Evolution happens. That's a fact.

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
What you are referring to is "adaptation", not evolution.


Explain why.


I've explained it as well as you've explained your position.


I have a million dollars in my wallet. That's a FACT.

(Saying it's a "fact" doesn't make it a fact.)


Did you just read the title and reply? I wrote a page explaining what I meant, and provided an article on it. Read that and also the peer reviewed papers someone posted. How much explanation do you want? Unless you can put some reason behind your statement it means nothing.

See how every point someone against evolution tries to make is based on misunderstanding or lack of knowledge? There hasn't been one reasonable argument.


Yours and all of your sources are opinions, not fact. Evolution is a theory, not a scientifically proven fact. It never has been. If it were, every time a new "discovery" is made and applied to the "theory", they wouldn't be constantly revising the theory now, would they?




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SpearMint
 


What changed in our DNA code to allow for the processing of milk? That would be proof of evolution. Otherwise, it is just proof of adaptation. It is true all living things adapt to their environments. Harboring a new enzyme capable of breaking down lactose is a great example of adaptation. Losing hair or growing extra hair is another example. Pigmentation of the skin is another example. None of those things are evolution, they are adaptation.

Another common misconception is cross-breeding. You can mix a husky and a shephard, and you can get longer legs, or longer hair, but it is a product of selective breeding, not evolution.

As far as I know, there has never been any direct proof of evolution, only adaptation. We have found plenty of evidence of changes in DNA, but they have never been gradual, they have always been jumps where one animal (like humans) suddenly appears on the scene and drives a competing and co-existing animal out of the food chain. Although that may be "survival of the fittest," it is hard to say it is evolution unless we can find the connecting data where one emerged from the other, and emerged as a result of mutations affecting DNA.

I've given this example many times. If evolution were true, it should be simple to prove. If humans have a generational time frame of say 25 years, then we can say 100,000 years of humanity is 4000 generations. Then, we take a bacteria that has a generational time frame of say 6 hours. We create an environment for that bacteria where it can survive, but will require mutations to thrive. We let it go through 4000 generations (approximately 3 years) and we test the DNA every step along the way to decide if it is adapting or evolving. If it evolves, then evolution is proven. If it only adapts, then evolution is disproven!

Edit:
Just read your link, and it does say the enzyme is linked to a gene, and it does call the mutation an evolution.
Great find! I still want someone to run my bacteria experiment though..


The lactase gene was absent from the DNA extracted from these skeletons, suggesting that these early Europeans would not be tolerant to milk.

Dr Mark Thomas, from UCL, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past.
edit on 22-5-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)


Evolution IS adaptation when adaptations are passed on to offspring.

Science has known for thirty years that DNA mutates as the organism adapts to it's environment. This has been demonstrated, tested, proven, and reproven so many times it's impossible to enumerate them all....and it happens a HELL of a lot faster than 4000 generations of even FAR more complex organisms.

Go to Google Scholar and search for something like "genetic changes due to diet", "dietary genome changes", "environmental genetic mutations", etc. You should get about 100,000 scholarly papers on the subject.

...this is why science considers the book closed on the basic idea of evolution, even as it refines the details of the story.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
What you are referring to is "adaptation", not evolution.


Explain why.


I've explained it as well as you've explained your position.


I have a million dollars in my wallet. That's a FACT.

(Saying it's a "fact" doesn't make it a fact.)


Did you just read the title and reply? I wrote a page explaining what I meant, and provided an article on it. Read that and also the peer reviewed papers someone posted. How much explanation do you want? Unless you can put some reason behind your statement it means nothing.

See how every point someone against evolution tries to make is based on misunderstanding or lack of knowledge? There hasn't been one reasonable argument.


Yours and all of your sources are opinions, not fact. Evolution is a theory, not a scientifically proven fact. It never has been. If it were, every time a new "discovery" is made and applied to the "theory", they wouldn't be constantly revising the theory now, would they?


No they are not opinions. You haven't read any of it have you?

