Question for people that believe in evolution

[Magic Man]

Irrelevant? Really?

Ok...

And to think, before a couple of weeks ago, I thought you posted intelligent and reasonable stuff. It's not the first time I've been wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

This is pretty embarrasing......really it is.

Yes, yes, it is. All you have to do is stop posting, though, and it won't be so embarrassing.

For a second there, I thought you actually understood.

That's OK. I never even thought you understood.

 

[Magic Man]

When you are willing to put your ego to the side for a sec....come back and read what I was actually saying.

Have a nice day.

That's one way to avoid owning up to something stupid that you said. It doesn't help you look any better, but you did successfully avoid talking about how you were wrong any further.

 

[lehtv]

This may have been posted before, but... The main evidence that makes me accept evolution are the combination of the following two facts:

One - we can construct a phylogenetic tree for ALL organisms on Earth based on genetic and molecular similarities and differences.

Two - before molecular data was available, we independently constructed a tree of common ancestry based on mainly morphological observations of living and fossil species.

That One and Two produce trees that are, with a few exceptions (since morphological change does not equal genetic change), extremely similar, the only explanation is that all organisms are related via common ancestors. Of course, there's lots of compelling evidence for evolution apart from the above, but anyway, this is what makes the case for me.

 

[ftv1975]

so ur asking if development of addictions/tolerance are mutations. i dont think they are. i believe that the replicating creature has to be born with the mutation. but i guess a mutation can be created...like cancer by carcinogens.

do viruses then develop tolerances or does it mutate?

well you could probably give me a good answer which would be helpful, but i should read the material that has been given to me first before asking any more questions.

 

[ftv1975]

Thank You,

Zephyr,Autodidact,Runewolf 1973,Mr. Spinkles,Dirty Penquin,Venatoris,Luminous,Mball 1297,Msizer,Draka,Jose fly, and Omarkhayyam.

i am grateful for your possitive feedback and patience. i have so much to read in my spare time its almost overwhelming. Thanks once again.

 

[Bloomdido]

ftv1975, I say unto you seek and ye shall find. Seek with a closed mind and ye shall findeth what ye seeketh to find. The last time the evolutionists took on the creationists at football, the evolutionists won 347 - nil.

If god created the planet, why did he wait 43 billion years before creating us? And why didn't he make the place less wet and less hilly? What do we need all the other stars (in the firmament) for? Did he get a bit distracted? One small planet and too many people. I wish to complain.

 

[ftv1975]

ftv1975, I say unto you seek and ye shall find. Seek with a closed mind and ye shall findeth what ye seeketh to find. The last time the evolutionists took on the creationists at football, the evolutionists won 347 - nil.

If god created the planet, why did he wait 43 billion years before creating us? And why didn't he make the place less wet and less hilly? What do we need all the other stars (in the firmament) for? Did he get a bit distracted? One small planet and too many people. I wish to complain.

this is a different topic. i guess we could discuss the accuracy of carbon dating on another thread. the purpose of this thread was not to prove or disprove creation. it was about understanding evolution.

 

[Bloomdido]

this is a different topic. i guess we could discuss the accuracy of carbon dating on another thread. the purpose of this thread was not to prove or disprove creation. it was about understanding evolution.

And why do you need to understand evolution? Do you understand it any better now? Are you comfortable with it?

 

[lehtv]

If god created the planet, why did he wait 43 billion years before creating us?

You probably mean 4.3 billion years (it's more like 4.54, just for accuracy).

this is a different topic. i guess we could discuss the accuracy of carbon dating on another thread.

The age of the Earth wasn't determined by radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating only works on the scale of thousands to tens of thousands of years. The C-14 isotope undergoes radioactive decay (hence the method) quickly compared to, say, uranium, which can be used to calculate the age of the Earth as far as I know.

 

[Bloomdido]

You probably mean 4.3 billion years (it's more like 4.54, just for accuracy).

I was only a power of ten out! Now where did I put the Bill Bryson book?

 

[ftv1975]

And why do you need to understand evolution?

why not learn and understand evolution?

Do you understand it any better now?

yes a little better but i still haven't read all the things that has be suggested that i
should read.

Are you comfortable with it?

it doesn't make me feel uncomfortable.

 

[Autodidact]

ftv1975, I say unto you seek and ye shall find. Seek with a closed mind and ye shall findeth what ye seeketh to find. The last time the evolutionists took on the creationists at football, the evolutionists won 347 - nil.

If god created the planet, why did he wait 43 billion years before creating us? And why didn't he make the place less wet and less hilly? What do we need all the other stars (in the firmament) for? Did he get a bit distracted? One small planet and too many people. I wish to complain.

