Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

is there any evidence of us, as humans evolving and reacting to our ever changing environments?

Every time a person is born he has 50 to 150 mutations in his or her DNA. Natural selection will always exist. The result is evolution. It is a given if one understands biology.

I have to point out that evolution occurs on the species level. There are billions of mutations per generation in our species and each generation faces ever changing selection factors. Life will as I said evolve.

 

[Valjean]

From today's BBC:
Babies in the womb have lizard-like hand muscles

Kinda interesting

 

[YoursTrue]

...
4) If we did in fact evolve fro something or nothing, what did we start out as? a cell? atom? thin air?
According to the abiogenesis theories I'm familiar with we started out as organic compounds
...

No one [scientist] really knows what emerged. Or how. Or why. That's what I found out as I was doing this research for this thread. It's all conjecture. Not so-called evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

5) Where did this "thing" we evolved come from? (slightly off topic, i know)
If you're talking about the organic compounds, no one knows for sure, but they are thought to have arisen from simple chemicals that were exposed to various pressures that altered their relationship with each other.

.

It's conjecture. No one on earth knows for sure, therefore guesses are made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one [scientist] really knows what emerged. Or how. Or why. That's what I found out as I was doing this research for this thread. It's all conjecture. Not so-called evidence.

We have a good idea, but you are correct. We do not know exactly what the first life form was like. Or when one could even call it "life".

So what? Moving the goal posts to abiogenesis is a way of admitting that evolution is a fact. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[YoursTrue]

From today's BBC:
Babies in the womb have lizard-like hand muscles

Kinda interesting

Lizard like...in the womb. Kinda like feathery impressions in dinosaurs said to be precursor of birds, but not quite evidence, only conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have a good idea, but you are correct. We do not know exactly what the first life form was like. Or when one could even call it "life".

So what? Moving the goal posts to abiogenesis is a way of admitting that evolution is a fact. Are you sure that you want to do that?

There are no goal posts like that. Either life came about without an intelligent cause higher than itself, or...it did not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's conjecture. No one on earth knows for sure, therefore guesses are made.

Really? Prove it. Creationists should never use certain terms. When you claim "conjecture" you put the burden of proof upon yourself. When you claim "surmise" you do the same. The one valid case that you have is when Darwin admitted that he did not have enough evidence for human evolution, but you guess what? He predicted that if he was right we would find more evidence, and we did. Mountains and mountains of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lizard like...in the womb. Kinda like feathery impressions in dinosaurs said to be precursor of birds, but not quite evidence, only conjecture.

No, not really. We know that dinosaurs had feathers from much more than just "feathery impressions".

I would suggest a change in tactics. Since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence it is impossible for you to refute the theory of evolution. Try asking proper questions. That means no foolish "gotcha" questions. You are not going to be able to refute the theory. There are a handful of creationists that understand the science and they have tried and failed. You do not have a prayer.

 

[Skwim]

No one [scientist] really knows what emerged. Or how. Or why. That's what I found out as I was doing this research for this thread. It's all conjecture. Not so-called evidence.

So what do you think they base this "conjecture" on if it isn't evidence?

.

It's conjecture. No one on earth knows for sure, therefore guesses are made.

Yup. Unlike those who shill for religion, scientists aren't afraid to say they don't know, or were mistaken.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no goal posts like that. Either life came about without an intelligent cause higher than itself, or...it did not.

Again, your ignorance is your worst enemy. Evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis. It does not matter if life arose naturally, an idea that is supported by evidence. Or if they were magically poofed into existence. Once the first life existed it evolved. That is why you do lost the debate by moving the goal posts to abiogenesis. It is a tacit admission that life is the product of evolution. Otherwise there would be no need to move the discussion to that topic.

 

[Earthtank]

Every time a person is born he has 50 to 150 mutations in his or her DNA. Natural selection will always exist. The result is evolution. It is a given if one understands biology.