We developed the ability to continue to produce Lactase into adulthood. [color=#0f0]FACT.
This can be seen in Human DNA up until 7000 years ago in Europe. [color=#0f0]FACT.
This mutation has spread to 90% of people with European origin. [color=#0f0]FACT.

Those are the three key facts here, what more do you need. You still haven't explained to me why this is adaptation and not evolution, but read this reply. (above)
edit on 22-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by n00bUK
Cool thread, buddy. Laid out nice and simple, S&F


I'll add these two simple examples, too:

The fact that our jaws have gotten smaller since the 1500's. We no longer have room for our wisdom teeth.
Goosebumps - useful if we had fur because it would fluff up and make more insulation. Good for people who had fur but for us goosebumps are useless.

We have a handful of things on our body that are not of any use what so ever, like our inner eyelids and little toe's, they are completely useless, not signs of intelligent design.


Goosebumps aren't for fluffing fur, they're for keeping homeostasis (constant body temp). Each tiny hair is connected to a tiny muscle, and to raise, those muscles must constantly contact. Constant. Muscle contraction generates a tiny amount of heat that warms the skin ever so slightly. Its the same reason you shiver...to stay warm



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Yours and all of your sources are opinions, not fact. Evolution is a theory, not a scientifically proven fact. It never has been. If it were, every time a new "discovery" is made and applied to the "theory", they wouldn't be constantly revising the theory now, would they?


Do you understand what "theory" means in scientific terms? A "theory" is a fact in scientific parlance. Here are some other notable theories that meet the same academic and scientific rigors as Evolution does. A scientific theory must meet the following conditions at a MINIMUM.

1) It is based on observation and experiment
2) If observations and experiments continue to support the theory, it may become widely accepted
3) If it becomes widely accepted, it may be used to explain and possibly predict natural phenomena.

Here are some other Scientific Theories. Do you "believe" in any of these?

Modern Atomic Theory
Kinetic Molecular Theory
Germ Theory of Disease
Theory of Gravity
Cell Theory
Theories of Relativity
Plate Tectonic Theory
Newtonian Physics
The Pythagorean Theorem
The Theory of Linear Algebra
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

You are the victim of bad grammar. You have come to your conclusions about the validity of "theories" based upon the colloquial usage of the word(s) instead of the academic definitions. If you don't feel that that the standard of proof used to establish the Theory of Evolution is stringent enough...then you also shouldn't believe in gravity, inertia, mass, earthquakes, germs, or quadratic equations.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CloonBerg
I am obviously speaking about the evolution of species

Right, Micro-Evolution. Variation in change. You assume, however, that given enough time species will eventually produce new species, with random chance.

Your god is named "chance" and "time". It's the miracle worker for all of your beliefs.


lol "it still remains a theory". You need to refresh your memory on what a theory means in scientific terms.

Scientifically, a theory is-
Testable - If an idea cannot be subjected to scientific testing, it's not a theory.
Falsifiable - There must be a way to disprove the theory, which has been done with Evolution, multiple times. Suggesting it hasn't is ignorance.
Tentative - All theories can change as new evidence is discovered, no theory is ever 100% proven OR complete. The title of this thread, for example, is incorrect.
Self-Consistent - All parts of the theory must be consistent with all other parts. As such, it also must be self-corrected when new evidence arises. Unfortunately this isn't the case with Evolution, as any time new evidence arises that contradicts this theory, it is thrown away. This is especially the case with C-14 dating.


"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in the footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."

--- Professor J. Brew --- Director of the Peabody Museum, Harvard, cited in Charles Ginenthal, The Extinction of the Mammoth, The Velikovskian, Vol III, Nos 2 and 3, New York, 1997, pages 163-164

Very professional.


Yes, mutations have been observed many times.

Mutations like this occur all the time, it's called Micro-Evolution. It doesn't prove the entire Theory of Evolution (I should call it the Religion of Evolution, to be correct).

