Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

JacksBratt · Mar 15, 2015

The following was posted by Ophiolite:

Originally Posted by thepromiseofgrace

Odd, most people think the fossil records are woefully inadequate, .

Most people have not studied the subject and are woefully ignorant of how much has been discovered. Now that I have alerted to you the fact that you are one of these will you be taking the opportunity to properly inform yourself?

Originally Posted by thepromiseofgrace

again why the need for punctuated equilibrium if the fossil record is so intact?

It is the wealth of data available from the fossil record that led Eldridge and Gould to propose punctuated equilibrium, a concept that is not universally accepted as a viable secondary modification of basic evolutionary theory.

I would just like to say that in all my reading, I have found that very few consider the fossli record to be what it was exepcted to be. It is greatly lacking. Darwin would be very dissapointed in the data that has been unearthed.

I would also like to say that if you line up a nice row of different skulls that seem to show that the first morphed into the last, that's fine. However, it is not a fact, it is an oppinion. You cannot even say that the skull belonged to a being that even had children or if it did, if they lived for a week a month or a year. You know nothing. Just that that particular being existed once.

Another person could line up a bunch of different dog skulls, all from different breeds and make it look like one changed into the other over time. Which, would be false....

Yes there are fossils. They belonged to animals and beings that once existed. That's all we know, no more, no less. That would all be extrapolation, speculation and interpretation. Just because you have a majority of people that say the same thing, does not make it fact.

Gracchus · Mar 15, 2015

thepromiseofgrace said:
did you say how life began or did I miss that bit?

I did not say. What I said was that we don't know and may never know.

science is only truth until more information comes so is that truth at all?

Science is not truth, science is a method for determining what may be true. In order for science to work it must always re-examine in the light of new evidence. Science is at the boundary between what we know and what we don't know. Thus, those who claim to know everything have no science, and no understanding of science.

common ancestry, where we just like apes at one time?

We are still apes. We are just like what we are. We still, when stressed, have a tendency to manifest the ancestral ape behavior, although that may be somewhat modified. On this forum I have noticed a tendency among some to fling poo when angry or frightened.

what mutation do you think caused male and females to be created?

I have no opinion, because I don't have enough information to form an opinion. I am not afraid to go through life without opinions in many subject areas. Nor am I humiliated by admitting my own ignorance.

Astrophile · Mar 15, 2015

JacksBratt said:
I would also like to say that if you line up a nice row of different skulls that seem to show that the first morphed into the last, that's fine. However, it is not a fact, it is an opinion. You cannot even say that the skull belonged to a being that even had children or if it did, if they lived for a week a month or a year. You know nothing.

However, you do know that the skull belonged to a being that had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc..

whois · Mar 15, 2015

why do people "believe" in evolution?
good question.

here are the assumptions of the modern synthesis, (neo-darwinism):
take a look, see what you thought you knew:
1. Heredity occurs through the transmission of germ-line genes. Genes are discrete units that consist of DNA and are located on chromosomes.
2. Hereditary variation is equated with variation in DNA base sequence. Cases in which acquired variations appear to be inherited can all be explained in terms of variations in DNA.
3. Hereditary variation is the consequence of (i) the many random combinations of pre-existing alleles that are generated by the sexual processes; and (ii) new variations (mutations) that are the result of accidental changes in DNA. Hereditary variation is not affected by the developmental history of the individual. There is no "soft inheritance" (in which heritable variations are the result of environmental effects, use and disuse, and other factors).
4. Selection occurs among individuals that are, at all times, well-defined entities. The target of selection is almost always the individual, which may co-evolve with its symbionts and parasites. Although some role for group selection has been acknowledged, this form of selection is assumed to be of marginal significance in evolution. The community is rarely considered as a target of selection.
5. Heritable variations have small effects, and evolution is typically gradual. Through the selection of individuals with phenotypes that make them slightly more adapted to their environment than other individuals are, some alleles become more numerous in the population. Mutation pressure is not an important factor in evolution. With a few exceptions, macroevolution is continuous with microevolution, and does not require any extra molecular mechanisms beyond those operating during microevolution.
6. Evolution occurs through modifications from a common ancestor, and is based on vertical descent. Horizontal gene transfer has minor significance - it does not alter the basic branching structure of phylogenetic divergence. The main pattern of evolutionary divergence is therefore tree-like, not web-like.

Genetics and Molecular Biology - Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis

note especially number 5.
it's assumed diversity is the result of small accumulating changes.
it seems to me this would be a fact if we had the transitional fossils that prove it.
it's also apparent that this can't be proved through genetic analysis.

thepromiseofgrace · Mar 15, 2015

Gracchus said:
I did not say. What I said was that we don't know and may never know.
Science is not truth, science is a method for determining what may be true. In order for science to work it must always re-examine in the light of new evidence. Science is at the boundary between what we know and what we don't know. Thus, those who claim to know everything have no science, and no understanding of science.
We are still apes. We are just like what we are. We still, when stressed, have a tendency to manifest the ancestral ape behavior, although that may be somewhat modified. On this forum I have noticed a tendency among some to fling poo when angry or frightened.
I have no opinion, because I don't have enough information to form an opinion. I am not afraid to go through life without opinions in many subject areas. Nor am I humiliated by admitting my own ignorance.

lack of knowledge should never be humiliating it is a noble quest to seek knowledge.

the origins of life are why evolution falls as is the need for opposite sexes, while evolution in a certain sense holds some water it seems to fail to answer a great deal of issues.

are you saying we were once apes and we became something else?