Sorry but, that does not even come close to answering my question. We (humans) have been around for a very, very long time on this earth, can you point to any evidence of evolution beyond our current "form"? You can say that "Every time a person is born he has 50 to 150 mutations in his or her DNA" but, what has all these mutations visibly evolved in to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but, that does not even come close to answering my question. We (humans) have been around for a very, very long time on this earth, can you point to any evidence of evolution beyond our current "form"? You can say that "Every time a person is born he has 50 to 150 mutations in his or her DNA" but, what has all these mutations visibly evolved in to?

It really did. Your question is poorly formed and meaningless. It appears that you think there is a "change in kind" in evolution. That is not what happens. New variations of existing "forms" arise. And different species occur when a population first separates into at least two separated populations. They will each react to their changing environments differently.

 

[Earthtank]

No one knows the future.

Not sure how any of the 3 times you said it was relevant to the questions but ok

Many, many, many newly created forms never made it.

And how do we know this?

Again, it's all trial and error. There's a lot of "waste" in the evolutionary process.

With all due respect, this simply does not make any sense. If there is that much trial and error and it takes millions of years for something to evolve then, we would have never made this far. Take the human for example, after all the trial and error lets say something magically evolved in to a human. Did this thing or these things magically know to become male and female? And let's imagine the answer is yes, then if there was so much trial and error to get the 9 months correct then the first 2 humans died. How were they replaced? Trial and error simply makes no sense.

Because 10 has simply worked out better than 20 or 6. if more or less than 10 appeared, for reasons unknown such animals couldn't compete for survival as well as those with 10 fingers.

Any evidence to this? or just blind assumption?

Ever wonder what causes gravity? There should be a simple answer or at least one science has come up with, but the fact is, no one knows. Not even scientists.

I do not completely agree with statement however, its too off topic to get in to. With that said, at least the very basics of gravity can be explained and understood by anyone unlike, the theory of evolution

Thank you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure how any of the 3 times you said it was relevant to the questions but ok



And how do we know this?



With all due respect, this simply does not make any sense. If there is that much trial and error and it takes millions of years for something to evolve then, we would have never made this far. Take the human for example, after all the trial and error lets say something magically evolved in to a human. Did this thing or these things magically know to become male and female? And let's imagine the answer is yes, then if there was so much trial and error to get the 9 months correct then the first 2 humans died. How were they replaced? Trial and error simply makes no sense.




Any evidence to this? or just blind assumption?



I do not completely agree with statement however, its too off topic to get in to. With that said, at least the very basics of gravity can be explained and understood by anyone unlike, the theory of evolution

Thank you

Perhaps you should try to ask one question at a time. You really cannot learn this way. You can only get short corrections when you ask questions like this. Think of what you would like to learn the most and ask about that.

 

[Earthtank]

Any first year engineering student could produce a better human body design than the one we have.

Completely and 100% doubt that.

Had you grasped the basics of the mechanics of evolution you wouldn't have asked the above questions.

On the contrary, its because i have grasped the basics i ask these questions.

I don't see the comparison with religion. Explain?

I was not comparing it to relgion

I'm always confused by this. The basics aren't hard to understand. They're largely commonsense

If you don't think or question them, then, maybe. However, as soon as you start questioning you find out how much it lacks commonsense. There seem to be too many assumptions in the theory of evolution.

 

[Earthtank]

It really did. Your question is poorly formed and meaningless. It appears that you think there is a "change in kind" in evolution. That is not what happens. New variations of existing "forms" arise. And different species occur when a population first separates into at least two separated populations. They will each react to their changing environments differently.

OK can you point to any "New variations of existing "forms"" to humans?

 

[Earthtank]

Perhaps you should try to ask one question at a time. You really cannot learn this way. You can only get short corrections when you ask questions like this. Think of what you would like to learn the most and ask about that.

OK fair enough. 1 question at a time

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the contrary, its because i have grasped the basics i ask these questions.

This is obviously false. Your poorly formed questions tell us that you really have almost no understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK can you point to any "New variations of existing "forms"" to humans?

See what I mean? This question is almost unreadable. Are you asking if we have fossils of our ancestors? The answer is yes.