Some people, like Richard Dawkins call evolution a "fact".
What do you think? Is evolution a fact or a theory?
Read "Origin of Species" and then come back to debate the issue.
There is no debate. There's overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution happened and accepted as scientific fact. Lovethe brain doesn't know what a scientific theory is an by his post, obvious too mentally lazy to go out research it. To deny evolution on has to really work hard to deny biology, DNA, chemistry, etc. The of course there are still people out there that insist the earth is flat.
What is the difference between fact and theory?
Oh please! Now you'll have all the paid up members of the flat earth society spewing forth. There are examples of evolution that have happened in my life time - moths that change markings because of pollution. True the evolution hypothesis is constantly reviewed as new evidence comes to light, that's what scientists and academics do, review, revise and open up for debate. Mammoth bones were once thought to belong to giants, dinosaurs thought to be dragons etc. But unless someone finds a flash drive in the center of an ancient rock, with the message "fooled you all you evolutionists are going to hell', creationism is still a metaphor. A beautiful metaphor, which each culture, race and creed has sculpted in it's own image.
Evolution is a fact.
How did evolution begin?
Get yourself a bunch of fruit flies, irradiate them, and watch for several generations. Proof given.
Or ask any doctor why the flu vaccine has to change every years. Or why penicillin is no longer effective for many diseases it used to be. Proof given.
Or talk to a dog breeder about where different breeds came from, and how to breed specific characteristics into a dog. Proof given.
Fruitflies remain fruitflies. Dogs remain dogs. 40,000 generations of ecoli remain ecoli.
And all have changed. The definition of evolution: species change into something they were not. If you insist that a species change into a different species, consider that the term is a man-defined quality. You can define a species to be anything you want.
Minor adaptation is not evolution. You fail again.
Hmm. You evidently need to study up your biology some. I suggest reading "Origins of Species" - while it is rather old, it does have something to do with the topic.
Will On the Origin of Species explain to me the Modern Synthesis, or natural genetic engineering?
Maybe you are the one who's out of date, if you think the Origin is relevant today.
And maybe not. I repeat; if you wish to discuss whether evolution happens or not you need to educate yourself on what the word means, and how and when it happens. "Origin of Species" will make a great primer to start that education.
lovetherain - obviously you have access to the internet. Go find a credible website on evolution and read about it. You might just learn something and curb your impulse to ask stupid questions.
Another no-brained Darwinian who can't take the time to actually figure out that Darwinian evolution has zero evidence to support it. You are another boring parrot.
I get where you are coming from. Evolution is a fact that doesn't answer a whole lot of questions. Birds, who are separated from any other bird in their species at birth, will still know where to fly for the winter grounds. Exactly where to fly. Our understanding is no where near explaining that. Praying mantis which change color to appear to be a flower, in order to attract prey. How? How did that process begin? And the fruit fly comment seems short sighted. From everything I've read it appears that mutations do not tend to create changes species wide. They are simply mutations which are not passed down through the generations. Natural selection within a species does cause some traits, which are advantageous to survival, to become more prevalent throughout the population but it does not change the species.
We have a limited amount of information to go on, if you think about the time life has been on this planet. It's a good working theory and, for the most part, all of the data collected thus far supports it. But, I do chuckle at times. I can imagine a bunch of prehistoric birds sitting around grumbling about how cold it is. Some bird flies in and suggests a place south of there, they go, have a great winter and collectively agree to infuse the flying directions into their DNA so other generations can take advantage. The depth of complexity of life is mind boggling.
"From everything I've read it appears that mutations do not tend to create changes species wide."
You are correct: a mutation changes exactly one individual.
"They are simply mutations which are not passed down through the generations."
And yet they DO get passed down. It's how reproduction works: change the DNA of an organism and that change may show up in subsequent generations. Or it may not, all depending on if reproduction happens and if that particular change is passed down to the child or not. Of course, if it is non-sexual reproduction it WILL be passed to all subsequent generations.
" Natural selection within a species does cause some traits, which are advantageous to survival, to become more prevalent throughout the population but it does not change the species."
And you answer your own comment that mutations don't get passed down by saying that they may become more prevalent throughout the species. Simple arithmetic dictates that "more prevalent" can become "most prevalent" through natural selection, which would mean that the species has indeed changed.
No, they don't. Not by your example. Irradiating fruit flies has not, to my knowledge (and I admit I don't know everything) resulted in permanent changes in a specific test group that is passed down consistently from generation to generation. DNA does appear to have a mechanism within itself that corrects mutations; at times. I'd be open to reading a study where irradiation permanently changed a species.
And, you didn't understand what I was saying with that. I'm sure that is my fault for being unclear. If a species of bird, which has varying beak lengths within the species, lives in an area where it is advantageous to survival to have a shorter beak then natural selection would ensure that particular trait was more prevalent. It doesn't negate the longer beak variety. It doesn't cause it to go extinct. The shorter beak just becomes more prevalent. It doesn't create a new species of bird or a new species of anything. It just makes more short beaked birds of that species in that area.
Then you have not looked far enough. That a mutation us usually detrimental, and doesn't last more than a generation or three, does not mean that the advantageous ones will not become part of the species as a whole.
Similar to the birds, I watched a nature show a while back on iguanas. Seems there is an island where normal food is scarce and they have adapted to eating from the sea, by diving and scraping lichen and stuff from the rocks with hardened jaws. Their mouths have adapted, their bodies have adapted to temperature extremes, even their gut has changed to accommodate a different diet. An "normal" iguana from a nearby island will starve there and never reproduce, while this group of "modified" animals prospers. At the same time, put one of these on the other island, and IT will starve: it can no longer eat the same food, let alone digest and make use of it.
The question becomes are they now the same species? Different diet, different bodies, unable to reproduce together - are they still the same species? If they are still the same, what about when they develop more advanced flippers on the feet? Still the same? When do we define them as different?
How do you define species? From the ancestry, regardless of current attributes? From the ability to reproduce together (what about a horse and donkey)?
Hard to say on the species question. But, a horse and a donkey don't reproduce anything that can then reproduce so I would say that is a smoking gun. As to the iguana you say one would starve and not reproduce. That doesn't mean it couldn't reproduce. If it found an indigenous iguana which chose to mate with it, would that result in babies? If so would those babies, if they survived to adulthood, be able to do it also? That would answer that question.
And, yes it would make sense that desirable mutations would have a better chance to remain in the mix than undesirable ones. But, I'd need to see a study that showed irradiated flies which resulted in desirable mutations stayed permanently in the population throughout generations.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing the grander scheme but throwing out examples that don't answer the questions people have only muddies the waters.
lovetherain is like playing chess with a pigeon - he shits on the board and struts around thinking he won. He's tackling a subject that he knows nothing about and can't comprehend. I found a link that's more of his aptitude - www.disney.com
Don't waste your time debating with lovetherain. It's like playing chess with a pigeon - he craps on the board and then struts around like he won. Evolution is not that hard, even elementary kids get it (at least most do and maybe they'll have better luck explaining it to him since he's clueless on the subject). I found a link that he might comprehend - www.disney.com
In my view everything is theory until substantiated by fact through proof with evidence. Usually at sometime a decision is made or acceptance occurs as belief with its developed system(s). There is inference suggesting contrast with views with the OP. The three most discussed within academics and possibly at question are:
The Creation View
The Theistic Evolution View
Further inference suggests those likened analogously with belief and belief systems:
However, as with any belief and belief systems there is choice. That said, I am wishy - washy with it by nature being a skeptic questioning each. Alas, one may say beware the fate of Socrates.
Ya know..., I used to consider evolution a fact. But recently I have found it difficult to believe apes started giving birth to humans.
These days I consider both evolution and creationism as theories, both of which still need a lot of work. And both of which might be correct; we just haven't figured out how they intersect yet.
Here's a theory...
When the universe was created, so was intelligence; probably in the form of energy constructs. These energy constructs have been busily creating physical constructs for their amusement ever since.
by Terrex 5 years ago
Are there holes in theory of evolution?Creationism is regarded by sceptics as a fanciful theory which does not stand up to scrutiny.The alternatives they offer seem credible on the surface, but are there problems with them, too?
by janesix 5 years ago
I have some questions about evolution.1. Random Mutation. Is it really random?"To determine how the bacteria had gained their tails, Dr. Xavier and his colleagues sequenced the DNA of 24 lines of hyperswarmers. In 24 out of 24 cases, they discovered that they have gained a mutation in the same...
by Mark Knowles 8 years ago
Some one just accused me of making a personal attack on them because I said they are ignorant of certain facts. Any one who has interacted with me here will know I try not to make personal attacks, other than to make fun of people, and these threads are littered with snipped personal attacks on me...
by CJ Simonelli 7 years ago
Change - mutations, adaption, survival of the fittest, variations based on the environment, and perhaps even some speciation, as in a new "species" of flies - are undisputed facts that do NOT contradict the Word of God and do NOT reveal evolution theory's premise, but rather reveal an...
by thetruthhurts2009 11 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by Captain Redbeard 9 years ago
Is there room for evolution and Christian belief? Where Christians can't deny the age of the planet, Evolutionist can't prove the jumps they believe in. As far as I know there is no mixed belief system out there but there seems to be people with this mixed belief. Thoughts?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|