TLK Valentine · Mar 15, 2015

thepromiseofgrace said:
lack of knowledge should never be humiliating it is a noble quest to seek knowledge.

You'd be surprised how many people feel otherwise -- some people value the security of knowing above all else... even truth.

the origins of life are why evolution falls as is the need for opposite sexes, while evolution in a certain sense holds some water it seems to fail to answer a great deal of issues.

And if those questions could be answered, or were in the process of being investigated, what would you say to that?

are you saying we were once apes and we became something else?

Nope, we're still apes. A little more intelligent and a lot less hairy than most...

Hetta · Mar 15, 2015

Blind post: becomes it makes sense.

Ophiolite · Mar 15, 2015

JacksBratt said:
I would just like to say that in all my reading, I have found that very few consider the fossli record to be what it was exepcted to be.

You need to get access to a new library. Just because you are currently ignorant of the true state of the fossil record does not mean you need remain so. However, I'll play your game for a while.

Please provide citations from five sources by practicing palaeontolgists who declare that the fossil record is not "what it was expected to be".

Alternatively withdraw your assertion.

whois · Mar 15, 2015

Ophiolite said:
You need to get access to a new library. Just because you are currently ignorant of the true state of the fossil record does not mean you need remain so. However, I'll play your game for a while.

Please provide citations from five sources by practicing palaeontolgists who declare that the fossil record is not "what it was expected to be".

Alternatively withdraw your assertion.

did you miss my post on the assumptions of the modern synthesis?
did you miss my post where denis noble says all of those assumptions have been disproved?

these are not creationist sources.

Gracchus · Mar 15, 2015

thepromiseofgrace said:
lack of knowledge should never be humiliating it is a noble quest to seek knowledge.

And yet people who don't know will often make something up.

the origins of life are why evolution falls as is the need for opposite sexes, while evolution in a certain sense holds some water it seems to fail to answer a great deal of issues.

Evolutionary theory does not even try to answer all questions. For instance, it has nothing to do with cosmology. Admittedly, and probably necessarily, some things about biology are not known. The theory does explain some of the things we do know in a way that fits the facts and makes sense to the kind of minds that can make sense of things. Some minds can. Not everyone is religious.

are you saying we were once apes and we became something else?

Awww ... and you were doing so well! Go back and read what I posted again. Or read the following (Get your mommy or some smart person, if you know any, to help with the big words.):

Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia and distinguished by a wide degree of freedom at the shoulder joint indicating the influence of brachiation. There are two main branches: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes.
Lesser apes (Hylobatidae) include four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon, and the siamang, all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.
The Hominidae include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans. Alternatively, the family is collectively described as the great apes. There are two extant species in the orangutan genus (Pongo), two species in the gorilla genus, and a single extant species Homo sapiens in the human genus (Homo). Chimpanzees and bonobos are closely related to each other and they represent the two species in the genus Pan.

--- Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We didn't become something else. We are apes.

Queller · Mar 15, 2015

justlookinla said:
Look at these two statements...

"We are talking about actual hard science."

"Science doesn't deal in truth or certainty"
Actual hard science doesn't deal in truth or certainty? Of course it doesn't, 'hard science' cannot be relied upon for on the road of 'hard science' you'll find it littered with error after error after error.

What error of science do you embrace today at the cost of truth?

Be honest, you didn't bother to read anything other than those first two lines, did you?

Queller · Mar 15, 2015

justlookinla said:
Darwinism....

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
What's the difference between Darwinism and the theory of evolution?

The definition you give here is not a philosophy.

Queller · Mar 15, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Pretty good post, only it seems to downplay the fact that some things are known very very well in science. Stuff like water is a molecule composed of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. Stuff like e=mc^2.

While I understand what you are saying here and even agree with you, do you not believe that if some good repeatable, verifiable evidence came along that modified or contradicted e=mc[sup]2[/sup] that science would not eventually change to accommodate the new evidence?

JacksBratt · Mar 15, 2015

Astrophile said:
However, you do know that the skull belonged to a being that had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc..

Of course.

You just cannot say that it's great, great, great, great,.......... great grandparent was a starfish or a lizard or an amoeba.

Queller · Mar 15, 2015

Gracchus said:
We are still apes. We are just like what we are. We still, when stressed, have a tendency to manifest the ancestral ape behavior, although that may be somewhat modified. On this forum I have noticed a tendency among some to fling poo when angry or frightened.

Now I need a squeegee to get the water off my screen.

sfs · Mar 15, 2015

whois said:
did you miss my post on the assumptions of the modern synthesis?

