Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dogs are still all the same species, so it's adaptation again BUT......
Its always adaptation. Whether the evolution takes place within the species or crosses species lines, it's always adaptation. But the adaptation is only half of the process of evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randy8876
To be fair, evolution was once taught as one creature evolving into another. If you read up on it now, adaptation has been incorporated into evolution and it even reaches into hybrid animals. So this debate isn't so easy, since evolution is so broadly defined.
The definition of evolution has actually never changed, and adaptation has always been part of the deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randy8876
But, the part people disagree on is that the adaptation results in radical changes and new species appearing. This is the part that is likely unprovable and where the "theory" portion comes into play. But if one day certain human's DNA becomes so different that they can only breed within their group we will have solid proof.
Actually... and ignoring that even creationists have been forced to admit that speciation occurs and has been observed to occur... DNA has already proven beyond any statistical possibility for refutation that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. I'd be happy to discuss the details if you're interested... or you could just spend some time on your own reading up on endogenous retroviruses.
Is that enough "radical change" for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randy8876
In the end evolution doesn't explain why things are living. If some day scientists are able to take elements (not bits of already living creatures)and mix them into a goo and see life appear it would be amazing. It would radically advance the theory of evolution.
That's not evolution. That's biogenesis. Two different things.
Evolutionist,
I am still waiting on the 1/2 man..1/2 monkey to walk out of the forest..
I spent a minute trying to find that clip from Futurama where Professor Farnsworth shows a dozen "in between" links from ape to man. Sorry I couldn't find it on YouTube, because it's pretty funny.
The important thing in any debate about evolution is to make sure we have our terminology correct. Far too often one side or the other uses evolution as shorthand for inaccurate statements.
Evolution is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits. Evolution happens. Scientists have observed this happening in the real world. Scientists can make it happen in laboratory experiments. Organisms change over time. People are taller today than they were in the past, apples are larger, animals adapt to their particular environment. All of these things have been actually observed over time.
Darwin's theory is that evolution occurs via natural selection; that those best adapted for their environment will pass those traits to their offspring. Over many generations, this leads to evolutionary changes, and perhaps speciation. Under this theory, you didn't evolve "from a gorilla." Under this theory, you and a gorilla have a relatively recent common ancestor.
2. There are actually other species on the planet besides Homo sapiens. Survival of the fittest continues to be the reigning circumstance for most of them. So yes, there is still a huge amount of "real evolution... going on around you."
I would agree to an extent that evolution does happen around the world, because many species are changing slightly by survival of the fittest. But that Evolution in humanity has basically stopped or generally reversed(because of social policies). As for evolution around the world, it is generally difficult to really prove where it is happening. Scientists have been studying fruit flies and diseases for decades, and they really havn't found anything that would point to any sort of real evolution. As in genetic mutations that generally increase the heartiness of a species, or tend to create a new species.
"bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago"
The creatures of the world today are basically stable. And no one seems to understand how the genome becomes larger, they can only find mutations of existing genes. If you compare Chimps to humans, Chimps have two more Chromosomes and actually have more information on their Chromosomes than do humans. Yet, they are our closest relatives.
Quote:
3. "Survival of weakest" is the dumbest phrase I have seen coined in a very long time. Unless you are arguing that fittest are preferentially being killed off, perhaps the best you could justify is "survival of everybody." But I guess that wouldn't serve your inappropriately political insertion into the discussion of science v. psuedoscience.
Umm, do you even understand why I say that? I advise you to read this article.
"According to data from Demographic and Health Surveys for nine Latin American countries, women with no education have large families of 6-7 children, whereas better educated women have family sizes of 2-3 children, analogous to those of women in the developed world."
Quote:
Moving a person from one place to another does not change the size of the population.
You are right in some regards, but by allowing a population to move from a fairly densely populated country(most other countries) to a less densely populated country(America), whereby they have generally twice the number of children as the native-inhabitants. You are overpopulating America, while at the same time allowing more room for population expansion in the former country. Eventually leading to a larger overall world population. Japan is a very good example of this. It has 130 million in an area the size of Montana. The population of Japan has effectively stopped growing because there is no more room. If half of the population of Japan came to America, then it would allow Japan's population to begin growing again. If you wanted to stop the growth of population, immigration to America does not help at all.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-08-2011 at 10:43 AM..
Considering the Bonobos and Chimps share 99% of their DNA with Humans, I'm at a loss to figure out what a ape with 50% ape DNA and 50% DNA would signify.
Evolution has been proven and for quite some time.
Far from proven, science can find not one single example of a species change due to genetic mutation. In fact, the majority of the evidence in existence now directly opposes evolution theory, as genetic mutation is well understood, scientifically, to be subtractive, not additive. Genetic mutation is a malfunction of DNA code reproduction, consequently, the basic evolution theory relies on an astronomically remote concept that one's hard drive on their computer could malfunction ... confusing ones with zeros, recording that corrupted data and resulting in more accurate, enhanced information, providing a program performance boost on a repeatable and consistent basis. It's such an absurd idea, modern scientists who support this asinine nonsense should be psychologically evaluated, and provided the help they desperately need ... which in reality, probably has more to do with a total absence of integrity, rather than absence of mental fitness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Nope, sorry, but ID cannot coexist with evolution, theist evolution as explained in Prof. Miller's piece that I sighted above can.
Do you included the evolutionary biologist and geneticist cited in the articles above as being "uninformed", how risible.
