Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Skwim]

And how do we know this?

By the many fossils of extinct life forms for one thing.

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.

Why not?

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?

Because magic is one of the factors here, I have no idea.

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.

Aside from your incomprehensible question here, again, with magic working in the background, I have no idea.

Any evidence to this? or just blind assumption?

Well, it's the way survival of the fittest works, one of the selective operations of evolution.

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

Which are irrelevant to the question of cause.

.

 

[Earthtank]

Well, it's the way survival of the fittest works, one of the selective operations of evolution.

So now we are just assuming something works and running with it to build a whole theory?

 

[Earthtank]

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

Sorry, allow me to rephrase.

You said :New variations of existing "forms" arise.

My question, have we seen rise to any new variations or forms to existing forms, specifically humans?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

This is an example of a question that shows you have a very low level of understanding of evolution. There never were only two human beings. A very good analogy is that of languages. Languages change over time, but they change in a population. For example though Spanish arose from Latin no Latin speaking mother ever gave birth to a Spanish speaking baby. The language changed over the years in the population until it had changed so much that what eventually became Spanish could not be understood by a person whose language eventually became French. There is no hard line in species and there is no hard line in languages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now we are just assuming something works and running with it to build a whole theory?

Nope. Assuming of that sort is not allowed in the sciences. Science is based upon testable models.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, allow me to rephrase.

You said :New variations of existing "forms" arise.

My question, have we seen rise to any new variations or forms to existing forms, specifically humans?

Not of humans. One of the first things necessary for evolution to occur is a long time separation of populations. And the human population has not been separated for a very long period of time.

We have observed new species arise in other populations. And we can see our ancestors in the fossil record.

EDIT: Also Homo sapiens has evolved a bit since they first "appeared". Again the line is rather arbitrary. But very early humans had heavier brow ridges than current ones for example. A biologist would be able to name more off the top of his head.

 

[Skwim]

So now we are just assuming something works and running with it to build a whole theory?

No, it's been shown to be true. And, no, I'm not about to try to educate you by giving you examples or explaining it further, There are great books and even good websites that can do so far better than I can.

.

 

[Earthtank]

Not of humans. One of the first things necessary for evolution to occur is a long time separation of populations. And the human population has not been separated for a very long period of time.

Please correct me if i a wrong.

Are you saying, that even though

1) You believe/ trust/ agree with (or whatever) the theory of evolution,

and

2) Even though "Every time a person is born he has 50 to 150 mutations in his or her DNA"

and

3) You (or evolutionary biologists) have not seen a rise to any new variations or forms to existing humans, because of the lack of "long time separation of populations"

yet, you still believe that we as humans have evolved from something and might possibly continue to evolve?

But very early humans had heavier brow ridges than current ones for example.

OK so over however long you think humans have been around for, our eyebrows have changed. A far cry from "true" evolution that claims we started out as an atom, fish or monkey or whatever.

 

[Jose Fly]

My question, have we seen rise to any new variations or forms to existing forms, specifically humans?

I have no idea what the word "forms" refers to, but humans have most certainly evolved new traits.

Lactose Tolerance and Human Evolution | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian

Himalayan powerhouses: how Sherpas have evolved superhuman energy efficiency

And here are some others: 4 beneficial evolutionary mutations that humans are undergoing right now

 

[Earthtank]

This is an example of a question that shows you have a very low level of understanding of evolution. There never were only two human beings. A very good analogy is that of languages. Languages change over time, but they change in a population. For example though Spanish arose from Latin no Latin speaking mother ever gave birth to a Spanish speaking baby. The language changed over the years in the population until it had changed so much that what eventually became Spanish could not be understood by a person whose language eventually became French. There is no hard line in species and there is no hard line in languages.

I agree, so how can you point me in the right direction or answer how the first human or even first living being was able to give birth through all the trial and errors they had to go through?

 

[Earthtank]

Nope. Assuming of that sort is not allowed in the sciences. Science is based upon testable models.

Again, i completely agree however, the whole "survival of the fittest" actually contradicts our entire life and a species as a whole. Which is why i do not think it fits with the theory of evolution, actually it contradicts it

 

[Earthtank]

No, it's been shown to be true. And, no, I'm not about to try to educate you by giving you examples or explaining it further, There are great books and even good websites that can do so far better than I can.

.

No need my good man. It in it of itself contradicts our entire life and existence so no need trying to convince me that it somehow worked out to produce humans via evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please correct me if i a wrong.

Are you saying, that even though

1) You believe/ trust/ agree with (or whatever) the theory of evolution,

and

2) Even though "Every time a person is born he has 50 to 150 mutations in his or her DNA"

and

3) You (or evolutionary biologists) have not seen a rise to any new variations or forms to existing humans, because of the lack of "long time separation of populations"

yet, you still believe that we as humans have evolved from something and might possibly continue to evolve?




