It's Thanks to Evolution That No Two Faces Are Alike

a reply to: anxietydisorder

Such excellent advice, so hard to follow sometimes. Getting people who are well versed in biological sciences to avoid trying to explain the science to those who are enjoying the bliss of ignorance is about as likely to happen as getting my 6 year old to stop picking at her scabs. No matter how fruitless we know it is, sometimes we can't help ourselves no matter how obvious it is that it's the equivalent of standing on a beach and screaming at an incoming hurricane with the expectation of getting it to change course or simply disperse.

what about identicle twins? or triplets???

originally posted by: taoistguy
what about identicle twins? or triplets???

Uhrm, "identicle" triplets?

I think I understand what MarsIsRed is talking about.

originally posted by: stuthealien
evolution i doubt as its fake ,maybe we are just unique,,,evolution is still a theory as in science to be proved it has to be observed and it has not been observed

You might want to get in touch with concepts such as due diligence. It will, in the future, help you avoid instances where you make bold affirmations that with a modicum of research would be easily shown not to be accurate. As other have pointed out, the "It's just a theory" routine is pretty standard for those who haven't got the faintest glimmer of what evolution states or what the actual evidence is let alone the difference between an actual scientific theory supported by verifiable data and your average laymans theory that is the equivalent of a hunch by Shaggy, Scooby, Fred, Daphne and Thelma. Huge difference between the concepts.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples. Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Evolution has been witnessed in a lab, with one group of bacteria acquiring the ability to do something that none of the other bacterium could do. It was a fairly small change, the ability to metabolise citrate, but it shows that these arbitrary mutations occur, sometimes to the detriment of the organism, and sometimes to the benefit. When an organism has a mutation that is to its benefit, its genes get replicated more. The change came after 31,500 generations, which shows how slow the process is, and therefore almost impossible for us to witness with larger organisms.

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens. Profound change.

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Link

Journal Reference

Evolution has not been observed. What has been observed is variation of traits within a species, not evolution. Different dog breeds do not constitute evolution, as long as the dogs can still mate with each other, then it's not a different species.

Unless people can reconcile how the Cro-Magnons went into Europe, yet their origin and language trace back to the Caucasus, then they haven't proven anything. The fossil evidence has been explained a ton of times already. They were animals and humans God created during the 7 yoms.

a reply to: np6888

Species is an arbitrary construct. Explain the magic barrier that stops selected genetic mutations accumulating beyond this man-made construct.

Do mutations just stop occurring? Cite evidence for this.
Does your god hit the reset button? Cite evidence for this.

Rather than making unfounded claims, back them up.

a reply to: twfau

So it takes 600,000 years for what, trillion of bacteria, to evolve a complex trait? How long would it take for an amoeba to develop all the organs, replicate everywhere and become human? I'm pretty sure that 1 billion years are not quite long enough for that. The article also doesn't say whether the bacteria kept that trait.

a reply to: np6888

Just because there has been, in your personal opinion, enough time elapsed that an organism should have been able to evolve or the way you are looking at it, change into something new and different, doesn't mean that it is necessarily the case. Biological stasis is a rather common phenomena. Just look at any shark or the coelacanth as to excellent examples of stasis. Neither have changed much morphologically in over 400 million years. Just because amoeba have been around since the Precambrian doesn't mean they have to evolve into something else not does it mean evolution is a falsehood anymore than getting toys for Christmas means there is a Santa let alone a Jesus. You're utilizing circular reasoning and cognitive dissonance in an attempt the rationalize your own disbelief in something supported by mountains of evidence.

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy
We must always remember that "evolution" is a theory unsubstantiated by the Earths own rock record. There are no in-betweens there, meaning, A to C without a B. They may look similar but they are completely different species. Research with the common fruit fly has also unsubstantiated the theory. No matter what they do to that fly, even though it may change its appearance, it still remains a fruit fly.

originally posted by: arcnaver
a reply to: Jennyfrenzy
We must always remember that "evolution" is a theory unsubstantiated by the Earths own rock record. There are no in-betweens there, meaning, A to C without a B. They may look similar but they are completely different species. Research with the common fruit fly has also unsubstantiated the theory. No matter what they do to that fly, even though it may change its appearance, it still remains a fruit fly.

I'm assuming that by 'earths rock record' you are referring to the geologic and/or fossil records? Denying transitional fossils doesn't make them cease to exist. There are a multitude of examples including those in our own hominid family tree.

