Question for people that believe in evolution

[redbaron]

Is anyone out there today?

 

[Tristesse]

How can anyone say evolution is a fact .It's just a theory ,just ask the late founder(Charles Darwin)

Facts and scientific theories are two completely different things. Most often scientific theories explain observed facts. So, the theory of evolution is a fact, but it is also a theory. Just like the theory of gravity is a fact and also a theory. Theory in science is just the explanation for our observations. Humans were descended from primitive apes whether it happened by darwins proposed theory or some undiscovered theory.

 

[Sententia]

 

[Sententia]

How can anyone say evolution is a fact .It's just a theory ,just ask the late founder(Charles Darwin)

Explain why evolution just being a scientific theory is different in your mind then it being a fact.

 

[Harshtotem]

in all the millenias of humankind, it has yet to be seen where inanimation has become animate- a rock does not become a worm, neither does a mountain metamorph into a tyrannasaurus- it is just not SCIENtific- it has however been proven that from animate objects animation takes place- therefore it follows in ilk that as conscious and thinking beings we were created by a conscious being or by conconsious beings.

 

[idea]

microevolution has been observed, macro has not...

google "Cambrian explosion " the vast majority of the copmplex animals we know today did not "gradually" come into existence through a long period of small changes brought about through natural selection. Most species appeard suddenly out of nowhere as shown by the fossil record.

If you want to see what initiated the drastic changes we observe in the fossil records, watch this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-XWAXe4xJg&feature=related
pay close attention to the graph shown at around 5 minutes.

macro vs. micro -
No Missing Link? Evolutionary Changes Occur Suddenly, Professor Says
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070210170623.htm
"gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no "missing link."

For the majority of cases, the fossil record does not show gradual changes in the genome. It shows sudden jumps. Sudden jumps are created with HGT - a herd is infected with outside material that changes everyone, all at once. ...

In the evolutionary sciences, where we are all struggling to piece together a history that can be perceived only through the fragments of fossils or the living termini of a past that is now lost, it would be foolhardy to cling unreservedly to a particular set of models and hypotheses without at least occasionally questioning their very bases.
Schwartz, Jeffrey H.
(1999) Sudden Origins : Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species. John Wiley & Sons, Inc


"Today, with our understanding of DNA, we would state the problem differently: new features require new genetic instructions. And small steps are clearly possible without coordination between two members of a breeding pair. But big, speciating steps are still problematic for neo-Darwinism. If only one individual undergoes a mutation of speciating effect, the remaining population is either unable or unlikely to follow this "hopeful monster." (only similar animals can produce offspring)

However, if new genetic instructions are inserted by infectious viruses, then the problem of finding breeding pairs equipped for big evolutionary steps is solved. Viruses typically infect whole populations, or substantial parts of them, so many breeding pairs may carry the same new instructions. This is a profound new way for evolution to advance, and in potentially larger steps than Darwin imagined. "

http://panspermia.org/sexual.htm
"Large steps" (what we see in the fossil records) is produced through HGT.

evolution is not the end-all be-all theory for how life advances. It's sad when science becomes a popularity contest instead of... science.

 

[Harshtotem]

the vast majority of the copmplex animals we know today did not "gradually" come into existence through a long period of small changes brought about through natural selection. Most species appeard suddenly out of nowhere as shown by the fossil record.

This suden appearance seemss to suggest an actual CREATION doesit not- noway any scientist can convince me that Animals sprung from the rocks.

 

[fantome profane]

microevolution has been observed, macro has not...

google "Cambrian explosion " the vast majority of the copmplex animals we know today did not "gradually" come into existence through a long period of small changes brought about through natural selection. Most species appeard suddenly out of nowhere as shown by the fossil record.

The Cambrian explosion is just a period of time in which we have a great deal of fossil evidence of new species evolving. In other words a great deal of “macro-evolution”. To say that there is no macro evolution and then use the Cambrian explosion as evidence simply shows that you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

 

[Sententia]

in all the millenias of humankind, it has yet to be seen where inanimation has become animate- a rock does not become a worm, neither does a mountain metamorph into a tyrannasaurus- it is just not SCIENtific- it has however been proven that from animate objects animation takes place- therefore it follows in ilk that as conscious and thinking beings we were created by a conscious being or by conconsious beings.

What does "millenias of humankind" mean to you?