OK so over however long you think humans have been around for, our eyebrows have changed. A far cry from "true" evolution that claims we started out as an atom, fish or monkey or whatever.

Actually I know what I posted. I do not just believe it. Do you understand the difference between knowledge and mere belief? And what is your hang up with variations on people? This is a poorly asked question that only tells us how little you know. You cannot refute something that you do not understand. I would suggest dropping this question until your understanding improves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need my good man. It in it of itself contradicts our entire life and existence so no need trying to convince me that it somehow worked out to produce humans via evolution.

How so? Wild claims are not evidence or proof. You need to support your claims and not just wave your hands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, i completely agree however, the whole "survival of the fittest" actually contradicts our entire life and a species as a whole. Which is why i do not think it fits with the theory of evolution, actually it contradicts it

First off "survival of the fittest" is also poorly worded since people tend to misunderstand that. The organism that is best adapted to its environment is the one that is most likely to pass on its genes, but that does not fit on a tee-shirt. Survival of the fittest is roughly correct and is what we observe in nature. It applies to people too, you simple do not understand what the term "fittest" means.

Seriously, if you think that something contradicts evolution what that probably is is a misunderstanding that you have of the science.

 

[Valjean]

I agree with the proof and evidence terms. You say we will continue to evolve, can you please provide some evidence?

Is there any reason to think humans would stop evolving? I understand that there are factors that might slow our evolution, but the basic drivers are still in place. Unless there's some force freezing reproduction or variation, how could the process not continue? Even with no environmental changes there's still gene flow, genetic drift, sexual selection &c.

I can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow but, inasmuch as the basic physics still obtains, I have no reason to expect it wouldn't.

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

See post #519.

And how is this "ideal" development determined or measured? if there is no consciousness then how does this happen? I don't agree with simply saying "the environment" and "natural selection" sufficiently answers that question

Earthtank, you're repeating questions we've already responded to. Did you read our responses?

There is no "ideal" development; no plan, no goal. The whole process is automatic.
The mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to explain the process. There are still plenty of details wanting explanation, but the process is known.
"Consciousness" is not an explanation of process, it's just an assertion of agency, and, given the known mechanisms of evolution, outside manipulation of the process is unnecessary. An agent would be extraneous.

What already existed? and how do we know that? and what "determined" that which "already existed"?

The plants and animals already existed. Their anatomy and physiology already existed.
Evolution can't redesign or begin anew, it can only tweak what already exists.

 

[Valjean]

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?

We humans are a new species, recently evolved. There were other species of humans not long ago, other "forms," but they're now extinct.
In our short time on the planet we've diverged in size, color, lactose tolerance &c. I don't know how great -- or visible -- a change you'd acknowledge as evolution, but evolution's usually a slow process, especially in organisms with long generation times. A thousand years is a blink of the eye.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming over a geologic time scale, and quite visible in organisms with short generation times.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is an example of a question that shows you have a very low level of understanding of evolution. There never were only two human beings. A very good analogy is that of languages. Languages change over time, but they change in a population. For example though Spanish arose from Latin no Latin speaking mother ever gave birth to a Spanish speaking baby. The language changed over the years in the population until it had changed so much that what eventually became Spanish could not be understood by a person whose language eventually became French. There is no hard line in species and there is no hard line in languages.

No, there weren't only two human beings to begin the human race? OK, maybe there were relatives of the great apes that eventually microevolved and emerged into humans. As they continued intermingling. Right? And then they stopped intermingling with other predecessor ape types and stayed as homo sapiens.

 

[YoursTrue]

We humans are a new species, recently evolved. There were other species of humans not long ago, other "forms," but they're now extinct.
In our short time on the planet we've diverged in size, color, lactose tolerance &c. I don't know how great -- or visible -- a change you'd acknowledge as evolution, but evolution's usually a slow process, especially in organisms with long generation times. A thousand years is a blink of the eye.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming over a geologic time scale, and quite visible in organisms with short generation times.

So humans are the last and latest in the current species of humans, the other human species are now reportedly extinct. Would you agree with that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, there weren't only two human beings to begin the human race? OK, maybe there were relatives of the great apes that eventually microevolved and emerged into humans. As they continued intermingling. Right? And then they stopped intermingling with other predecessor ape types and stayed as homo sapiens.

Wow! So many errors in such a short post.

Tell me was there a first "Spanish speaker"?

Second, "microevolution" is pretty much a dead term. There is only evolution. Besides that we have directly observed macroevolution, but you do not even know what micro and macro evolution are. You cannot refute an idea that you do not like with ignorance.