Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Willamena]

I believe that people take too much from the written word ,religion is obvious science is next,when i take on a project i start from the beggining regardless of how much has been done.

Are they not teaching English in England any more? Pity.

Where does the Theory of Evolution begin?

 

[painted wolf]

and biologists
Zoologists
Paleontologists
Icthyologists
ecologists
ornithologists
and on and on....

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Is this proof or supposition

fact.

wa:do

 

[England my lionheart]

Hang on... are you after a "layman's version" of evolution, a "layman's version" of the benefits of evolution, or are you just after a one-upsmanship contest?

Just a Man that does'nt take supposition for fact....am i wrong or should i just go with the flow?

 

[ericmurphy]

Evidence is not fact,there is evidence that there is life on other planets in other systems (and the equations support this)but it is'nt substantiated.

You still don't get the difference between the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory, do you? How many times am I going to have to explain it to you before you get it?

That evolution happens is a fact, as much as that the sun comes up in the morning. The fossil record is absolutely conclusive evidence for evolution.

The link I provided, which you will never read, is evidence for evolutionary theory, not for the fact of evolution. You no more need evidence for the fact of evolution than you need for the sun's rising every morning.

Quantum physics for example have had an argument about how many dimensions there are,scientists like Tesla knew for a fact about his field and we reap the benefits of it today so what does Toe give us=more questions, maybe's

You still have nothing intelligent to say about the evidence for evolutionary theory, because you don't know what that evidence is. There is far more evidentiary support for the consensus phylogenetic tree than there is for any particular number of spatial dimensions. You'd know that if you followed the link I provided, but you won't do that, because you're fearful that if you do, your worldview will collapse.

 

[painted wolf]

you wanted a laymans version.
If you want all the details that will take quite a while.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

First ,i said it could be construed that it was transitional not that it was.

What else can it be construed as? Do you have some alternative explanations for organisms like A. lithographica? No? I didn't think so. Want a list of transitional features of A. lithographica? Well here they are.

Second,how long do you need,does it happen all of a sudden or are the changes gradual,is it mutations and natural selection or a combination of both.

I already told you how long. Have you forgotten already? It's almost four orders of magnitude longer than a century.

Your questions belie your abysmal ignorance of evolutionary theory. Of course the changes are gradual, and of course it's a combination of both (and other mechanisms as well). Why are you asking these kinds of questions? Why do you think you're qualified even to discuss evolutionary theory?

 

[ericmurphy]

I believe that people take too much from the written word ,religion is obvious science is next,when i take on a project i start from the beggining regardless of how much has been done.

Then why don't you start here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

 

[ericmurphy]

Is this proof or supposition

Why are you talking about "proof," England? Do you know anything about science? Since when is science about "proof"? Science does not deal in proof. Proof is for logic, mathematics, and alcohol. Not science.

 

[England my lionheart]

Did you know that there was sufficient evidence to hang a man in one of the last hangings in England only to find out he was innocent.
I do understand where you are comming from but for example there was evidence to suggest we would not invade the Normandy beaches but we did.
If it is so cut and dried why is'nt it told that way,it is'nt is short answer and it is not fact.
For example only ,how many people believed the da vinci code(hapless fools)the evidence was presented allbeit in a fictional movie yet people still believed it.
The theory of relativity was spoken in the same vein as toe but half of japan was blown up to support it,need i go on

 

[England my lionheart]

What else can it be construed as? Do you have some alternative explanations for organisms like A. lithographica? No? I didn't think so. Want a list of transitional features of A. lithographica? Well here they are.



I already told you how long. Have you forgotten already? It's almost four orders of magnitude longer than a century.

Your questions belie your abysmal ignorance of evolutionary theory. Of course the changes are gradual, and of course it's a combination of both (and other mechanisms as well). Why are you asking these kinds of questions? Why do you think you're qualified even to discuss evolutionary theory?

Are you

 

[England my lionheart]

Are they not teaching English in England any more? Pity.

Where does the Theory of Evolution begin?

