Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[superpower]

From what I understand, random mutations are caused by the inevitable errors that crop up through the generations. Like mutations in general, they can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated, which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genomic sequence. These copies of genes are needed for new genes to evolve.

New strains of E. coli evolve through the natural biological processes. I suppose our attempts to destroy them select out certain variants while others survive, but I don't want to suggest that those processes can be triggered by forced environmental pressures also. I'm still very shaky on the relationship between genes and their environment and I don't want to fall into the teleological fallacy--that is, suggest that evolution has an end-goal, a purposeful design.

Evolution is not a progression from inferior to superior organisms, and it also does not necessarily result in a species becoming more complex. In fact, populations can evolve to become simpler.

So it is fallacy to see evolution as a path to an ultimate life form? Honestly I have always looked at evolution as this genetic disposition towards increasing a lifeforms survival rate.

I know you don't want to suggest the outside force, us, has an impact but it still is open at best no? I mean if we can impact the evolution of the planet via carbon speeding up global warming I would say outside pressure seems to have alot to do with change.

Now that I think of it the more inteligent the manipulator I wonder if the more precise evolution could be triggered.

hmmmmm.

 

[Piper Maru]

Lots of good reading on The Talk Origins Archive.

 

[NateHevens]

Wow. I want to cry. I just typed this whole thing about fact and what it takes to put ones mind at ease when it comes to resonable doubt. Wow.

Short end of the long of it was this basic question. What, for you, is the most compelling peice of evidence for evolution being the end all and be all for life?

It's a combination of things:

-The fossil record is abundant. Don't be fooled by "popular" misconceptions like "the missing link". That's a lot like Adam and Eve... a myth. Transitional forms is what we look for, but technically, we're all transitional forms.

However, there are thousands of fossils showing direct change from one species to another. Here is an overview/summary of what transitional fossils exist. Here is a pretty decent, though a bit incomplete, list of transitional vertebrate fossils.

Some famous specimens include (but are not limited to) Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), Australopithecus afarensis (primitive ape to human), and Tiktaalik (transition from sea to land).

2. There is tons of genetic evidence. The best possible example is that we share 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees (think about that for a minute... everything that makes us different from chimpanzees is contained in only 1.5% of our DNA). But what's even better is that, inserted in our DNA are things known as Endogenous Retroviruses. What's really cool is, many of these viruses are inserted into the exact same places in our DNA as they are in the chimpanzees' DNA.

3. Unintelligent design provides more evidence for evolution. Just look at humans alone:
-The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
-The Appendix
-The broken vitamin C gene
-The tail bone
-The wiring of our eyes (it's backwards... without our brains, we'd actually see upside down)
-Other vestigial structures in the body

Just as some examples.

4. The Double-Nested Hierarchy

Here... have this article of 29+ evidences for evolution.

I'm not against evoulution, as I said before, I just have not seen the evidence that puts my resonable doubt at ease.

See above.

To me, like the theory of relativity, it is theory still because we can not completely fufill the critera of evidence. There is a difference between law and theory. Law is testable and true. Theory is a conclusion based on a logical train of thought made from an establishing observation but it can't be tested.

Okay... please explain what you think the word "theory" means

?? I'm open to the fact that my entire post is off. Yes I declare ignorance. My favorite quote is "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"

I'm open to the fact that you may have information that I do not. At the end of the day a human is merely the culmination of that individuals experience.

Fair enough. I grant that my post was rather arrogant, but that was unintentional and I apologize. It is not at all your fault, but the statements you are making are not new to me... I've been participating in the Creation/Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate for a few years now, both online and offline, and it's come to a point where I can recite certain tropes by memory... the post of yours that I originally responded to (and this one that I'm responding to now) contained a number of those tropes. And they are infuriating to me simply because I have to answer them over and over and over again.

Like I said; this isn't your fault. You and I have never discussed this before (at least... I don't think we have), so you can't know what I've heard and what I've not heard. My problem with a lot of the arguments your making is that they are so cliche. Honestly, it would take a couple minutes of Google searching to answer most of your questions.

In fact, I'll give you a site that should be your go-to source from now on whenever you have a question about Evolution:

Talk Origins

In my opinion, it is the absolute best archive of the whole debate; a debate, I should point out, that is not in any way, shape, or form, a scientific debate. 95% of all scientists (including engineers, medical doctors, social scientists, and so on) accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact; including 99.5% of all Life scientists (biologists, neurologists, anatomists, geneticists, zoologists, etc).

There is no controversy in science over the theory. There's a reason the trope "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution" exists; because it's true. You simply cannot make sense of the modern diversity of life without evolution.

Sure, you can explain the number of creatures alive with intelligent design, but how does intelligent design explain the evolutionary arms race?

Short form:

Cheetah evolves to catch gazelle, so gazelles evolve to run faster, so cheetah to run faster, so gazelle evolve to run faster, so cheetah evolve to run faster...

Just who's side is the designer on, anyways?