Look at the Bacteria - it's an ideal organism to study when it comes to Micro-Evolution, since they reproduce rapidly, they're very easy to keep/store in large populations, and their genomes are simple compared to most other organisms. Basically, a population of bacteria is exposed to some kind of environmental stress while their genomes are being tracked.
Here's one such study involving 40,000 generations of E-Coli.

If you had any common sense, you'd come to the conclusion that the changes you could expect from a genome are limited. If you put bacteria in a stressful environment, they will begin to mutate, because their genome seems designed to do that. There's a limit, though, to how much it can change. The "fitness" gains that the E-Coli developed through mutation cannot continue to increase at the same rate as the preserved mutations - in other words, mutation and natural selection "tinker" with the genome, making minor improvements, but they can't do much more than that.

Thus, not surprisingly, only Micro-Evolution occurred. Nothing even close to approaching Macro-Evolution occurred. Curious.

Now, notice that as a bacterium develops mutation that gives it an advantage over it's conditions, it not only survives to future generations, but it quickly becomes the "norm" - which is common sense - it becomes "fixed" in the population, if you would. It's seen so often, Evolutionists developed the term "mutational sweep" for it.

Now this is where the "simplistic" thinking comes into play - Evolutionists, like yourself, have assumed that when animals "micro-evolve", the same thing happens - that if a mutation occurs that is clearly advantageous for a species, it will quickly take over the entire population, so that after several generations, nearly all individuals in the population will have the mutation. Why is this silly? because bacteria reproduce asexually, while most animals reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is quite a bit more complex than asexual reproduction, if you didn't know.

It's irrational to assume that Micro-Evolution occurs the same way in organisms that reproduce sexually and asexually, though I'm not accusing you of doing this. Simply stating my opinion. Anyways, I have read, one time, about the Drosophila, which I believe researchers tracked for over 600 generations and artificially selected candidates for the next generation. Each generation, the researchers selected those that had the fastest development time from egg to adult and allowed them to breed.

(Continued in Next Post)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CloonBerg
 


(Continued from Last Post)

Over the 600 generations of the study, the entire process produced flies that developed about 20% faster than the flies they began with. Obviously some Micro-Evolution occurred, as the same thing with the data from the link you shared with me about life-span. Same concept.

Here's the study, I just found.

Anyways, the researchers were able to examine the genome of the flies they began with, and the evolved ones. Obviously, if the prediction or theory was correct, they should find that whatever genetic changes that produced quickly-developing fruit flies, should be fixed throughout the population.. which wasn't the case.


We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.


So there's only three possibilities left -

1. There are few mutations that are wholly advantageous.
2. What wholly advantageous mutations that might exist produce very little advantage.
3. What wholly advantageous mutations that might exist cannot get fixed in the population, because the conditions change too quickly for any mutation to be wholly advantageous for very long.

Remember, if "evolution" occurs easily in any organism, it does so in bacteria, as bacteria have short generations and large populations, so they can sample all kinds of mutations. Compare that to animals, which have long generations and small populations. Which means the number of mutations they can sample through the course of history is much, much, muuuuch smaller.

Basically what I'm trying to say here, is that if Macro-Evolution were to occur in animals, the process of mutations being naturally selected must be more efficient than it is in bacteria. That doesn't seem to be the case, as observations of Micro-Evolution in animals seem to indicate that sexual reproduction simply causes too many complications, and end up reducing the efficiency of the selection process.

So, as it stands, there is still no evidence of Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Stellar Evolution, Organic Evolution, or Macro-Evolution. To put it in simple terms - The Big Bang, Nucleosynthesis, Stars being born, Abiogenesis, and species evolving into other species have never been observed.

You can enjoy believing in your adult fairytale of your Religion of Evolution all you want, I'm simply stating the facts.

God bless.
edit on 22-5-2012 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Species evolve but they remain the same species. That is indeed evolution. I have never seen one shred of evidence that evolution leads to new species or that all life originated from nothing and slowly became everything that has ever been. There's TONS of evidence that adaptation and evolution happen all the time, but a duck out of water has yet to become a turkey.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Species evolve but they remain the same species. That is indeed evolution. I have never seen one shred of evidence that evolution leads to new species or that all life originated from nothing and slowly became everything that has ever been. There's TONS of evidence that adaptation and evolution happen all the time, but a duck out of water has yet to become a turkey.