Here is a good link from Berkley- evolution.berkeley.edu...

Wikipedia has a pretty extensive list with references- en.m.wikipedia.org...

And another good source- www.transitionalfossils.com...

As for evolution being "just a theory " so is gravity but I don't think you're floating freely into space. There's a big difference between a scientific theory and just a regular Scooby Doo hunch version of a theory. Even if you want to entirely discount the fossil record, genetics doesnt lie and it verifies lineages whether you want to believe it or not.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: MarsIsRed

And these one line retorts are all you got? Talk about dumb people.

It's not like your original post was dripping with insight or depth. You just dismissed evolution out of hand by using some tired Creationist cliche that has been debunked more times than you or I could count together. So maybe next time, come up with a good explanation why you think your intellectual expertise trumps the thousands of scientists who say that you are wrong and evolution is a real process. Also, it would help if you studied up and actually made an attempt to UNDERSTAND evolution and how it works instead of just dismissing it because it conflicts with your religion.

originally posted by: arcnaver
a reply to: Jennyfrenzy
We must always remember that "evolution" is a theory unsubstantiated by the Earths own rock record. There are no in-betweens there, meaning, A to C without a B. They may look similar but they are completely different species. Research with the common fruit fly has also unsubstantiated the theory. No matter what they do to that fly, even though it may change its appearance, it still remains a fruit fly.

Micro and macro evolution are the same processes guided by the same things. The only difference between the two is the scale of the changes (micro is small incremental changes while macro is large changes that cause us to label the changes as a new species). By the same notion we could take stacking dirt as a process. I can stack small amounts of dirt and create a little dirt mound, or I could keep stacking dirt and create a mountain. The creation of the mountain is the result of MANY dirt mounds stacked on top of each other. So as you can see, one leads to the other. NOW the onus is on you to explain why many micro changes cannot lead up to macro changes since the only difference between the two forms of evolution is the scale.

a reply to: arcnaver

Perhaps you fancy taking a punt at the question i asked earlier:

Species is an arbitrary construct. Explain the magic barrier that stops selected genetic mutations accumulating beyond this man-made construct.

Do mutations just stop occurring? Cite evidence for this.
Does your god hit the reset button? Cite evidence for this.

Rather than making unfounded claims, back them up.

"evolution" is divide and conquer. actually those who cooperate best survive best…

the fossil record does NOT support evolution. It supports a global flood. as for facial differences: the creation tends to diversify by DESIGN, not evolve from one species to another, like a bear to a whale, as Darwin theorized…NO EXAMPLES of this observed.

youtube: Dinosaurs and Humans Co-existing? You Decide.
www.youtube.com...


youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...

yt: Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD
youtu.be...

yt: Giants of Ancient America/ The mound builder; Jim Vieira
www.youtube.com...

The Fossil Record Speaks
www.youtube.com...
yt: Uranium Halos are Proof Noah Flood Laid the Sedimentary Layers, Dr. gentry
www.youtube.com...

youtube: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB youtu.be...

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
"evolution" is divide and conquer. actually those who cooperate best survive best…

and your evidence for this would be...?

the fossil record does NOT support evolution.

Finally, the mystery is solved! No need for citations or supporting data, we should just accept this as truth. right? Nah... the fossil record rather clearly shows evidence in favor of evolution and shows nothing to support ID/Creationism. Can you back up that statement with anything other than a YouTube video?

It supports a global flood.

not even a remotely true statement. there is absolutely zero evidence for a world wide flood event as described in Genesis. The "vapor canopy" is an absolute impossibility. To cover the highest mountains on earth to a depth of over 29,000 feet, there would have to be a massive amount of vapor for it to condense into rain and cover everything. It would be the equivalent to living underneath 9 atmospheres and the pressure from that would be the equivalent of living inside a 13,000 psi pressure cooker. In simpler terms, anything living under those conditions before the flood would not have survived afterwards and anything that lives today would not have been able to survive in the pressure cooker environment.

Additionally, what did Noah and his family eat once the water receded? All plant life would have perished and they couldn't eat any of the animals because there was only 1 breeding pair of each species. Also, genetic diversity indicates that many people would have survived the alleged flood.

as for facial differences: the creation tends to diversify by DESIGN, not evolve from one species to another, like a bear to a whale, as Darwin theorized…NO EXAMPLES of this observed.