The controversy is purely religious and, by extension, political. It was settled in science by Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" (you should consider reading it, BTW... incrediblye dr and boring, but also extremely informative... it took me a long time to get through it mainly because of my miniscule attention span... ... but I do not feel as if I wasted time reading it). It's just become so much more robust since, especially with the discovery of the transitional fossils that Darwin predicted, and a discovery he never could have seen coming: DNA.

Some more books you may want to check out:

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero
Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin

I meant it when I said that there was no theory more well-evidenced in science than the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Thundercrack85]

For humans, evolution will become an obsolete process. Once we truly tap into genetic engineering and cybernetics, we will be able to alter ourselves in a way that would take evolution millennia.

I don't know, Nate. What about gravity? Every time you fall. Every time you drop something. That's gravity.

 

[jmc]

The book by Bart D. Ehrman?

Can't remember the authors name exactly but that could be the dude.

 

[childeroland]

So it is fallacy to see evolution as a path to an ultimate life form? Honestly I have always looked at evolution as this genetic disposition towards increasing a lifeforms survival rate.

I know you don't want to suggest the outside force, us, has an impact but it still is open at best no? I mean if we can impact the evolution of the planet via carbon speeding up global warming I would say outside pressure seems to have alot to do with change.

Now that I think of it the more inteligent the manipulator I wonder if the more precise evolution could be triggered.

hmmmmm.

I don't believe there is an ultimate organism when it comes to evolution, not in the sense that evolution virtually has a design it's working its way toward. Increasing a population's chances of survival doesn't necessarily involve the organisms that comprise it becoming more complex.

By environmental pressures, I only meant actions on our part having a direct effect on the genes of an species, as opposed to the environment (including our actions in the environment) acting as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass. Matt Ridley has interesting things to say about how an environment and an organism's genes interact, but I have to go through his stuff again to get clearer on that.

@Thundercrack85 But there are different theories of gravity--Newton's law, Einstein's general relativity describing gravity as a curvature of spacetime, Moffat's nonsymmetric theory.

 

[NateHevens]

I don't know, Nate. What about gravity? Every time you fall. Every time you drop something. That's gravity.

There's gravity, then there's the Theory of Gravity.

The only reason you think that is because gravity is something we can take for granted (evolution we can, but not in anywhere near the same way, and unlike gravity, it wouldn't be obvious to us in the short term).

But in reality, scientists are still trying to figure out how gravity works. They still don't understand how gravity functions at the subatomic level, they still don't understand why it is relatively so weak in our universe, and they don't fully understand the roll it plays in our universe.

The theory behind gravity, Relativity, has some incredible evidence for it, but it's not as robust as the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Dr.]

I’m not sure if it helps or hinders understanding… but often times, a distinction is made between the “fact” of evolution and the “theory.” It’s beyond question that evolution happened. The fossil record, phenotypic similarities and the shared genetic alphabet for every living thing, etc. demonstrates that common descent with modification is a fact. Even if we didn’t have a clue how it happened, it most assuredly did happen. But, in fact, we have an explanation: the theory of evolution by natural selection - the non-random differential survival and reproductive success of organisms fueled by random genetic mutation.

In the future, it’s possible that we might discover a more complete theory. But natural selection will always be a part of it - it’s too well established by the evidence to be overthrown.

Analogously, Einstein’s theory of gravity subsumed Newton’s. But it didn’t invalidate it (if you want to send a rocket to the Moon, Newton's equations work just fine) . General Relativity’s triumph was due to the fact that it explained everything that Newton’s theory did - plus more.

If a "better" theory of evolution comes along, it’ll have to include natural selection.

 

[Odneyson]

Evolution is a lie from Hades.

 

[Bill]

Drive by trolling, nothing to see here folks.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Duh I saw Prometheus. Of course I believe in evolution! We came from space jockeys!

 

[Piper Maru]

If we came from Space Jockeys then why are there still Space Jockeys?!

 

[Lighthouse]

Interestingly, if you read Prometheus right, all creatures evolved from Space Jockeys.

 

[Casiro]

I do and I'm a firm believer in science.

 

[superpower]

It's a combination of things:

-The fossil record is abundant. Don't be fooled by "popular" misconceptions like "the missing link". That's a lot like Adam and Eve... a myth. Transitional forms is what we look for, but technically, we're all transitional forms.

However, there are thousands of fossils showing direct change from one species to another. Here is an overview/summary of what transitional fossils exist. Here is a pretty decent, though a bit incomplete, list of transitional vertebrate fossils.

Some famous specimens include (but are not limited to) Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), Australopithecus afarensis (primitive ape to human), and Tiktaalik (transition from sea to land).

2. There is tons of genetic evidence. The best possible example is that we share 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees (think about that for a minute... everything that makes us different from chimpanzees is contained in only 1.5% of our DNA). But what's even better is that, inserted in our DNA are things known as Endogenous Retroviruses. What's really cool is, many of these viruses are inserted into the exact same places in our DNA as they are in the chimpanzees' DNA.

3. Unintelligent design provides more evidence for evolution. Just look at humans alone:
-The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
-The Appendix
-The broken vitamin C gene
-The tail bone
-The wiring of our eyes (it's backwards... without our brains, we'd actually see upside down)
-Other vestigial structures in the body

Just as some examples.

