Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[mikeynov]

There is only one answer - The first man and the first woman had respective organs in place exactly how we have today and were able to procreate in the same manner. Unless you can explain that this occurred in some other way than divine creation of God, I dont think I am lacking any explanation. Your reluctance to explain from an evolution point of view tells me that you have no answer . This only re inforces the contention that evolution should not be called a theory because it lacks a basic consideration: " How did reproduction evolve to what we see today?"

You didn't address anything I said.

 

[A4C]

Is evolution a theory now

Not quite . I feel we may need back up on some of these assertions.

Two cells are released into the environmental mileu

Released By whom?
Where did they come from?
Did they have within them all the generic information that would be contained in every living being that was to originate from these "cells"?
Do we have a sample of what these cells looked like or is it quesswork that they ever existed?

At this point, there is no need for egg or sperm, just the mixture of two genomes.

At this point, it is advantageous to specialize the sex cells. So, we have the

When exactly were these two points ?
What motivated the change from one to the other?

So, we have the development of the egg and sperm.

Interesting how it just develops -just like that. Was there any way you know of that that would have happened?

The sperm is very active and moves through the environment in search of the egg.

Do these travelling sperm of yours go looking all over the world or is it just a local thing

blastogenesis

interesting
(Continuing after I do some checking here Will be back in a few hours )

Each organism has both male and female organs (testes and ovaries).

 

[USincognito]

Has the "Theory of evolution" got over the stumbling block of asexual to sexual reproduction. Surely when this obstacle was circumvented somehow only then could it justify the title "theory"

How does creationism handle parthenogenetic species like the whip tailed lizard? Did the male fall over the side of the ark, so God made the famles not need them any more?

 

[USincognito]

Please don't take this personally Loudmouth... but how does one fall out of faith? If you fell out of it, you never had it to begin with. The thing that you may have confussed is that God NEVER moves away from us.. we are the ones who move away from him. I would like to hear more about this if and when you have the time.

Tashena

This tangent you're going off on is more suited for discussion in General Apologetics. The debate here is between those who accept or advocate Creationism or Evolution. There are Christians who accept evolution, so the most useful discussion would be about the evidence, and not our individual beliefs.

 

[Ocram]

No, evolution is not simply a hypothesis.

It is an explanation of what has happened to life AFTER life arose from pre-biotic conditions on Earth.

This explanation has nearly a couple of centuries worth of evidence to support it.

=> ONLY "Evidence" for ... many HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of YEARS of "Life on Earth" ,

... is Merely LIMITED to a Small, (comparatively: TINY) Claim about just .."a couple of centuries" ?


>>> Do you realise what this Small, Tiny claim of so-called "evidence" does really represent, compared to "Life on Earth" ?

Almost NOTHING : a negligeable "Detail", compared to all the rest..

Astonishing..

+ What about your General "theory" on "Evolution", f.ex. in .. Dinosaurs ?

They lived at least as long, and even longer than Humans.

And "Fossils" (and much more) exist.

=> If "Evolution" of Man from Ape was True,

>>> then, how do you explain the fact that Nothing similar ever happened about "evolved" Dinosaurs (despite more Time at their disposal) ?


Was it simply because Mr. ... (anyone remember how was called this guy of 1.830 after JC ? Ah, yes, Mr. Darwin), had not yet received a sudden Command to publish his tendancious Plagiat, in a comfortable country-house, with plenty of leisure

so as to cover-up real stakes and divert far away from a "hot" question raised by another, honest scientist, killed by ill-treatments somewhere in Asia, and his name practically "erased" from Science's History ? But that's another story)...


=> "Scientific Theory" about General "Evolution" of "Life on Earth",

but based only on a fragile claim of a Tiny, small pseudo "Evidence" of ...less than 1/10.000.000th of its Time Duration ?

Are you Serious, or kidding ?

(Correct a few Zeros, up or down, If you wish, but there are obviously SO MANY of them, that People get inevitably puzzled : TOO MANY, to speak precisely)...

 

[USincognito]

Speaking of being puzzled... what are you on about?

 

[Vigil]

It cannot be a theory...
In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.

So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?

Technically.

Macro-Evolution is still in the fantasy stage.

Micro-Evolution (AKA:Adaptation) is a factual Theory.