No, I didn't miss it. It was a little slanted, but basically accurate.

did you miss my post where denis noble says all of those assumptions have been disproved?

these are not creationist sources.

No, Noble is not a creationist. He fully accepts common descent, for example. He is, however, a bit of a crackpot on the subject of evolution -- something he is not an expert on. "Soft inheritance", in particular, has very little effect on evolution. Epigenetic inheritance does indeed occur, but it plays little or no role on time scales longer than a few generations.

In any case, even if the modern synthesis did have to be expanded to incorporate other processes -- so what?

JacksBratt · Mar 15, 2015

whois said:
why do people "believe" in evolution?
good question.

here are the assumptions of the modern synthesis, (neo-darwinism):
take a look, see what you thought you knew:
1. Heredity occurs through the transmission of germ-line genes. Genes are discrete units that consist of DNA and are located on chromosomes.
2. Hereditary variation is equated with variation in DNA base sequence. Cases in which acquired variations appear to be inherited can all be explained in terms of variations in DNA.
3. Hereditary variation is the consequence of (i) the many random combinations of pre-existing alleles that are generated by the sexual processes; and (ii) new variations (mutations) that are the result of accidental changes in DNA. Hereditary variation is not affected by the developmental history of the individual. There is no "soft inheritance" (in which heritable variations are the result of environmental effects, use and disuse, and other factors).
4. Selection occurs among individuals that are, at all times, well-defined entities. The target of selection is almost always the individual, which may co-evolve with its symbionts and parasites. Although some role for group selection has been acknowledged, this form of selection is assumed to be of marginal significance in evolution. The community is rarely considered as a target of selection.
5. Heritable variations have small effects, and evolution is typically gradual. Through the selection of individuals with phenotypes that make them slightly more adapted to their environment than other individuals are, some alleles become more numerous in the population. Mutation pressure is not an important factor in evolution. With a few exceptions, macroevolution is continuous with microevolution, and does not require any extra molecular mechanisms beyond those operating during microevolution.
6. Evolution occurs through modifications from a common ancestor, and is based on vertical descent. Horizontal gene transfer has minor significance - it does not alter the basic branching structure of phylogenetic divergence. The main pattern of evolutionary divergence is therefore tree-like, not web-like.

Genetics and Molecular Biology - Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis

note especially number 5.
it's assumed diversity is the result of small accumulating changes.
it seems to me this would be a fact if we had the transitional fossils that prove it.
it's also apparent that this can't be proved through genetic analysis.

Yes but a dog can change from a wolf to a coyote, to a boxer to a chihuahua or a great Dane. However it cannot change to a horse and then to a buffalo or whale. Dogs stay dogs, horses stay horses, and cats stay cats.

By the way, where did this DNA come from? Are you aware of the complexity and the amount of information it carries? Try 700 terabytes of genetic information.

Also, according to Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genome researcher, the genetic difference between a chimp and a human is about 1.6%. However, this gab of 1.6% converts to a gap of 48,000,000 nucleotides and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. Change is not that easy, in fact it is impossible.

whois · Mar 15, 2015

sfs said:
He is, however, a bit of a crackpot on the subject of evolution -- something he is not an expert on.

i love it when people resort to this type of nonsense.
did the thought ever occur to you that darwin never had any "evolution" classes?
shall we also call darwin a "crackpot" for those reasons?

can you pick out one of the above assumptions i posted and explain how it's slanted?
if you can't do that, then i must assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

whois · Mar 15, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Yes but a dog can change from a wolf to a coyote, to a boxer to a chihuahua or a great Dane. However it cannot change to a horse and then to a buffalo or whale. Dogs stay dogs, horses stay horses, and cats stay cats.

yes, i'm aware of all this.

By the way, where did this DNA come from?

good question, and it's a question that those that profess an RNA world must answer.

Are you aware of the complexity and the amount of information it carries?

yes.

Try 700 terabytes of genetic information.

can you post a source for this?
any source will do as long as it gives the math.

Also, according to Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genome researcher, the genetic difference between a chimp and a human is about 1.6%. However, this gab of 1.6% converts to a gap of 48,000,000 nucleotides and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

i'm not going to argue the point, but i do know the record is missing from the primate fossil tree.
there are zero primate transitional fossils.

Change is not that easy, in fact it is impossible.

that would seem to be the case, yes.
assumption 5 was an assumption made by darwin, and is still an assumption today.
transitional fossils has not made it a fact and neither has genetic correlations.
that my friend is the stark and naked truth.

ThinkForYourself · Mar 15, 2015

whois said:
... i do know the record is missing from the primate fossil tree. there are zero primate transitional fossils. ...

You would be wrong (All you had to do was google "skulls human evolution". You should try it next time! )

Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

Searching for Truth

Senior Veteran

Newbie

rational

Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

I'll find my way home

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

rational

Senior Veteran

I'm where?

I'm where?

I'm where?

Searching for Truth

I'm where?

Senior Member

Searching for Truth

rational

rational

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency