Has Evolution Been Proven to be True ?

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Dude. Those were not different views. Every single one of your questions (except for the last one) had a pretty basic answer. You didn't offer any new ideas or different ways of thinking. All your questions had answers pulled straight from second level biology classes. That is why these mystery "biology people" at your "University" should be smote for their idiocy. I am so secure in my knowledge(not beliefs), that I can say these people you made up should not be wasting time with a debate on questions that have already been answered.

Be that as it may, you still haven't told us all what this "other side" said to those questions. At no point have you even brought up a single point of view, at all. There is nothing for me to deny because you haven't brought anything up. I am eagerly waiting to hear you tell us all what the "different views" are.




Actually the OP just asked for proof of evolution because he has the same aversion to Google and TalkOrigins that you seem to have.

Imagine if all scientists had the very same attitude you came here with? They would be answering questions we already know the answers to over and over and over and over. They would still be dropping apples out of tree's. I am not questioning whether anyone you made up is smart enough. I am questioning the people you made up for having a pretend debate about something one of their students has the answers too.

Stop being so whiny and wishy-washy and actually tell us what these "different views" are about the questions you asked. Here Lets try one.



Tea already answered this one, but you say I am shutting down this phantom "other side". Well go ahead and tell us this other side. I would love for you to articulate for all of us here these two opposing sides on the "Human/Algae/Intelligence" argument that you claim is a dividing front in the quest for knowledge of evolution. Give us the opposite side of this debate that went down at your "University".

Ok, at first I thought you were just being dense, as I could not see how I was not being clear. But now I see what the problem is. We are students of two different schools of thought. My background is in Philosophy. As is now evident, we look at problems in different ways and see different ways to solving them.

Let's take the Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Phi for example. For someone like you, this might show the mathematical precision inherent with so many aspects of nature that goes along with the building blocks and physics of our Universe. For someone like me, I take a look at just how prevalent this is in so many different cases within our universe, and I don't see randomness or coincidence. I see purpose. I see precision. I see intelligence.

For the record, I wouldn't want everyone to think like me. I need guys like you, just like you need guys like me. It's quite comparable to the sides of our current political parties. Conservative vs. Liberal. I see you as the being on the Right, sticking to your tried and true old ways. I'm sure you view me as being a 'crazy left winger' with crazy ideas. The balance keeps either side from pulling away too far in either direction. Based on my knowledge and observations of the way things work, I'll tell you that it's possible to create a warp field where we can bend space to travel great distances instantainiously. Based on your knowledge, you'll figure out how to make it. The idea always proceeds the creation. But without the other, the two will not be complete.

These 'other sides' aren't baseless daydreams. They are scientific and philosophic observations to questions that have much room for refinement before the book is closed on this chapter. They are being asked by legitimate people, not 2nd year Biology students. The same ToE that you believe now, will not be same one being taught 200 years from now. That doesn't mean you're stupid for believing it. In the same way Newton's ideas on gravity were upgraded by Einstein, doesn't mean that Newton was retarded and should be discarded. They are just necessary steps along the way to a better understanding.

On to the topic at hand. The two opposing sides are exactly what you saw with my original post and then Tea's response. The question posted was Side 1. Tea, who disagrees, was Side 2. Obviously Side 2 is the standard response. Side 1 thinks there is a different answer. I don't have notes for everything, but since you asked, I'll go through the list with what I have, as well as the handout we were given.

1. "Does Nature take creative leaps and are mutations random?" Questions 1 and 2 kind of run into each other in their answer so I'll cover both here. Nature does in fact take creative leaps. This coming from the mind of a philosopher, so the terminology might not sit well with you. Upon close examination you would see random mutation here and there, leading to new things, but the over all outcome is seemingly already known. So even though it may take a long time for it to develop fully, it is essentially a creative leap by nature to do something new. Our cerebral cortex is one example. Changing from spores to seeds and the creation of sexual organs were creative leaps and not random accidents, because the purpose of these were served just as well before they were around.

3. "How does evolution know where to stop?" I had this one underlined. If the environment puts constant pressure on living things, then evolution is just as constant. Species don't just survive by fitting into a niche. The entire ecosystem is what's evolving, not just the parts. Isolated attempts to explain why Homo sapiens walk upright, for example, have fallen afoul when trying to locate any "niche" that this adaptation fulfills. The best evolutionary biologists can do is to argue backward once they see that we do walk upright. Of course, if the adaptation "must" have a reason, one will always be found.

4. "Evolutionary biology stuck in regard to simultaneous mutation." Tea fielded this one the same way the other side did. Tea said "It wasn't at random. Evolution is not random. The engine, mutations, are random, but it is guided through natural selection." This is basically admitting that it knows what it's doing, which was the point they were trying to make.

