but I believe that I hit every point. If I missed one, let me know.

[The_old_worm]

Oh, by the way, the Paluxy tracks are the only ones I've ever heard of, and the general consensus, as I read more (from talk.origins), which is where I get much of my information, is that these "footprints" are that of a dinosaur. they are unclear, but only show three toes.

[The_old_worm]

I keep going back and seeing things that I need to reply to.  Does this order of creation agree with science, if so, I would like to check out what you are reading.

In fact there are several different creation myths

The general priestly tradition(Genesis 1)

1.Sky, Earth, Light

2. Water, both in the ocean basins and above the sky

3. Plants

4. Sun, Moon, stars(as calendrical and navigational aids)

5. Sea monsters(whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy crawlies(reptiles, insects, etc.)

6. Humans

7. Nothing (day off)

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition

Earth and Heavens

Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)

Plants

Animals

Eve, the first woman

The six day story

Day 3- plants

Day 5- Sea animals and flying animals

Day 6- Land animals, then humanity (both sexes)

The Adam and Eve story

The first Man(Adam)

Plants

Animals(both land and air)

The first woman(Eve)

Find me a scientific theory that agrees with any of these orders of creation.

[The_old_worm]

I'm sorry. I know it seems like I am responding to myself here on this thread, but I am responding to the last that Desertfish left on the religious thread. I'm trying to transfer it over here so Gob doesn't kick our asses.

The Cambrian explosion. First of all, stop saying that all of these mutations have to happen all at the same time. Can you prove that the primitive forms of ANY structure won't have function? These immediate changes, take millions of years. Second of all, stop trying to play the odds here, I've already shown why it is ridiculous to do so.

Rapid periods of change followed by long periods of stability is called "Punctuated Equilibrium". this theory, which is well supported by logic and the evidence, and one which, I feel is most likely, says that rapid changes due to extreme circumstances in their environment, can cause rapid evolutionary changes. Now, by rapid, I mean in the order of 50,000 to 500,000 years.

The explosion of life in the Cambrian simply demonstrates that species, with a new, superior adaptation, exploded with variety because of their vast superiority to other organisms.

[Anathema]

Not many replies in to The_old_worm. It is an interesting subject to discuss. Problem is that I agree with The_old_worm leaving little room for discussion.

Come on people! Post some comments.

[The_old_worm]

I hate to let this thread die with all the absolute comments that the Creationists on this site have made. Come on guys, if you are going to make the statements about Creationism being just as valid as evolution, please, step up to the plate!

[Dezertfish]

Sorry I can't reply on weekends and I will try to make this short. If I don't answer everything that you want me to, IM me if you think its important.

By happening all at the same time, tell me how hollow bones can be beneficient to a fish or land animal without wings. How do wings help a heavy animal to survive BETTER than its friends who have arms, legs or fins, how do feathers help a fish or land animal who does not have wings and hollow bones? They must develop all of these in one lifetime in order to survive and be more suitable for survival than their friends.(they actually must get all these mutations while still an embryo or before, due to the fact that mutions must affect the reproductive cells and everything else, mutaions in a cell in the arm muscle of an animal will not affect the bone of the legs or the texture of the skin.) What good are a couple vertabrate that do not connect all the body's nerves to the brain(because it stops after only a few).

I am not trying to place odds, it is simply very unlikely that things happen that way(when you think about it for yourself).

I feel that Darwinistic evolutionists do not include abiogenesis in their basic theory, because they realize the improbability to hte point of impossiblity of teh first life arising by chance. (abiogenesis', not evolution's, absurdity is what is demontrated in the watchmaker argument). Your snowflake illustration is assuming it happened the first time. If you know something happened in the past, and are trying to explain it, does it make sense to choose a theory that is so unlikely, and then to justify it with "It happened so it must have happened this way". NO that is circular reasoning.

Who said that Noah's flood HAS to be responsible for the death of all the dinosaurs? They could have just as easily have been killed by volcanic winter or a change in the ratio of gasses in the air. Creationists have just pointed out that it is awfully convenient that all the dinosaurs were supposed to have been killed all at once, and that is amazingly similar to what is related in the flood story.

We don't have to, by studiing animals with a shortet live spann we can see the changes over multiple generation. Look at the worms of Chernobil [ don't know how you spelll it in English ], other little creatures that just live for a couple of years.

[Dezertfish]

The burden falls on the Creationist shoulders to falsify the evolutionary theory.

[The_old_worm]

By happening all at the same time, tell me how hollow bones can be beneficient to a fish or land animal without wings. How do wings help a heavy animal to survive BETTER than its friends who have arms, legs or fins, how do feathers help a fish or land animal who does not have wings and hollow bones? They must develop all of these in one lifetime in order to survive and be more suitable for survival than their friends.(they actually must get all these mutations while still an embryo or before, due to the fact that mutions must affect the reproductive cells and everything else, mutaions in a cell in the arm muscle of an animal will not affect the bone of the legs or the texture of the skin.) What good are a couple vertabrate that do not connect all the body's nerves to the brain(because it stops after only a few).

I am not trying to place odds, it is simply very unlikely that things happen that way(when you think about it for yourself.)----Dezertfish

Hollow bones also have the funcion of temperature regulation as do feathers, which makes sense if reptiles are becoming warm blooded.

Wings do NOT improve land animals chances of survival, that is the point. They are vestigial structures from their flying ancestors. Sorry, this one is predicted in the evolutionary model, and is therefore evidence FOR evolution, not against it.

I know how mutations work!