4. The Double-Nested Hierarchy

Here... have this article of 29+ evidences for evolution.

See above.

Okay... please explain what you think the word "theory" means

Fair enough. I grant that my post was rather arrogant, but that was unintentional and I apologize. It is not at all your fault, but the statements you are making are not new to me... I've been participating in the Creation/Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate for a few years now, both online and offline, and it's come to a point where I can recite certain tropes by memory... the post of yours that I originally responded to (and this one that I'm responding to now) contained a number of those tropes. And they are infuriating to me simply because I have to answer them over and over and over again.

Like I said; this isn't your fault. You and I have never discussed this before (at least... I don't think we have), so you can't know what I've heard and what I've not heard. My problem with a lot of the arguments your making is that they are so cliche. Honestly, it would take a couple minutes of Google searching to answer most of your questions.

In fact, I'll give you a site that should be your go-to source from now on whenever you have a question about Evolution:

Talk Origins

In my opinion, it is the absolute best archive of the whole debate; a debate, I should point out, that is not in any way, shape, or form, a scientific debate. 95% of all scientists (including engineers, medical doctors, social scientists, and so on) accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact; including 99.5% of all Life scientists (biologists, neurologists, anatomists, geneticists, zoologists, etc).

There is no controversy in science over the theory. There's a reason the trope "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution" exists; because it's true. You simply cannot make sense of the modern diversity of life without evolution.

Sure, you can explain the number of creatures alive with intelligent design, but how does intelligent design explain the evolutionary arms race?

Short form:

Cheetah evolves to catch gazelle, so gazelles evolve to run faster, so cheetah to run faster, so gazelle evolve to run faster, so cheetah evolve to run faster...

Just who's side is the designer on, anyways?

The controversy is purely religious and, by extension, political. It was settled in science by Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" (you should consider reading it, BTW... incrediblye dr and boring, but also extremely informative... it took me a long time to get through it mainly because of my miniscule attention span... ... but I do not feel as if I wasted time reading it). It's just become so much more robust since, especially with the discovery of the transitional fossils that Darwin predicted, and a discovery he never could have seen coming: DNA.

Some more books you may want to check out:

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero
Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin

I meant it when I said that there was no theory more well-evidenced in science than the Theory of Evolution.

Great reply. I look forward to diving in to all of your links.

Thanks.

Real quick on the topic of all DNA being so close.

It seems plausible that even an intelligent designer would use a base design. Much like a table has a base design even though some details may differ.

I know this is a very simplistic analogy but I'm on my phone so the less typing the better.

Look forward to your reply.

Thanks again for all of the links.

 

[superpower]

Oh and as for what a theory is.

A theory is an idea based on observations that make logical sense but ultimately can't be tested and therefore can't be proven.

 

[Thundercrack85]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

 

[DBryan]

Oh and as for what a theory is.

A theory is an idea based on observations that make logical sense but ultimately can't be tested and therefore can't be proven.

Well, you're wrong.

First post of the thread.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=381031

Read up on what the word theory actually means.

 

[DBryan]

It seems plausible that even an intelligent designer would use a base design. Much like a table has a base design even though some details may differ.

The wizard that lives at the centre of Pluto could have just made it that way, but that doesn't actually explain anything. What is it about the evidence that points to the wizard at the centre of Pluto?

Is there a way to falsify this claim? We can make up a whole array of unfalsifiable explanations.

 

[superpower]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Perhaps I didn't explain well enough, sorry I'm on my phone.

To me its sounds like we are saying the same thing.

Yes a theory is based on facts.

It's these facts that come together to form the conclusion.

Got it.

My point is that this theory that has been created is still untested itself.

Again the data used to support the theory is tested and true but not the theory itself.

Do not read as if I'm being a *****e please. My education does go beyond high school, not much though, and this is how my profs presented theory to me.

Openly admitting the total sumation could not be tested.

Like in a court of law the facts are compiled as best as they can be at that time and a conclusion is made.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's a factual explanation. Scientists accept it, and use it.

By all means keep your old antibiotics, they should work fine.

 

[superpower]

Well, you're wrong.

First post of the thread.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=381031

Read up on what the word theory actually means.

Well I read it and.... No I'm not.

Just because theory and law have a lot in common, as the author states, this does not mean they are the same.

Yes one definition of theory is enough to say they are different.

I'm sorry but ill take my professors word over anything on the net. Further more I remember the test where I had to define both of these terms.

Because they are different.

Are a rat and mouse the same because the share similarities?

 

[superpower]

It's a factual explanation. Scientists accept it, and use it.

By all means keep your old antibiotics, they should work fine.

Wouldn't the half life of an element or compound of elements constitute law?

It's testable.

 

[superpower]

See same crud as religion.

Someone asks questions and it all goes to helll.

Yeah lots of difference between you all.

Human nature, what the bible explains so well but everyone misses out on in favour of heaven talk

 

[Thundercrack85]

The Bible makes claims. Whether you believe them or not, is your business.

Science gives you reliable facts. Nothing more, nothing less.

At the end of the day, one you can take to the bank. The other is faith.