Evolution: anything to replace religion.

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

After reading the OP, I suspect someone is struggling to grapple with the realization of our mortality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The "lack of transitionary evidence" is a lie. Base propaganda.

Didn't Painted Wolf at one time provide photos of transitional evidence in a long ago thread? I can't think of the title for the life of me.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's right. The majority of dog breeds (sub-species) have been artificially bred (through selection of unique genetic material). I have a dalmatian for instance. It's white with black spots. And then I have a poodle, she's black (well, rather dark gray, she's getting old). They're so different in color, in muscle build, nose, ears, everything. Their tails are different as well. It shows how much mutations can change the look of a species over time. So it's not strange at all to just think of this happening in nature.

Are they different because of random mutation and natural selection?- or intentional breeding of species which were already different- for a specific desired outcome?

 

[Desert Snake]

Fossils as they were "captured" of the dinosaurs may have been a very rare occurrence - needing just the right placement of both the animal and geological anomalies to preserve the bones on into the future. With the dinosaurs, the span of time they were the dominant species of beings on the planet was so great that it offered many more chances for this to happen. That, combined with the relatively volatile landscape of the Earth as it was still in its settling phases probably provided for not only more statistical probability of the right geological circumstances for this form of preservation occurring, but also more chances of the death of a lot of these creatures in otherwise "strange" or "infrequent" ways.

Besides, just look at the scope and dynamic of dogs that currently populate the earth. Do you not realize that ALL breeds of canine present today have their roots in just a handful of canine species that truly existed in the wild (mainly wolves)? We humans have been the drivers of the selective processes and pressures in the case of dogs, forcing the "evolution" to happen rapidly over the course of just a few generations - always hand-picking the most furry, or the smallest, or the lightest in color, or the most docile of each successive generation and breeding those animals together. This means there were NEVER wild Pomeranians, NEVER Saint Bernards, NEVER German Shepherds in the wild. We created these species using the very foundations of evolution to do so. It's really quite remarkable.

Breeds of dogs doesn't prove evolution. It isn't even an indicator, really.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've always thought that. A few alterations of the genome creates huge changes in appearance.

Anyone having difficulty accepting evolution should make an effort to learn a little genetics and biochemistry. There can be no doubt that genes will be altered over generations. These changes accrete.

Great. But there isn't ''proof'' of evolution. I'm not a believer, ie I lack faith, /in evolution, Present the proof of evolution, then we can get to a real discussion.

 

[Desert Snake]

That's right. The majority of dog breeds (sub-species) have been artificially bred (through selection of unique genetic material). I have a dalmatian for instance. It's white with black spots. And then I have a poodle, she's black (well, rather dark gray, she's getting old). They're so different in color, in muscle build, nose, ears, everything. Their tails are different as well. It shows how much mutations can change the look of a species over time. So it's not strange at all to just think of this happening in nature.

Loll , wait..artificially bred does not inspire confidence of that happening in nature. Anyways, yes, dogs look different, and there are varieties, we agree.

 

[Desert Snake]

What I find more compelling of an argument is the lack of fossil evidence for magic. Where are the bones of Adam and Eve? Where are the bones of the giants before the flood? Where is the scientific evidence that plants covered the earth before the sun was created?

I honestly do not understand this queer compulsion for people to reject things that don't fit their beliefs in magic. Sounds like a really weak faith. This thread should be called "Denialism. Anything to not let go of childhood fantasies".

......................^

Nope.

I don't know if you've noticed but evolution hasn't replaced religion.

Ehm, it seems that is not the only opinion. If you can fit evolution into your religious beliefs, have fun.

 

[Ouroboros]

Loll , wait..artificially bred does not inspire confidence of that happening in nature. Anyways, yes, dogs look different, and there are varieties, we agree.

Well, you don't even understand why it is the same.

Mutations -> Natural Selection -> New breeds

Mutations -> Human Selection -> New breeds

Same process except for how the selection is done. There are several types of selective pressure: artificial (human), sexual (choice by the species, which is a kind-of artificial in nature), natural (environmental like survival, ability to reproduce, etc). The underlying process is the same.

--edit

Evolution basically follows an evolutionary algorithm (EA). EAs are used successfully to solve problems since the 60s. It's basically defined as a "generic population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm." It's built on the concepts of reproduction, mutation (or change), recombination, and selection. It works, and it's used more and more in advanced computations. Banks, finance, computer networks, pipeline flow control, now even AI, and more. Oh, and recently I read that they're starting to use it for development of new medical drugs.

 

[Yerda]

Ehm, it seems that is not the only opinion.

Being true it's the only opinion that matters, surely?

 

[Yerda]

Great. But there isn't ''proof'' of evolution. I'm not a believer, ie I lack faith; Present the proof of evolution, then we can get to a real discussion.

Read a book.

 

[fantome profane]

Great. But there isn't ''proof'' of evolution. I'm not a believer, ie I lack faith; Present the proof of evolution, then we can get to a real discussion.

Nothing is absolute, but for my money ERV's constitute fairly incontrovertable proof of evolution. There is no way to explain the exact pattern of ERV's we find in species that evolutionary theory has already shown by other means to be closely related if there is not a common ancestor.

 

[LuisDantas]

......................^



Ehm, it seems that is not the only opinion. If you can fit evolution into your religious beliefs, have fun.

Any beliefs that fail such a test are by definition seriously flawed.

 

[Riverwolf]

Breeds of dogs doesn't prove evolution. It isn't even an indicator, really.

It demonstrates that all the biological components necessary for biological evolution exist.

And it is evolution. Evolution means change over time. Breeds of dogs have changed over time. That's biological evolution by definition.

 

[Riverwolf]

Present the proof of evolution

Do you even know what "proof" is in terms of the sciences?

 

[shawn001]

Evolution really is silly. It couldn't explain the lack of fossil evidence. It couldn't explain the timeline goofup that ultimately led to ''quick evolution', lol. What, are you joking?

You don't know how silly you sound and the op title.

Its like

Gravity anything to replace religion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Breeds of dogs doesn't prove evolution. It isn't even an indicator, really.

If you say so, champ.

 

[Windwalker]

......................^

What is that supposed to mean?

Ehm, it seems that is not the only opinion. If you can fit evolution into your religious beliefs, have fun.

Evolution is core to my religious beliefs.

 

[Desert Snake]

Read a book.

That's not an argument, and its not a presentation of proof. Lolllllllllllllll

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you even know what "proof" is in terms of the sciences?

Semantics.

 

[Riverwolf]

Semantics.

No, proof does not mean semantics.

Snark aside (I couldn't help it), if it's nothing more than semantics, would you care to confirm this by explaining what you mean when you ask for "proof"?