Where does evolution propose that a rock turns into a worm? Where again do you find the story of a mountain changing into a 'tyrannasaurus'?

What meaning were you attempting to imply by your emphasis of 'SCIEN' in the word scientific?

Your conclusion is of course correct. You were created by either a Conscious being or a pair of Conscious Beings. (Although I find the latter much more likely and have no idea what conconsious means and seeing as you spelled conscious correctly in the same sentence I don't think its a typo and perhaps you are attempting to introduce some new meme)

Your conclusion, that a pair of conscious beings are responsible for your creation is correct. You are indeed very similar to the mother and father that created you.

 

[Sententia]

evolution is not the end-all be-all theory for how life advances. It's sad when science becomes a popularity contest instead of... science.

Idea I appreciate your willingness to look at all theories and to consider science as science... But to me it sounds more like you are agreeing with the idea that evolution is just a theory and not a fact and that other theories are more plausible. (Which based on the way you spin your position comes to me as purposefully dishonest.)

But I can give you benefit of the doubt here... What theory do you think better explains the Cambrian Explosion? Is a better explanation perhaps no explanation is really needed as everything seems to support it?

Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein's improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin's original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today's theory is still incomplete but it's a thousand times better than it was in Darwin's day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time. (Listen: How to Argue with a Creationist)

 

[McBell]

The Cambrian explosion is just a period of time in which we have a great deal of fossil evidence of new species evolving. In other words a great deal of “macro-evolution”. To say that there is no macro evolution and then use the Cambrian explosion as evidence simply shows that you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

$20 says that this fact will not stop him from continuing....

 

[camanintx]

google "Cambrian explosion " the vast majority of the copmplex animals we know today did not "gradually" come into existence through a long period of small changes brought about through natural selection. Most species appeard suddenly out of nowhere as shown by the fossil record.

The development of new species during the Cambrian radiation "suddenly out of nowhere" actually occurred over a span of 80 million years and isn't really much different from what we see in other time periods.

 

[Autodidact]

How can anyone say evolution is a fact .It's just a theory ,just ask the late founder(Charles Darwin)

It's both. Evolution happens and is observed. Fact. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains how. Theory.

Further, and this will help you in your internet life, as soon as you say "just a theory" you reveal your big hairy ignorance to everyone. There is no higher level of scientific knowledge than a scientific theory. You know, like germs, gravity, atoms...

 

[Autodidact]

in all the millenias of humankind, it has yet to be seen where inanimation has become animate- a rock does not become a worm, neither does a mountain metamorph into a tyrannasaurus- it is just not SCIENtific- it has however been proven that from animate objects animation takes place- therefore it follows in ilk that as conscious and thinking beings we were created by a conscious being or by conconsious beings.

That's fascinating and completely irrelevant to a discussion of evolution, which has nothing to do with that. If you don't want to look like a complete ignoramus, I suggest you learn what the Theory of Evolution is, so you can discuss it with those of us who are already familiar with it.

 

[Autodidact]

the vast majority of the copmplex animals we know today did not "gradually" come into existence through a long period of small changes brought about through natural selection. Most species appeard suddenly out of nowhere as shown by the fossil record.

This suden appearance seemss to suggest an actual CREATION doesit not- noway any scientist can convince me that Animals sprung from the rocks.

The more you post, the more we know how little you know. Honestly, before you try to post on a subject, you should learn something about it.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

the vast majority of the copmplex animals we know today did not "gradually" come into existence through a long period of small changes brought about through natural selection. Most species appeard suddenly out of nowhere as shown by the fossil record.

Ever heard of Louis Pasteur? He did a very nice experiment whereby he tested whether spontaneous generation is possible. The end result is no. Something had to be there for something new to come from. In terms of fossil evidence, it shows that there were ancestral animals and that the descendants didn't merely "pop up".

This suden appearance seemss to suggest an actual CREATION doesit not- noway any scientist can convince me that Animals sprung from the rocks.

The issue is the sudden appearance is scientifically unsupported, and so any reasonable scientist who you talk to about this will tell you that your notion is not supported by science. It seems you're very devoted to what you believe but unfortunately, you seem to be pretty much clueless in the area of evolutionary biology, which ironically is the area you profess to have lots of knowledge about.