But Darwin never once postulated that an organism could make such a drastic change. If a bear "turned into" a whale that would actually indicate that modern evolutionary synthesis is completely wrong. There are many transitional fossils and there are living specimens of Stasis such as the coelacanth and sharks, neither of which have changed much at all in over 400 million years.

youtube: Dinosaurs and Humans Co-existing? You Decide.
www.youtube.com...

this video is unavailable

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...

While Strobel does interview and speak with PhD's, none of their degrees are in the field he is discussing. This doesn't lend much credibility to his case.

Strobel is overtly inflammatory when he writes that he chose experts who "refuse to limit themselves only to the politically correct world of naturalism and materialism." This already insinuates that regardless of one's expertise in a particular subject matter, an individual is automatically disqualified from serving as one of Strobel's experts if he happens to be a naturalist or materialist. Perhaps Strobel might have considered asking some scientists why supernatural explanations--even if true--do not generally make testable predictions, the first rule of science.

yt: Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD
youtu.be...

Hugh Ross has been criticized by CSUF professor emeritus Mark Perakh for misunderstanding basic concepts of thermodynamics together with misinterpretations of Hebrew words.
Ross is criticized by YECs for, among other things, his acceptance of uniformitarian geology and astronomy over what they see as a plain reading of the English translation of Genesis. YECs claim that speciation explains how present biodiversity could have arisen from the small number of "kinds" after Noah's Flood despite the copious amount of genetic data proving otherwise. If that were really the case, genetic diversity would be uniform across all species and that simply is not the case. Just comparing the Khoisan people of southern Africa to people of European descent completely disproves the YEC/ID notion because they have massive disparities in their genetic diversity.

yt: Giants of Ancient America/ The mound builder; Jim Vieira
www.youtube.com...

this entire video is entirely based on prima facie that giants roamed the earth and that megalithic sites could not have been built by HSS and instead could only have been built by giants. This starts of with a premise and then goes backwards and fills in the gaps in an attempt to prove the hypothesis that giants were here before HSS building these structures whereas archaeologists and anthropologists start with the evidence and see where it leads before deriving a conclusion.
The notion also ignores things like genetics and actual facts such as while humans typically do not reach heights in excess of say 6'6" a height of 7"or more is still within an accepted range for humans and we still see people of such dizzying heights. This can be testified even today with racial groups who live in East Africa and South America who commonly attain statures of 6-7 ft. Skeletons of this range and taller have been found all over the world-Many in the United States. Several of the giant types were described as having red hair and double sets of teeth. Interestingly, red hair and double sets of teeth are also associated with a disease called Hyper-IgE syndrome.

Also I need to add that his TEDx Talk on giants and the Smithsonian conspiracy to hide them had to be removed from TED’s YouTube channel for failure to adhere to basic levels of scientific accuracy. Just a couple of examples-

At 4:05 — You claim: “The moundbuilders who built all kinds of structures.” All evidence for the moundbuilders’ architecture suggests that they built with sod packets and wood.At 9:15 — You share newspaper clippings from the 19th century, including quotes from Abraham Lincoln, and claim they are evidence of giants. In fact, as one of our experts writes, “Skeletal hoaxes were common in the 19th century (e.g., Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant, and Barnum & Bailey Fiji mermaids [now at Harvard's Peabody Museum]). If (and this is a big if) the 8-foot skeleton is real, it could be a case of medical gigantism, but it is more likely a case of exaggeration.”
At 12:49 — “Bones crumbled away because they weren’t mummified.” Skeletal preservation and mummification are unrelated processes. Plenty of skeletons survive in New England, and the disappearance of any and all skele

a reply to: peter vlar

www.youtube.com...

Normally I won't just mock the person presenting something, but Dr. Veith's work is, in my opinion, not worth bothering with. He took several university jobs for the specific purpose of pushing 7thDayAdventist creation models on students. He quietly "retired" when he became unhirable at any universities and was almost arrested and kicked out of the 7th Day Adventist church for his anti-Semitic writing.Not what I would consider a trustworthy source.

yt: Uranium Halos are Proof Noah Flood Laid the Sedimentary Layers, Dr. gentry

can't believe I sat through this video just to find out he is completely ignoring the polonium halos and misrepresenting them as Uranium and doesn't get into anything specific such as which isotopes are involved. Probably to keep anyone from looking to deeply into the matter while acknowledging that the vast majority of his followers will just blindly follow the leader unquestionably.