Do you know?

 

[England my lionheart]

What else can it be construed as? Do you have some alternative explanations for organisms like A. lithographica? No? I didn't think so. Want a list of transitional features of A. lithographica? Well here they are.



I already told you how long. Have you forgotten already? It's almost four orders of magnitude longer than a century.

Your questions belie your abysmal ignorance of evolutionary theory. Of course the changes are gradual, and of course it's a combination of both (and other mechanisms as well). Why are you asking these kinds of questions? Why do you think you're qualified even to discuss evolutionary theory?

So to be qualified to discuss evolution what do need to be ? some elitist or is it for anyone ,i'm English i think its for anyone.

 

[England my lionheart]

fact.

wa:do

Prove it

 

[England my lionheart]

People, i am going out now even though its almost 12am so i will reply tommorow if you can reply that is.......byyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[painted wolf]

Did you know that there was sufficient evidence to hang a man in one of the last hangings in England only to find out he was innocent.

uh huh... what sort of "sufficient evidence"?

I do understand where you are comming from but for example there was evidence to suggest we would not invade the Normandy beaches but we did.

actually the evidence points to the fact that we were planning that for a long time. And did pretty good job of it too.

If it is so cut and dried why is'nt it told that way,it is'nt is short answer and it is not fact.

Lot of reasons... one you want people to actually learn about it short answers aren't so helpfull. I'm sure you don't explain how to build a bridge in a sentance or two.
Two mention evolution and people get their nickers in a twist. So most places to avoid rampaging religious literalists keep evolution on the low down until college. Shame really.

For example only ,how many people believed the da vinci code(hapless fools)the evidence was presented allbeit in a fictional movie yet people still believed it.

They didn't actually look at the evidence?
you know like people who decry evolution don't look at the evidence when its given to them.

The theory of relativity was spoken in the same vein as toe but half of japan was blown up to support it,need i go on

But its just a theory.....
Still is... and its still being tested.... it doesn't hold all the answers and it has spawned other theories to help fill in its gaps...
sound familiar?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Prove it

:banghead3:

you won't look at any of the evidence anyway so why bother?

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

Did you know that there was sufficient evidence to hang a man in one of the last hangings in England only to find out he was innocent.
I do understand where you are comming from but for example there was evidence to suggest we would not invade the Normandy beaches but we did.
If it is so cut and dried why is'nt it told that way,it is'nt is short answer and it is not fact.

What is the "it" that you don't think is fact, England? If "it" is "evolution," then evolution is a fact, and you're 100% wrong if you don't think it is. How do I know this? Simple. There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today. There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago. Those two observations, all by themselves, without reference to any additional observations, are more than sufficient to establish the factual nature of evolution. If you disagree, I would like for you to provide an alternative explanation for why trilobites don't exist now, and why rabbits didn't exist then.

The theory of relativity was spoken in the same vein as toe but half of japan was blown up to support it,need i go on

You can't go on. Unless and until you can find a living trilobite, or can locate a Precambrian rabbit, you can't go on.

So: how on earth can you possibly continue to deny the fact of evolution? And please answer the question; don't just give me yet another pointless analogy.

 

[ericmurphy]

Are you

Yes, I am qualified to discuss it. I have a basic layman's understanding of the theory. You clearly do not. Which is why I wonder why you bother trying, without at least familiarizing yourself with what the theory actually says.

 

[ericmurphy]

Do you know?

Yes. The theory of evolution begins with the observation that all organisms, living and dead, can be sorted into objective nested hierarchies, a phylogenetic tree of ancestors and all of their descendants. From this observation, evolutionary theory proposes that all organisms living and extinct are related by common descent from one or a small number of universal common ancestors. The theory makes various predictions based on this proposition, which predictions, and their potential falsifications as well as confirmatory evidence, can be found in summary form in the link I provided earlier. If you would like to go through each of those predictions, confirmations, and potential falsifications, I would happy to join you, but I guarantee you that you will not enjoy it.