If you come into a debate regarding a certain topic, even if you're sure you're the grand-daddy of them all and know everything, just search around and see if you do. In this case, you really, really need to search around as you seem to not understand the basics of the topic you're discussing. There's no point in you posting more about it unless you learn about it as if it continues along these lines, it's going to be nonsense that will be dismissed instantly. Save us and yourself the trouble and learn the topic, at least learn the basics.

 

[johnhanks]

the vast majority of the copmplex animals we know today did not "gradually" come into existence through a long period of small changes brought about through natural selection. Most species appeard suddenly out of nowhere as shown by the fossil record.

This suden appearance seemss to suggest an actual CREATION doesit not- noway any scientist can convince me that Animals sprung from the rocks.

Ah, there's nothing like a great howling straw man to enliven a debate.

Harshtotem, direct me to a genuine scientist who proposes that animals 'sprang from rocks', and I'll happily send you 1000 of whatever currency unit operates in your country. As things stand, you have revealed not only your ignorance of palaeontology but your inability to construct an argument.

 

[idea]

The Cambrian explosion is just a period of time in which we have a great deal of fossil evidence of new species evolving. In other words a great deal of “macro-evolution”. To say that there is no macro evolution and then use the Cambrian explosion as evidence simply shows that you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

Large steps are impossible to make quickly in the natural selection process. Why? Because a chicken can't produce offspring with a dog. If the step is too large, the new creature will not be able to reproduce. If macro-evolution happened through evolution, it would happen over billions of years. We don't see macro changes happening over billions of years. The changes happened too fast = the changes did not come from evolution.

 

[idea]

Idea I appreciate your willingness to look at all theories and to consider science as science... But to me it sounds more like you are agreeing with the idea that evolution is just a theory and not a fact and that other theories are more plausible. (Which based on the way you spin your position comes to me as purposefully dishonest.)

You want to know why evolution is now considered doctrine?
Read this:
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

""What elevated common descent to doctrinal status almost certainly was the much later discovery of the universality of biochemistry, which was seemingly impossible to explain otherwise. But that was before horizontal gene transfer (HGT)"

HGT is not evolution.
"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations."
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HGT is not a gradual generation by generation change. It is a sudden change - not inherited from your mother. A change initiated through genes from another species being placed into your body somehow (viral or other infection etc. or... HGT is also a form of genetic engineering - read the wiki on it.) This type of change can happen quickly because it is not just one animal that is changing, it is the entire herd that all gets infected at once, changes in the same way together, and can therefore reproduce and propagate the change to another generation. This is what we see in the fossil record - quick jumps - not slow gradual changes.

in other words, "evoltuion" is now considered "fact" because the def of what evolution is has ... evolved into something quite different than what it started out as .

You can observe HGT - HGT is a proven fact. You can observe it in humans.
see:
Jon Cohen, "A New Role for HIV: A Vehicle For Moving Genes Into Cells" p 195 v 272, Science, 12 April 1996.
Andrew Pollack, "Scientists Enlist H.I.V. to Fight Other Ills," The New York Times, 19 January 1999.

Did you know that some people are now being born with a genetic mutation that renders their cells immune to almost all strains of HIV? The aids virus is currently mutating humans. A new breed of humans is now being born - one that is immune to aids.

But I can give you benefit of the doubt here... What theory do you think better explains the Cambrian Explosion? Is a better explanation perhaps no explanation is really needed as everything seems to support it?

HGT - genes supplied through Panspermia, is a better explanation of the Cambrian Explosion.

again, watch the vid at 4:50 min.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-XWAXe4xJg&feature=related

"Diversification of new species on earth was stimulated by cosmic impacts…"
progression requires new information to be supplied to the genome. New info is supplied from the stars.
read: http://panspermia.org/tree.htm

That's right life from heaven. We're all aliens

 

[fantome profane]

Large steps are impossible to make quickly in the natural selection process. Why? Because a chicken can't produce offspring with a dog. If the step is too large, the new creature will not be able to reproduce. If macro-evolution happened through evolution, it would happen over billions of years. We don't see macro changes happening over billions of years. The changes happened too fast = the changes did not come from evolution.

No it happens gradually. And the evidence indicates that it happened gradually during the period of time referred to as the Cambrian explosion. You do realize that the time period in question is a period of over 20 million years. It is not sudden. It is not instantaneous. It is a gradual development of new species.

But let’s play. If the changes didn’t happen through evolution, can you suggest another method?