Evolution: the theory, the evidence

[logician]

yes, it's true...the best evidence we have shows humans and Chimps last shared a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago. This is based on studies of our genes and other key molecules, anatomy and fossil record.

Using the same evidence we find that Apes and Old World Monkeys shared a common ancestor to about 25 million years ago.

Everyone gets their DNA from their parents... parts of this DNA are very slow to change and just like we can use that DNA to find out who your parents are, we can use it to find out who your great great great grandparents were... and we use it go even further back to find our deepest ancestors.

Now to put my religious hat on... isn't it magnificent that Creator left this record for us to find but gave us the ability to find it.

wa:do

Really no need to put the hat on.

 

[painted wolf]

Really no need to put the hat on.

But If I don't, I can't tip my hat to you.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

There's an odd lack of interest among our creationist friends in learning what the Theory of Evolution is, or the evidence in its support.

You'd almost think they find it easier to maintain their disbelief if they don't really understand it, and easier to say the evidence is insufficient if they never learn what it is.

Odd.

 

[painted wolf]

You know Spock is biologically impossible from an evolutionary standpoint.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

You know Spock is biologically impossible from an evolutionary standpoint.

wa:do

I believe it was Sagan who wrote that it was more plausible for a human to have sex with an artichoke and produce viable offspring than Spock to exist since our genetic heritage is closer to artichokes than Vulcans.

I haven't eaten an artichoke since.

 

[painted wolf]

Mmmm...artichoke.
:jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I put in a picture of Spock as a way of expressing how illogical it is that people deny ToE without knowing what it is, and deny that there is evidence for it without ever seeing the evidence. Mr. Spock would find that..."odd."

 

[AzraelsTear]

I put in a picture of Spock as a way of expressing how illogical it is that people deny ToE without knowing what it is, and deny that there is evidence for it without ever seeing the evidence. Mr. Spock would find that..."odd."

i dont know, plenty of people do it everyday, during voting time for example millions upon millions vote for a evil political party like the republicans instead of the less evil people democrats, and we got the evidence right in front, hatespeech, homophobia, oppression of freedom and so on, but no one wants to see it, perhaps it is human to ignore the factual world?

 

[logician]

You know Spock is biologically impossible from an evolutionary standpoint.

wa:do

It is odd that 2 entirely different species, probably with not even the same genetic structure(DNA) could mate and come up with Spock.

BTW, Spock is my all-time favite SiFi character.

 

[johnhanks]

There's an odd lack of interest among our creationist friends in learning what the Theory of Evolution is, or the evidence in its support.

You'd almost think they find it easier to maintain their disbelief if they don't really understand it, and easier to say the evidence is insufficient if they never learn what it is.

Odd.

There's a phrase for this: Invincible Ignorance.

If creationists did start learning about ToE they'd risk having to discuss its merits in real terms, as opposed to their own fantasy version; as long as they stick with the latter they can throw any amount of flim-flam in the face of the evidence, and declare themselves victors.

 

[painted wolf]

There's a phrase for this: Invincible Ignorance.

If creationists did start learning about ToE they'd risk having to discuss its merits in real terms, as opposed to their own fantasy version; as long as they stick with the latter they can throw any amount of flim-flam in the face of the evidence, and declare themselves victors.

Don't forget that in some cases, they value not learning about "evil science". Blind faith is preferred over informed rational decision making.

wa:do

 

[tarasan]

I find Creationist strange there are alot in my gap year I have discovered, so they get wierded out when I say i dont care we have a little "factual" tussle and that is that.

Then evolutionist are strange as well, Ive found some take query to the theory to mean "creationist" and are quite hostile, its sad to see when this kin dof split develops at least it is there from my perspective, maybe I have just met pecular people....

also not because anyone deserves but because I CAN!!!

 

[AzraelsTear]

Don't forget that in some cases, they value not learning about "evil science". Blind faith is preferred over informed rational decision making.

wa:do

and then when they are sick they still go to the hospital to get that injection of "magic" made by "evil science".....

 

[painted wolf]

and then when they are sick they still go to the hospital to get that injection of "magic" made by "evil science".....

Some of them anyway... others are quite willing to die from preventable illness for their faith.
If you can't convince someone a vaccine/antibiotic/blood transfusion will save their life without dooming their soul, you will never convince them of anything in science.

wa:do

 

[JustWondering2]

I agree 100% with Painted Wolf! Christian Fundamentalist feel them must believe their Bible 100% word for word. Otherwise anything else that disputes it literally must automatically be false! I have personal experience with just such a person. It's like talking to a brick wall, no matter what facts or evidence you put before them they will never believe it, no matter how convincing it might be.
Think of how much better off the world would be if we all could just agree to dis-agree? I can see both sides of the evolution/creation debate. I don't think any of us have it 100% correct nor will we ever. That being said I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There's an odd lack of interest among our creationist friends in learning what the Theory of Evolution is, or the evidence in its support.

You'd almost think they find it easier to maintain their disbelief if they don't really understand it, and easier to say the evidence is insufficient if they never learn what it is.

Odd.

I've yet to encounter someone opposed to evolution who can demonstrate a clear understanding of what evolution actually is.

 

[Autodidact]

*crickets*

 

[AzraelsTear]

mmmkay, autodidact, i guess i ask you something.

as most deniers of evolution seem to accept micro evolution and not macro evolution, not knowing it is the same thing, what do YOU see as the BEST visible evidence for one species "becoming" another one (sorry for the formulation, but want to keep it simple).

 

[R. Wayne]

It is fact - REALITY - that it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR A QUALITATIVE LESSER TO EVOLVE (OR BECOME) A QUALITATIVE GREATER! From whence, then, arrives such greater qualitativeness as is clearly seen through comparisons of all species on to the other. Unless, aided by something already possessing that greater qualitativeness, each species is imprisoned within its species, likewise the capabilities of that species. Darwin's single-celled organism could not have evolved. This also is reality because a cell cannot build itself. A cell must appear on this Earth at once whole and functioning or it will not survive past the first three or seconds. And, this not demand one believe cells or living. More on this later, if you are interested. Ignorance proceeds from intractable minds that have, as yet, become "open." The alternative with the fewest doubts regarding evolution up the food chain, I repeat (and let's apply Occam's Razor and keep it simple): Qualitative lessers cannot possibly evolve into qualitative greaters!

 

[AzraelsTear]

Qualitative lessers cannot possibly evolve into qualitative greaters!

do you have any evidence to backup this extraordinary claim?

the nylon-eating bacteria that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon is in complete contrast to your claim.