A Better Argument , I hope, about Evolution

1. 63

   Eng.Mposted 15 years ago

   with no assumptions made
   
   could anyone write links to some experiments and results those agreed to be prooving natural selection mechanisms
   
   I believe we went through this before but with no satsifactory experimental proofs for me at least
   
   the only thing evolutionist insist on is because some creatures may change their response to their environment it means they are able to change into different species in billions of years
   
   we wont talk about the probabilities , just about recent results and assocciated scientific analysis
   
   thanx

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Will Apseposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. Just google 'evidence for evolution.'
      
      I can say as someone who has worked as biologist that biology makes no sense without this theory.
      
      I can also say as a human being that if the theory violates profound personal beliefs, it is no bad thing to forget that it exists.
      
      I have to add that many of the scientists who produced the evidence for the theory of evolution were Christians. For them it was a duty to truth and to God report honestly what they found.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Eng.Mposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         good idea 
         
         thanx

         replyreport
   2. 90

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Give up on proofs. Learn a little bit about scientific method and you'll find it's based on disproof, or refutation, of untenable theories. That which hasn't been falsified _might_ be true. That which is unfalsifiable (religion) is a mere cop-out.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, no, this is not the current theory of evolution. This was Lamarck's Theory of Evolution, and has been thoroughly falsified.
      
      Changes by an individual in response to its environment (eg tanning in the sun, losing an arm in an accident) are not passed on to the next generation.
      
      The one exception is genetic damage caused by radiation, if it occurs in cells in the reproductive organs, and the damage doesn't make the resulting offspring unviable. As you can imagine, rare in the extreme.
      
      By far the major portion of evolution takes place via natural selection, aka "survival of the fittest".
      
      Summed up simply, it proposes that the creatures most suited to any particular environment will have more offspring than those less suited to the particular environment. Therefore, over time, if the environment doesn't change at all, one species will become perfectly suited to each particular niche.
      
      Of course, when there is a sudden large change to the environment (for example, a meteor strikes earth and causes decades of cooler temperatures a lower growth rates of vegetation) then a number of those niches cease to exist, and the perfectly suitable animals adapted to those missing niches are suddenly unable to survive, and you get mass extinctions.
      
      All part of the plan ...
      
      Jenny

      replyreport
      1. 62

         nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         A plan implies forethought, which implies intelligence.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Astounding, mind blowing intelligence in this case.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Incredible even.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
2. 59

   FreshtoDeathposted 15 years ago

   As I've mentioned previously, evolution is also unfalsifiable. Unless you can give me a potential experiment that might falsify it. For the life of me I can't come up with one.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Technically you're right, at least regarding Darwinian Evolution. Darwin's theory was more along the lines of 'this appears to have happened' than 'here's an explanation'. The fact remains that there is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and a great many newer theories offering explanation beyond Darwin, who had no knowledge of the role of micro-organisms and in particular of cross-species viral transmission. There are experiments that could (but don't) falsify evolution in certain closed systems, e.g. populations of fruit flies, but the biosphere taken as a whole is too large and complex for any single experiment to apply. Evolution is a proto-science (in Popperian terms) and one which is still 'evolving'.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It is falsifiable because information does not accumulate in such a way as required by the evolutionists to 'prove' self-assembling mechanisms.

      replyreport
3. 0

   sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

   There is solid, irrefutable evidence that devolution happens.  Prove it?  Okay, extinct species is a pretty good proof that devolution happens. :)Evolution is the process of Devolution.
   
   Don't let the "loss of genetic traits" mislead your understanding of evolution. In another 5000 years or so when people have loss their legs from not needing them because we got cars or something... maybe then they would say... uh oh evolution really didn't make me better or more advanced, it made you weaker and more fragile and even more susceptible to the environment which we helped "pollute" or "change", or however you like to think of it.
   
   
   
   Sure go ahead laugh tell me to go back to school, say you have no understanding of the scientific method or understanding of the evolutionary process... 
   
   Then I can say, well at least I based my thoughts and "hypothesis" on something I can see rather then something that I presume to see through the outcome of which it (the supernatural mystery thing behind evolution)produced a remarkably mutated, sub species that is destine to become extinct.
   
   Lose anything lately?  More hair perhaps? LOL.

   replyreport
4. 61

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   Evolution can create a new trait, or get rid of existing ones. Getting rid of an existing trait can make a species more advanced as well.

   replyreport
5. 0

   pgrundyposted 15 years ago

   The only reason this is even a topic is because some Christian sects believe that the theory of evolution is somehow in opposition to their own theories about where people come from.
   