Evolution and intelligent design theories are political arguments, not evidence based arguments. And as both theories have been presented, they are equally ridiculous, self serving nonsense, most often devolving into the Religion versus anti-religion, God-No God battle.
Even though modern science has provided many advancements and wonders technologically, the majority of human biology has it's foundations in theories that were developed in the 17th through 19th centuries ... so it's really not modern science at all. It's pretty ancient ideas that are totally inconsistent with new discoveries.
In that regard, human sciences and biology is as dogmatic as is religious fundamentalism, corrupted to such a degree as to not even resemble real science. Research, 40 years old is still ignored, while biologists cling to old theories.
As far back as the 1960's, Dr. Bruce Lipton cloned stem cells ... placed these cloned cells in three different environment mediums, and each one produced different substances ... bone ... muscle ... and blood cells, which according to "modern biology" is IMPOSSIBLE. Obviously, this conflicts with the foundational principle that genes control cell production, based on genetic code due to the fact that being identical clones, these cells shared identical genetic code, yet produced different substances. Consequently, the very foundation of cell biology that forms the basis of all human biology still taught in schools and universities today is TOTALLY FALSE ... and has devastating implications to all of the sciences dealing with biology ... particularly "modern" medicine, which itself is based on 18th and 19th century ideas, but is also another nail in the coffin of Darwin's absurd nonsense.
So .... far from being fact based ... modern science, particularly in human biology is absolutely wrong on a fundamental level ... yet that doesn't stop the biological scientists from continuing to pretend that their old theories are still accurate, in spite of this new information that proves those theories totally wrong.
These scientists have careers to protect!!! They've been teaching, and working under certain faulty assumptions and perceptions for decades, and they aren't about to simply admit .... oops ... we were ALL WRONG. Oh no, they can't have that ... so they just pretend to be correct, and because so many have so much invested ... they just keep this 40 year old information out of the lime light ... and proceed as if it didn't exist.
Modern science is TOTALLY INTOLERANT, and is in fact OVERTLY HOSTILE to any information that challenges accepted theories, no matter how strong the evidence is. That's your "modern scientific process" at work. Just as dogmatic ... just as corrupt and lacking in integrity as is politics, religion and business.
Why is Race a scientifically meaningless concept? Have you not heard much about the human-genome project? Have you not heard of the DNA tests that can show your ancestry? Have you not heard of the countless genetic differences that have high concentrations in one population and not another? Have you not heard that West-Africans completely dominant the 100 meter sprints?
You can argue that there are no racial absolutes, and that each human race is not its own human species placed on this Earth by god himself. But you can't ignore the reality that is "race". The attempt to attack the concept of "race" is an attempt to assert that all humans are fundamentally the same. Which is an absolute lie, and completely unscientific. To assert such silly nonsense would be like trying to argue that humans and Neanderthals are the same, or even that humans and chimps are the same, and so on. It isn't true.
There are some humans that possess more "Neanderthal" DNA than others. And there are some humans that would be more genetically identical to Chimpanzees than others(such as the number of fast-twitch muscle fibers a person possesses). And these concentrations follow population groups, and vary greatly from one end of the world to the other. Stop pretending we are all the same, we just aren't.
I would agree to an extent that evolution does happen around the world, because many species are changing slightly by survival of the fittest. But that Evolution in humanity has basically stopped or generally reversed(because of social policies).
At best, I would agree that human evolution has effectively become decoupled from natural selection. But this is almost entirely a social issue, not a scientific one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As for evolution around the world, it is generally difficult to really prove where it is happening. Scientists have been studying fruit flies and diseases for decades, and they really havn't found anything that would point to any sort of real evolution. As in genetic mutations that generally increase the heartiness of a species, or tend to create a new species.
Almost nothing in that paragraph is true. It betrays an almost complete vacuum in understanding the role that mutations play in evolution. Most mutations (specifically point mutations) do not "generally" do much of anything except replenish genetic diversity... i.e. provide the raw material upon which selection can act. It is selection that determines what "generally increases the heartiness of a species" or creates a new species.
Not the mutations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The creatures of the world today are basically stable. And no one seems to understand how the genome becomes larger, they can only find mutations of existing genes. If you compare Chimps to humans, Chimps have two more Chromosomes and actually have more information on their Chromosomes than do humans. Yet, they are our closest relatives.
And with this comment you persist in an inexcusable demonstration of ignorance regarding things that are actually very well understood.
For example, the primary mechanism for increasing the size of the genome is a relatively common mutation called a gene duplication. It is a replication error that results in the daughter DNA possessing two copies rather than one copy of an original gene... leaving one gene to conserve its original purpose while the additional copy is free to evolve in any direction selection might drive it. This is the mutation that (for just one example) gifted old world monkeys, apes and humans with tricolor vision rather than the bicolor vision of most other mammals. We can even specifically identify which of the two original opsin genes was duplicated, and how long ago the mutation took place.
We even have a second example of this same mutation in new world Howler monkeys.
None of this stuff is secret... yet creationists seem to think that if they ignore it and keep pretending otherwise it will just go away.
Guess what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You are right in some regards, but by allowing a population to move from a fairly densely populated country(most other countries) to a less densely populated country(America), whereby they have generally twice the number of children as the native-inhabitants.
No. I am absolutely right.
5+5 does absolutely does equal 6+4.
Your very weird attempt to confabulate the politics of population growth with the politics of immigration is... well... just very weird.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