God Bless

Vigil.

 

[USincognito]

Macro-Evolution is still in the fantasy stage.

Micro-Evolution (AKA:Adaptation) is a factual Theory.

Guess Again.

 

[Vigil]

Guess Again.

I'll respond to this after I have read the whole thing.
As it stands if this a "Million dollar story made out of 10 pennies" I'm going to be sevrely let down again.
Vigil.

 

[USincognito]

I'll respond to this after I have read the whole thing.
As it stands if this a "Million dollar story made out of 10 pennies" I'm going to be sevrely let down again.
Vigil.

I'll tell you what. Pick any one that you find particularly compelling or particularly uncompelling and we can discuss it here.

 

[gluadys]

I wonder in the "fruit fly" example if there was any change in the DNA of the species. This would seem to be the defining factor.

Yes there was. A 3% difference in coding DNA, as cited in post 8 of this thread.

 

[Vigil]

I'll tell you what. Pick any one that you find particularly compelling or particularly uncompelling and we can discuss it here.

Sounds Fair.
Thank you.
Vigil.

 

[Tashena]

This tangent you're going off on is more suited for discussion in General Apologetics. The debate here is between those who accept or advocate Creationism or Evolution. There are Christians who accept evolution, so the most useful discussion would be about the evidence, and not our individual beliefs.

Well I'd have to say that what I said earlier about "falling out of faith"... that's not a personal belief. More of a fact if you followed Christian principles. There is a difference trust me and I believe I've done well in keeping my beliefs about evoulution on a nutreal plain. And there is a difference in acknoweledging the theory of evolution or flat out ignoring it exists. I am not doing either... I would consider myself to be OBSERVING others' opinions.. however strongly I choose to disagree if and when I see something that YOU would say doesn't follow the critera of my faith... that's your opinion and your entitled just like everyone else.....

 

[Tomk80]

Well I'd have to say that what I said earlier about "falling out of faith"... that's not a personal belief. More of a fact if you followed Christian principles. There is a difference trust me and I believe I've done well in keeping my beliefs about evoulution on a nutreal plain. And there is a difference in acknoweledging the theory of evolution or flat out ignoring it exists. I am not doing either... I would consider myself to be OBSERVING others' opinions.. however strongly I choose to disagree if and when I see something that YOU would say doesn't follow the critera of my faith... that's your opinion and your entitled just like everyone else.....

Not to be too nitpicky or anything. But has anyone else noticed this posting style recently among creationists here? Like, no paragraphs, but finishing every sentence with three or more dots?... I can only wonder. Why you such a writing style? Which wrong with paragraphs and single dots?

 

[MarkT]

It all depends on your interpretation. The evidence really doesn't prove anything.

Speciation, for example, can be observed but it doesn't prove anything.

We can see fish are still fish and birds are still birds, even though new species are continually being created.

And it's not likely genetic mutations can lead to new characters on a preexisting organism. We seem to be pretty well defined by nature and the genetic sequence to be what we are. And that applies to all living things.

Let's say we have most of the genes for wings. That would be like saying we're 98% similar to birds, for example.

All we're missing, theoretically, is a few genes. But to make even one and make it fit, would affect a change in the entire sequence. We wouldn't be human anymore.

Wings require the right size body for some reason. Science doesn't explain why and evolution or random changes would not predict it.

So mutations that occur that fit would be hardly noticeable and the ones that don't fit would be life threatening.

But the idea that we are descended from a common ancestor is what the theory predicts. Logically it would be impossible given the limited nature of mutational changes that an organism can survive without dying.

And it hasn't been proven.

You could still have evolution and observe speciation but that wouldn't prove everything is related by descent to a common ancestor.

 

[Tomk80]

It all depends on your interpretation. The evidence really doesn't prove anything.

It doesn't prove anything. However, it does falsify creationism and support evolution.

Speciation, for example, can be observed but it doesn't prove anything.

Since speciation has been observed, the evolution of new species has been observed. Since species is the only meaningfull classification in biology, and creationists have not been able to show a boundary on speciation or a definition of kinds, it supports evolution and falsifies creationism.

We can see fish are still fish and birds are still birds, even though new species are continually being created.

This statement shows your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

And it's not likely genetic mutations can lead to new characters on a preexisting organism. We seem to be pretty well defined by nature and the genetic sequence to be what we are. And that applies to all living things.

characters like what. Like aids resistance, digestion of nylon, malaria resistance, plague resistance, diminished susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases? Sounds like new traits to me, and have all been shown in the scientific literature. Your above statement only shows your ignorance of the material.

Let's say we have most of the genes for wings. That would be like saying we're 98% similar to birds, for example.

Nope, bat's are not 98% similar to birds. Bats share wings with birds, but have different genes.

All we're missing, theoretically, is a few genes. But to make even one and make it fit, would affect a change in the entire sequence. We wouldn't be human anymore.

If they evolved now we'd still be human. Just would be a new species of human.

Wings require the right size body for some reason. Science doesn't explain why and evolution or random changes would not predict it.

Science explains why wings require the right size body. It's called aerodynamics.
Evolution and random changes explains how birds get the wings they have.

So mutations that occur that fit would be hardly noticeable and the ones that don't fit would be life threatening.

Most mutations will be hardly noticeable. However, they will give a benefit. The life threatening mutations will be weeded out of the gene pool and won't pose a problem for the population. They will be gone after the organism has died.

But the idea that we are descended from a common ancestor is what the theory predicts. Logically it would be impossible given the limited nature of mutational changes that an organism can survive without dying.

Nonsense. Get a grip of statistics and populations.

And it hasn't been proven.

Science doesn't do proof. Add 'the scientific method' to the things you have to read up on.

You could still have evolution and observe speciation but that wouldn't prove everything is related by descent to a common ancestor.

Nope. However, the twin nested hierarchy does. As do the found transitional species. As do genetic and morphological similarities. As does biogeography. If any of the above terms are unclear to you, read up on them. After you have done so, you can come back.

 

[MarkT]

Which genes are active? That's the determinant. Large parts of the sequence aren't active. They're in the garbage bin of the sequence.

I think it's the soul or life of the organism that activates the proper genes.

Why is it that even though there is a shuffling of genes, humans beget humans and not birds or something else ie. something that's part human and part bird or part horse?

 

[Tomk80]

Which genes are active? That's the determinant. Large parts of the sequence aren't active. They're in the garbage bin of the sequence.

Yes, but humans still do not have 'wing' genes. Seriously, they just don't have them. We don't have a lot of other genes to. But, if you want to keep up that we do have them, you might want to show me the research papers of the researchers that discovered them.

I think it's the soul or life of the organism that activates the proper genes.

Actually, no. We have a pretty good idea on what determines whether a particular gene is going to be active. It's not determined by the soul, not by 'life' (whatever you may mean by that). It's other genes and certain chemicals which do the trick. We do not know everything about how it works, but we have come a pretty long way in the last 30 years or so.

Why is it that even though there is a shuffling of genes, humans beget humans and not birds or something else ie. something that's part human and part bird or part horse?

Because we do not have the genes to become birds maybe? Seems a pretty obvious reason to me.

edit: Please answer me this truthfully. Have you ever studied genetics, and if you have, how much of it have you studied. Because from the above post I'd say know next to nothing about it.

 

[MarkT]

Tom

Like aids resistance, digestion of nylon, malaria resistance, plague resistance, diminished susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases? Sounds like new traits to me, and have all been shown in the scientific literature. Your above statement only shows your ignorance of the material.

Those things are not characters.

Nope. However, the twin nested hierarchy does. As do the found transitional species. As do genetic and morphological similarities. As does biogeography. If any of the above terms are unclear to you, read up on them. After you have done so, you can come back.

Nope. Ridiculous. The classification system allows you to create a nested hierarchy that's all. Nice story but it isn't true.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom



Those things are not characters.

Then pray tell me what are.

Nope. Ridiculous. The classification system allows you to create a nested hierarchy that's all. Nice story but it isn't true.

Nope. The nested hierarchy is the only possible classification system that makes sense. If evolution is true, this should be the case. Try classifying cars using cladistical analysis. You wont get a twin nested hierarchy. Try classifying cutlery using cladistical analysis. You won't get a twin nested hierarchy. However, when classifying life, you get a twin-nested hierarchy. This points to common ancestry.