   What I don't understand is, if you don't believe evolution is a good theory, then why not just go about your business? Most of the Christians I personally know who don't believe in evolution go to their own schools and have their own communities anyway, which they're free to do. What gets under my skin is this attitude that somehow the rest of us are supposed to spend all of our time justifying ourselves, and that public schools should be changed to fit the minority religious view. That seems bullying to me and it makes the U.S. look backward to the rest of the world.
   
   As several others have said here in this thread, there's plenty of literature on evolution. Read it for yourself and if you don't believe it, then don't.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Yet again stereotyping has gotten in the way assuming that the theory of devolution simply must be because of religious differences etc...
      
      Forget about a world which encouraged questions and further understanding of our "natural" world.
      
      I suppose asking why a human and an ape cannot breed has to be an argument from the creationist perspective or against evolution entirely.
      
      According to evolution because humans and apes come from the same "common ancestor" and share a common gene structure we should also in theory be able to breed apes with humans but any attempt to do so remains unsuccessful.
      
      Why?  Because it defies the laws of nature.
      
      Or did you not know that the blood cell is the only know cell to not contain a nucleus which might not mean much to a lot of people but if you want to know that is important to know, then you would be asking more questions but I guess that is not important anymore because we got better things to do with science like um... protest for and against both sides as if it will ever get anywhere?
      
      It certainly does seem to halt any new thought... oh wait to some this is just reverting back to the days of the old right?
      
      So while assumptions are being applied on my behalf, you can be assured that it is not this God believing individual that consistently brings up God when making points about evolution or devolution but it is in fact our resident atheist or anti religionist who consequently bring it up because for certain there is something about arguing with the unseen process that inspires some to bring up how against the unseen they really truly are all the while arguing for something you cannot see as well.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Colebabieposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         There are other known cells not to contain nuclei. The RBC is just the most common (and possibly the most important) cell that lacks a nucleus.

         replyreport
   2. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well, to be fair - this thread was started by a muslimist, not a christianist.
      
      @ Sandra - demonstrating an ignorance of the evolutionary process does not really count as any sort of argument. The simple fact is that we have diverged enough to be unable to produce viable offspring. I suppose, if it was tried often enough, you might get a viable offspring, but I am not so sure.
      
      Of course, one of our evolutionary imperatives is to mate with the best likelihood of producing healthy, successful children, and perpetuating our own genes so maybe it hasn't been tried often enough?
      
      Whether you like it or not, all living things share the same basic DNA, but the combination is important. Small differences in genotype can translate into big differences in phenotype, making interbreeding impossible.  This is a good Q&A session with Richard Dawkins. Perhaps it can help in your quest for knowledge.
      
      http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml
      
      Sorry your beliefs have been destroyed by scientific evidence. I am sure you will be forgiven.

      replyreport
6. 61

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   Sandra I'm not quite sure what your argument is. Is it just that evolution is the process of losing traits to make a species more susceptible to it's environment?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Actually for both. Evolution occurs as well as devolution.
      Some people feel rather strongly about it the result is often just left with personal attacks on a personal character based on what they have already made up their minds about.
      
      I was a believer in Evolution and while I still do believe it occurs, other things also occurs. One loss one gain.  How this is a "stupid" argument is something that I can only assume is coming from extreme right or lefts sides.  If it wasn't for that, all I have stated was a fact.
      
      Yes the process does make us more suspectable to our environment. Even from just a human perspective, we create a complex society to deal with what has been a natural recurrence of our world.. natural disaster, weather elements etc... It seems to me that we are losing the natural ability to survive in our world and fabricate new ways to shelter us from what we have already survived since the dawn of life.
      
      However "irrational" it sounds, because we fabricate new ways to protect us from nature, we further lose the ability to "naturally" adapt to change without the need for artificial shelters or reliance on technology.  It seems advanced yet it is not really. And I can certainly understand why this upset people but I wont get into that.
      
      We may adapt to the changes very well yet what is "actually" going on now is the strongest is dying off and leaving a less fit product to remain as the strongest but since we know it was not the strongest before but is now, how does this work out to be the fittest?  Evidentally the weakest will be left to survive...
      
      Hence the more complex something become the more fragile it becomes meaning what will remain is the weakest, nothing further can happen leaving it ultimately the "strongest".

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Is "irrational," the same as "meaningless rambling?"

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Sure Mark.  I know a lot of thing mean nothing to you even further understanding evolution.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Understanding evolution?
               
               OK
               
               
               I mean, I don't even know what "suspectable to our environment," means

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I pretty much figured you don't understand some of the simplest things.  You may want to look it up in the dictionary.  May I suggest the English Oxford Dictionary. LOL.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah. Sorry - I cannot find the word "suspectable," Probably why I have no idea what you are talking about. Might be better to stick with words that actually mean something in future? In order to communicate better? I don't know - just an idea.......

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        moposanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh sorry, susceptible.  Thank you for correcting my spelling mistake.   Now go look it up.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           Influenced by our environment? Yes, of course we are. That is how evolution works. We adapt to our environment. I agree. Glad we agree on something. No grand plan, we just adapt to environmental changes and there was no magical super being involved.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes on on the other side of that coin holds that we also lose the ability to change.  Being more susceptible to our environment is a function of evolutionary process yet the outcome is pretty simple, devolution, extinction etc. 
                              
                              How do I know this?  Because thing become extinct. When a species becomes extinct, it undoubtedly lost it's ability to adapt.
                              
                              And who but you said anything about a magical super being?  But since you brought it up again I get the feeling you would like someone or me to address it, so I will.
                              
                              Would you like to give me proof of life arriving from non life?  You can't, so life must have always been. But how dare me suggest that life arrived from the same "living" thing that all life arrived from. LOL
                              
                              I mean you want me to believe that life just sprung out of nowhere by some great and mysterious "?", you also expect me to believe that this "?" was able to "?" a variety of life, and you also expect me to believe that while this variety of life just came out of nowhere (which is not only illogical it is impossible) in a plethora of organisms all stemming from one origin which in the form of a "non" life origin, then your belief is just as illogical as you believe mine is.

                              replyreport
      2. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Sandra, , You and Fresh are starting to remind me of myself and another philosophy guy/conservative person who used to fight all over the forums.  lol.  Careful, people will begin to talk. Haha, you should know!
         
         This 'Devolution' thing actually sounds interesting, and reminds me of a science fiction story I once read by some master of the genre (if anyone remembers this? Was it Powell?), where an evolution machine was created.  The creator--a mad scientist, of course--puts himself under the powerful rays and keeps advancing and advancing--ironically, the first mutation is a weak human with thin legs and arms, with a big head (resulting from the influence of technology--interesting, huh?), then a tall, gorgeous super-human, then stranger and stranger beings--one of all tentacles and light which was able to communicate with its mind alone.  And it keeps going (fast, fast forward here, like all science fiction stories do), and the end result is a blob of protoplasm.  The mad scientist has 'Devolved.'  Completely, into a blobby oozing thing from the primordial sea (ooo, do some here know about the primordial protein sea theory of life beginning on earth?).  And then we are left wondering, what could this possibly mean?  Hmmm?  Can we tie living matter to current physics theories somehow and to infinity?
         
         Anyway, the argumentative fallacy on this page concerning 'devolution' is just one of semantics.  I second the idea that this created word is just another description of what most would take as 'evolution,' which can include (as far as my understanding) lateral branches, dead ends, and species extinctions. 
         
         Another thing that no one has noted is that human beings are highly susceptible, with our highly developed brains, to the influence of CULTURE, which we created, and which has been responsible...and will be responsible...for most of the advances and tragedies of our world (ie, technology, hygiene, religion, wars and obesity).  I have read, evolutionarily speaking, homo sapiens has been on a plateau now for some time (not saying mutations are not occurring all the time).
         
         Another underlying assumption/fallacy to all this back and forth is, of course, the Christianist vs. Atheist (or whatever) 'debate.' Which is NOT a debate for some, as the the belief in God and the belief in the theory of evolution has never been mutually exclusive in the history of the planet, .  One can read about it.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            LOL!  I wonder what happened to that guy? You must have dug your nails in too deep with him that he ran with his tail between his legs.   That was very entertaining while it lasted.
            
            Semantics... Oh semantics, my favorite semantic.
            
            Evolution is a catalyst.

            replyreport
7. 59

   FreshtoDeathposted 15 years ago

   Sandra, what you're observing around you sounds perfectly accurate. Some people are definitely becoming reliant on technology. But we are adapting and growing more tech savvy with every generation. We're adapting to fit our environment, not the natural world. The natural world isn't a threat anymore. I don't worry that a lion might be stalking me when I go for a walk at night. Devolution doesn't exist. It's just evolution with a 'D' in front of it for no reason.
   
   To literally 'devolve' we would have to slowly start mutating back into our ancestors. Of course you're using devolve here to mean something else. You're saying that we are becoming inferior species. But that fits within the definition of evolution. The word evolution doesn't imply that we change for the better, we just change to fit our environment better. If our environment doesn't require us to walk then eventually we wont have legs. If you think that's devolution, then grab a dictionary and see which word actually exists in scientific vernacular.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly Fresh!  We are not adapting to our natural environment, we adapting to unnatural processes that needs us to sustain it.
      
      Plus you basing your assumptions on assuming that our common ancestor was a " fill in the blank ", or that we evolved from Apes and before that a monkey and before that a lemer and before that???
      
      Yet without knowing exactly what our common ancestor actually was, you are saying that it is not possible that we are reverting back to what we once were.  Which I am not even saying that we are reverting back to what we once were.
      
      But I am saying that we do lose something in the process of evolution and continue to do so.  So when we become a species dependent on technology what happens when technology fails?
      
      I know technology fails all the time.

      replyreport
8. 56

   moposanposted 15 years ago

   suspectable might be an old and rarely used synonym of suspicious

   replyreport
9. 61

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   Sandra I think you are relating evolution to human concepts, rather than natural concepts of animals, plants, and other species. I guess you could use the term "evolve" like humans will eventually evolve to not know what once basic things are because there will be no need. However, this is not the biological use of the word evolution. Often biologically, evolution helps a species.

   replyreport
10. 59

    FreshtoDeathposted 15 years ago

    Nicomp, I'm trying my best to understand what you're actually saying. You'll have to forgive me though because my background with biology is limited. If you could elaborate on the concept that you claim can falsify evolution then I would be very appreciative.
    
    But from my undeveloped knowledge of your argument, I would counter by saying that simply because we can't prove something does not mean it is falsifiable.
    
    There is a logical difference between:
    
    1. not being able to prove something true.
    and
    2. proving something false.
    
    They are not the same.
    
    
    
    Well what are we considering natural here? At this point our entire world and global habitat have been influenced by our developments and pollutions. I would argue that there is no longer a 'natural' world at all. So rather than adapt to a world we aren't living in, we adapt to the environment around us.
    
    
    
    The idea of devolving implies that we have something to go back to. Your not even arguing against evolution, you're just arguing that we're evolving negatively. And that's fine. I can live with that. Let's just stop calling it devolution because that ISN'T what you're talking about. As far as my assumptions go, I find it easier to assume things that are generally supported by evidence rather than by faith.
    
    
    
    It's addition by subtraction! Once we stop using our legs then they will just be useless calorie suckers that eat up our energy without giving anything back. Eventually we won't have them because they were harmful rather than positive. Obviously, given our perspectives, we wouldn't view legs as a negative thing ever. But if they're uselessly wasting space and energy then they would be considered a handicap.
    
    I don't think we'll ever become fully dependent on technology. Too many of us love the outdoors. We love to be active. We live healthier, longer lives than our sedentary, addicted-to-the-internet companions. That's more time to breed. That means more kids who will be influenced by us (and possibly predisposed by the genes they acquire) to enjoy the outdoors and active lifestyles. Evolution just makes sense.
    
    Anyway, I'm not worried about technology failing on some global level and ruining the world, that's for fiction books.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       fairly stated but I can't take back the word but maybe you would be satisfied with it if yet another definition of a word was added, just like most words also have more than one meaning or definition.
       
       I could totally submit it to wiki or something if that would make you happy. And of course any other word I would have chosen would get the same reaction so it's not really about the word is it?

       replyreport
11. 59

    FreshtoDeathposted 15 years ago

    Well, humankind may have created a false dichotomy with this question. It seems that either matter (calling it life is awkward and too specific) came from nothing, or always existed in one form or another. But if we accept that these are the only two options, then the existence of a "God" requires an extra assumption. Hence, per Occam's Razor, it is more reasonable to believe that the Universe has always existed than to believe that God has always existed and then created the Universe.
    
    But that's beside the point.
    
    And no, Sandra, words have different meanings when it comes about colloquially. Just because you're applying an arbitrary definition to a word that already has a definition, doesn't mean you can submit it and make it fact.
    
    The point I was making is that you can try to call this process whatever you want, but at the end of the day you're describing EVOLUTION. Not devolution, not unevolution, not backvolution, not regressive-evolution. Nope. You're describing evolution.
    
    And you can't use extinction as a means of proving...well anything.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Sure I can! LOL I am describing Rinck's theory of Devolution.
       Just the same as the word "sh*t" as a fact means a few things. All I have to do is use it enough for it to become common and it becomes a fact. LOL.
       
       Course you might not see the humor or "actuality" of what I just did but, that is the way it works.

       replyreport
12. 71

    Inspirepubposted 15 years ago

    Mark, did you ever find that irony smilie? Clearly, in some cases, for some readers, it is still required.
    
    Jenny

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I gave up using it, because it went largely un-noticed anyway.

       replyreport