Of course you haven't, it's an extremely slow process, and it also depends on how you define a new species. If you believe that evolution happens, then new species forming is simply logical.

There is a lot of evidence of this happening in fossils, which makes me think you're saying that you haven't seen any proof without researching it at all.
edit on 22-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Believe what you may, there is no proof of evolution in your statements. You only regard mutations of already 'occuring' genes or information. Mutations are a scrabling of information, not creating new ones out of thin air.

And to think that humans were not made to drink milk as evidence of evolution does not work. Why do women have breasts? How are babies supposed to get nourishment when they are born? Why do babies not have teeth for after a year they are born? Are they maybe supposed to suckle off the mother like all the mammals in this planet?

Mutatations are just that.....mutations. No evolution occurs, only mix of information that already exists.

Heres my example. Take your car, and remove the headlights, bumpers, and grill, and attatch it somewhere else like the hood and doors. Does that prove the car is turning into a boat? Uh......no.... There is no information or parts available to make a boat out of a car. You may have a motor, some metal and glass. But that does not constitute a proof for the car to be evolving into a boat.

You can take words out of the english language and scramble up the letters all you want, but you will not get certain words out of others. The word FISH will never make, Coat, Boat, Mouse or even Tail, the letters are just not available.

Oh and I have a question for anyone who reads this post. I will ask how many years would it take for Mount Rushmore to be created from wind, rain and any type of debris on planet earth with no human intervention of any sort? I will give you as many years as you like. Just is it possible for mount rushmore to be made by natural causes?

But if you want to believe in evolution and think there is proof, so be it. Its a stupid choice in my honest opinion
edit on 22-5-2012 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


There is nothing factual about evolution it is a theory based religion...Like it or not it is your religion......
2nd



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
"Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1 - Wikipedia entry on Evoution

I don't think anyone denies that evolution takes place, in the micro. Every creationist has to conceed to adaptation which is a form of evolution. The debate arises when you start to explore evolution creating new species and completely novel appendages, development of sentience, etc.

I personally will not comment regarding those things, because I lack the scientific background to do so. But you are right, evolution does happen in some capacity.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 


I can tell from this post that you have either not read my post or didn't pay attention.


You only regard mutations of already 'occuring' genes or information. Mutations are a scrabling of information, not creating new ones out of thin air.


Where did you get this information from? Also, I don't think continuing to produce an enzyme in adulthood rather than stopping is creating anything out of thin air.


And to think that humans were not made to drink milk as evidence of evolution does not work. Why do women have breasts? How are babies supposed to get nourishment when they are born? Why do babies not have teeth for after a year they are born? Are they maybe supposed to suckle off the mother like all the mammals in this planet?


Again, read my post... I clearly stated more than once that the ability to digest milk is lost at ADULTHOOD.


Mutatations are just that.....mutations. No evolution occurs, only mix of information that already exists.


You need to read my explanation of evolution in the OP, you clearly don't understand what evolution is.


Heres my example. Take your car, and remove the headlights, bumpers, and grill, and attatch it somewhere else like the hood and doors. Does that prove the car is turning into a boat? Uh......no.... There is no information or parts available to make aboat out of a car. You may have a motor, some metal and glass. But that does not constitute a proof for evolution.


I don't even... Are you really comparing that to evolution? Can a car reproduce itself? No.. So no example involving a car can contradict evolution. Try again.


You can take words out of the english language and scramble up the letters all you want, but you will not get certain words out of others. The word FISH will never make, Coat, Boat, Mouse or even Tail, the letters are just not available.


Again... read above.


But if you want to believe in evolution and think there is proof, so be it. Its a stupid choice in my honest opinion.


Please educate yourself on the subject before calling it stupid. You quite clearly do not understand.

A classic example of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge being used against evolution.
edit on 22-5-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 





Of course you haven't, it's an extremely slow process,


It would take an infinite amount of time for evolution to even get started. The theory itself suggests that.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint
 





Of course you haven't, it's an extremely slow process,


It would take an infinite amount of time for evolution to even get started. The theory itself suggests that.


How so?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

So, as it stands, there is still no evidence of Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Stellar Evolution, Organic Evolution, or Macro-Evolution. To put it in simple terms - The Big Bang, Nucleosynthesis, Stars being born, Abiogenesis, and species evolving into other species have never been observed.

You can enjoy believing in your adult fairytale of your Religion of Evolution all you want, I'm simply stating the facts.

God bless.
edit on 22-5-2012 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)


There's no evidence for "macro-evolution", huh?

Have you ever heard of creatures called "dogs"?

Human beings have been responsible for creating countless different species of them....Some of them quite recent. The Boykin Spaniel didn't exist until the early 1900's when Whittaker Boykin of South Carolina established the new species after years and years of trial and error.

Or are we going to try the tired-ass argument that a "breed" isn't a species? If dogs, wolves. foxes are different "species" then so are Mastiff's and Chihuahuas. Perhaps even more so.

Below are some other links to academic papers which clearly and indisputably establish that macro evolution occurs, has been witnessed, and can even be reproduced.

Link: docs.google.com...~ensiweb%2Flessons%2Fev.tr.pr.pdf

Link: www.indiana.edu...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint
 





Of course you haven't, it's an extremely slow process,


It would take an infinite amount of time for evolution to even get started. The theory itself suggests that.


Really? Go tell that to a Great Dane and a Yorkshire Terrier....both of whom are descended from wolves.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Species evolve but they remain the same species. That is indeed evolution. I have never seen one shred of evidence that evolution leads to new species or that all life originated from nothing and slowly became everything that has ever been.


You haven't been looking very hard...have you?


There's TONS of evidence that adaptation and evolution happen all the time, but a duck out of water has yet to become a turkey.


Perhaps not...but we have established that chickens still carry dinosaur DNA...so there goes that whole idea, huh?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


im not sure where you got information that says we cannot digest lactose.... Out of my years of reasearching on my own about healthy eating, and GE foods, and chemical laced products, the Global elite and the Genocide from vaccines and the sort, I havent seen an article that says we cannot digest lactose.

Also, I have no reason to go into major detail like Lionhearte may have. I already have read, and watched and studied all the same things he is talking about, and I tottally agree with him. I just dont really care about all the 'technical' mumbo jumbo you want to get into. I have argued, brought up hundreds of evidences to my own friends and classmates before about evolution, but no matter how much proof I show them, and debunk their theories, its only a matter of time before they find something else to bring up. Its been years since I looked at it, and frankly evolution is just for people who want to believe it happened, but have no proof of all the steps to now.

But for your evolution theory to work, it has to be a complete theory. That means you need conclusive evidence all the way back to the big bang, where evolution supposedly began. You dont have a coherent theory, or proof of all the changes from the beginning. Where is the testable science of a rock changing into a organic state like a plant or fungus? Wheres the proof of a gas, like a gas cloud in space, compressing under tremendous pressure, to form a star?But with Boyes gas law that states the gas drives apart with more heat and pressure? Wheres the testable proof of a asexual organism developing into a sexual organism or creature?

These are the things that are unprovable, because it cant happen. That is why evolution like you want to say, happens. Micro evolution is the only thing that is EVER observed or tested. But try not to conclude that Micro Evolution means that over millions or billions of years constitutes Macro Evolution. Like Lionhearte said, mutations will only go so far, there are limits.

My reasons still stand, but you seem to fight back when you have already lost.

edit on 22-5-2012 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 





Really? Go tell that to a Great Dane and a Yorkshire Terrier....both of whom are descended from wolves.


This is all you have ? Well if that's all evolution is then why didn't OP just use that in the beginning ?


Would've made things to simple right ?
edit on 22-5-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join