I assume you are speaking about the tailbone in humans when talking about the useless vertebra. IT IS A VESTIGIAL STRUCTURE FROM OUR ANCESTORS WITH TAILS! It serves NO purpose and is what we would expect to see from an animal descended from other animals with tails. In fact, some babies (althoug VERY rare) are born with tails. Again, sorry, your example supports evolution, not Creationism.

[The_old_worm]

I feel that Darwinistic evolutionists do not include abiogenesis in their basic theory, because they realize the improbability to hte point of impossiblity of teh first life arising by chance. (abiogenesis', not evolution's, absurdity is what is demontrated in the watchmaker argument).--Dezertfish

You can "feel" that Darwinistic evolution leaves out abiogenesis for that reason if you want to, but that doesn't make you right! Evolution ONLY speaks to the change in species over time. The origin, divine or natural, is beyond the theory.

"Your snowflake illustration is assuming it happened the first time. If you know something happened in the past, and are trying to explain it, does it make sense to choose a theory that is so unlikely, and then to justify it with "It happened so it must have happened this way". NO that is circular reasoning."--Dezertfish

My snowflake illustration only demonstrates that the snowflake landed on my penny, it says nothing of the snowflakes origin. If it was important to us, we would examine the evidence of wind speed, and such and propose a theory based on the evidence on why the snowflake landed on my penny. Fortunately, evolution provided a better path of evidence for us to follow than did my snowflake.

Again, you try to play the odds here, "unlikely" HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?????? And we didn't just "pick a theory" we created one from the evidence that is given. There are MANY justifications for evolution, not simply "it happened, so it must have happened this way" that is the justification used for Creationism.

"Who said that Noah's flood HAS to be responsible for the death of all the dinosaurs? They could have just as easily have been killed by volcanic winter or a change in the ratio of gasses in the air. Creationists have just pointed out that it is awfully convenient that all the dinosaurs were supposed to have been killed all at once, and that is amazingly similar to what is related in the flood story."---Dezertfish

And the order in which we find fossils in the geologic column is awfully inconvenient for Creationists.

[The_old_worm]

You are refering to microevolution(evolution within a species), which has often been used to try to prove Darwin's thoery, or macroevolution(evolution from one species into something altogether different). The two ARE different. Also, two animals in a species must mutate beneficially at once in similar ways, otherwise the offspring of the "evolved"(sounds like pokemon, doesn't it?) specimen would be sterile.(as with mules). This does not include microevolution, because micro-evolution stays within the same species."Reproduce, each according to its type".---Dezertfish

Don't try to create wording to make it sound ridiculous. "Something completetly different" is a little deceiving, because the two creatures may still look VERY similar, like a Lion and a Tiger. The only qualification for speciation is that they change ENOUGH that their genetics are no longer campatible to breed. This is a much finer line than you would like to admit.

Again, IF they did evolve ALL of thier new characteristics all at once, then their offspring would be sterile, I agree with that, but given millions of years of small changes from mutations, this is not the case, because between the generations, the changes are small enough that breeding is still possible. Now, if you tried to go back and breed a new species with it's parent species from a million years ago, with all it's changes, it would be impossible (probably). This IS macroevolution and observations HAVE been made. Check out talk.origins "observed instances of speciation" and "29 evidences for macroevolution"

[The_old_worm]

The burden to disprove the evolution theory falls on all non-evolutionists. But athiests do not have the same religious dedication as evolutionists have, so they don't care a fraction as much. mountains of evidence? more like some speculation mixed in with some evidence.

It is likely only so far as you leave out the unlikely 70% percent of the theory.

Speculation that is repeatedly verified by observations and evidence. I will not list it again, but if you want to attack this "speculation mixed with evidence" my list of evidence is on an above post. Where is this 70% of unlikeliness in the theory, please enlighten me.;)

At least evolution has the evidence to support it's speculation, instead of Creationism which expects us to accept it on NO, I repeat NO, evidence.

[Edric O]

Unless you expect someone to come up with outstanding new evidence to support one of the 2 theories, I don't see the point of this discussion.

After 53 pages of intense arguing, that huge Religion topic left us exactly where we started. I'm sure this topic will have the same fate...

[The_old_worm]

The problem is, Edric, that there already IS new outstanding evidence, through genetic research. The Creationists just don't want to see it.

I understand that Dezertfish has probably not read my posts yet, so he has not responded, at least I hope this is the case, but of the people on this site that make their little comments about evolution, he is the only one with the guts to argue it. I respect that, too bad others are not the same, and hide behind their little unqualified comments on other threads.

This thread may possibly go nowhere. Dezertfish and I will probably never agree, but for those reading the thread, maybe they will be educated some by the topic. That is what I hope to accomplish, so that others will know the facts about what they believe or disbelieve.

For people who want to learn about evolution, you could ask questions about the theory as well, or if you have any new information that I have not heard, I would love to read it.

[Inhuien]

but of the people on this site that make their little comments about evolution, he is the only one with the guts to argue it.

Why do you feel that the lack of arguments against your stance on the subject on evolution indicates a lack of moral fibre? I happen to be in accord with your on this matter, however I feel that attacks of this nature are unwarranted.

[The_old_worm]

Your probably right, that was a little harsh, but it gets irritating when people make statements like "Evolution is just a theory. so it is no better than creation", or they ridicule the theory as nonsense by oversimplifying it, without having the "moral fibre" to back their statements up. I think, if you are going to voice an opinion, you should be prepared to back it up. Here we have an evolution thread, so I ask, Where are those who ridicule the theory now?

[Edric O]

...they probably don't want to get involved in another gigantic topic, IMO