The issue of whether God created the planet is an entirely different one from whether the Theory of Evolution is true. If you want to discuss whether God created the planet, please start a thread. In this thread, regarding evolution, we can all (for the purpose of discussion) share that assumption.

 

[Morse]

The issue of whether God created the planet is an entirely different one from whether the Theory of Evolution is true. If you want to discuss whether God created the planet, please start a thread. In this thread, regarding evolution, we can all (for the purpose of discussion) share that assumption.

I was going to say that we can explicitly detail the creation of our planet with science, but we can explicitly detail evolution as well.

And that hasn't won the fight either.

 

[Autodidact]

Alright ftv, I'm going to explain it again very simply, using, as (was it mball?) did, fish.

Say you've got a species of fish. Call it Fishius ftvia. It's 3" long, brown with green speckles, eats plants, lays around 50 eggs every 3 months, fertilized after laying, and lives in a lake. Each batch of 50 or so baby fishies is a tiny bit different from the others and their parents. One is 2.9" long, one is 3.1" long, one has more speckles, the other brighter speckles, etc. Only a few of them will live to adulthood and reproduce. Whenever a variation benefits an individual fish, it will be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, so that trait will persist. If it's a really good trait, eventually all or at least most of the Fishius ftvias will have it. So 100 years later, the species may look a little different, but still can all interbreed with each other. That's genetic drift.

Now, catastrophe, earthquake, drought, whatever, there's two lakes. One is bigger and deeper, the other smaller and shallower, and therefore warmer. So the environment is different. The same process goes on separately in both lakes. The genes no longer get to mix back together in the two groups, just because they're separated. In a year you get 4 generations. In 10 years you get 400. In 100 years, 4000 generations that have lived apart. They look and are kind of different. One of them averages 2" long, is solid brown with faint green speckles, lays batches of around 80 eggs, eats plants only. But the other one is around 3.5" long, greenish brown with brown and green speckles, eats plants and water bugs, and lays around 30 eggs that are fertilized before being laid, or whatever.

At this point, the two groups (subspecies) can no longer breed with each other and have viable offspring. Scientists call one a new species, Fishius newia. Voila--a new species comes into existence.

That's how ToE says we get new species.

With me so far?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

Let me ask you a question...
Do you think that all parts of the theory of evolution are false or do you think that some things are explainable by some mechanisms described in evolution.
In other words... do you think that there is some value > 0 in it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do you understand it any better now?

yes a little better but i still haven't read all the things that has be suggested that i
should read.

No problem. I'm sure you'll get to then. In the meanwhile checkout the many great documentaries on the web as well as some pretty good one on Youtube. User DonExodus2 on Youtube does a decent job.

 

[MSizer]

I want to mention that I think it is very admirable of ftv1975 to be doing this with an open mind. So often discussions of this nature are had by people with no intention of cosidering opposing views or facts.

 

[Autodidact]

What Msizer said.

 

[ftv1975]

Alright ftv, I'm going to explain it again very simply, using, as (was it mball?) did, fish.

Say you've got a species of fish. Call it Fishius ftvia. It's 3" long, brown with green speckles, eats plants, lays around 50 eggs every 3 months, fertilized after laying, and lives in a lake. Each batch of 50 or so baby fishies is a tiny bit different from the others and their parents. One is 2.9" long, one is 3.1" long, one has more speckles, the other brighter speckles, etc. Only a few of them will live to adulthood and reproduce. Whenever a variation benefits an individual fish, it will be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, so that trait will persist. If it's a really good trait, eventually all or at least most of the Fishius ftvias will have it. So 100 years later, the species may look a little different, but still can all interbreed with each other. That's genetic drift.

Now, catastrophe, earthquake, drought, whatever, there's two lakes. One is bigger and deeper, the other smaller and shallower, and therefore warmer. So the environment is different. The same process goes on separately in both lakes. The genes no longer get to mix back together in the two groups, just because they're separated. In a year you get 4 generations. In 10 years you get 400. In 100 years, 4000 generations that have lived apart. They look and are kind of different. One of them averages 2" long, is solid brown with faint green speckles, lays batches of around 80 eggs, eats plants only. But the other one is around 3.5" long, greenish brown with brown and green speckles, eats plants and water bugs, and lays around 30 eggs that are fertilized before being laid, or whatever.

At this point, the two groups (subspecies) can no longer breed with each other and have viable offspring. Scientists call one a new species, Fishius newia. Voila--a new species comes into existence.

That's how ToE says we get new species.

With me so far?

yes i think i am. (fishius ftvia) that made me laugh. i do have several Questions. i will wait to ask them later after reading a few more things just incase what i read answers them for me.