5. "If design doesn't imply intelligence, why are we so intelligent?" Tea said that it's erroneous to think of humans as more evolved than algae. This question was brought about after pointing out how DNA has progressed into more and more intelligent life forms. It doesn't make sense that DNA was just another chemical that showed up on Earth randomly. Iron is a raw mineral; when intelligent beings use it, objects of complex design get made. DNA is a raw material that made itself into complex designs. That is its uniqueness, as yet unexplained by biology.

6. "Why do forms replicate themselves without apparent need?" How can we say that sunflowers, galaxies, the chambered nautilus, and DNA "grow" alike? That they seem to is the mystery, not the answer.

7. "What happens when simple molecules come into contact with human life?" I don't have much on this one other than discussion about finding intelligence outside the brain. It was stated that our immune system was recently found to display intelligence and that there is current work questioning if cells themselves are intelligent.

I'll finish 8-12 later. Football game coming on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you must know, I went to UCF (University of Central Florida). You can probably find something on Google about the debate, as I remember it being a fairly big deal around here. It was in 2005 I believe. It wasn't a numerical debate, with points awarded and a victor chosen, but similar to what you see at the presidential debates. Each side would talk for a bit on a talking point, then they would argue with each other for a bit.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Flight

You're wrong, just as you were in your assertion that I wouldn't have a clue about what evolution is or my definition of it.

Let's be honest here. You say here you understand what evolution is and that you understand the definition of it and yet....

Originally Posted by Flight

The 'theory of evolution', however, is still just that - a theory...the scientific line is still that the 'theory of evolution' is most probably true because nothing else can explain it

So no I don't think you understand it. Trust me when I say I don't think you are stupid or uneducated, but in using the phrase "just a theory", you demonstrate a lack in the fundamentals of the scientific method and the general sciences.

The Theory of Evolution is most probably true not because nothing else can explain it, but because of the mountains upon mountains of evidence that exists to support it as the model for the advancement of species on the planet Earth. Those mountains upon mountains are easily search-able at the two sites I linked before and there is even a very comprehensive index in alphabetical order with plenty of cross-referencing.

Originally Posted by Flight

Given that those who seem to possess the most knowledge about it express views along the line that the subject matter is so complex that even the formally educated 'will come to a point where they hit a part of scientific knowledge that isn't crystal clear, and say, "you wouldn't understand, just trust that I know and I'm right",' .. its almost ironic that more than one person has suggested that I started the thread when I could just have well Googled.

Your basic question, just like those posed by The Edge, can be answered by some basic internet searching, but the problem lies in getting easy to understand answers about the complexities of all the minutiae.

For example, I can say something like...

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder trying really hard to sound smart for the purpose of this example

Development of symmetrical fenestrae are one of the characteristics that separate early reptiles from early ancestral mammals.

That statement is true, but unless I go into detail about what a fenestrae is, how it was developed over time and what its purpose is in the developmental change from synapsid amniotes to cynodonts to monotremes and then to full blown mammals, you would have take it on faith. The problem now is that I have broken up reptiles and mammals into all these other classifications and the cycle continues on an even deeper level.

Eventually you do reach a point where there are differences in opinion from the smallest of discoveries and this becomes big news because nothing new has been found in decades. Typically understanding these differences is hard unless you understand the terminology. Keep in mind I am only talking about fossils in this paragraph.

Personally, I prefer direct questions with a specific query because they are easy to nail down and allow a dialog to be constructed. Let me give you another example of how I would love to see these conversations really go.

Bob: Is evolution true?
Steve: All the evidence points to yes.
Bob: What evidence?
Steve: The fossil record.
Bob: What do you mean?
Steve: basic explanation of transition fossils...
Bob: Can you give me an example?
Steve: basic explanation of the Archeopteryx fossil record...
Bob: Can you give me an example of how Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil between birds and reptiles?
Steve: basic explanation of avian features and reptile features found in Archeopteryx...

Etc etc..

Eventually Bob would come to understand the basics not only of transitional fossils, but also a specific example in the form of Archeopteryx with some good understanding of the different features. To actually know how it all works together would require just another conversation. Keep in mind that I am not of the opinion that it takes years and years of intense study to get a good grasp of the basic tenets of evolution.

Originally Posted by The Edge

Let's take the Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Phi for example. For someone like you, this might show the mathematical precision inherent with so many aspects of nature that goes along with the building blocks and physics of our Universe. For someone like me, I take a look at just how prevalent this is in so many different cases within our universe, and I don't see randomness or coincidence. I see purpose. I see precision. I see intelligence.

Someone could see the face of Alfred E. Neuman, but without actually having any data to back that up, you are just assigning meaning to something where there is none. I could just as easily say, "I see only death in the natural world because everything dies. Therefore everything must be governed on some level by Death."

Originally Posted by The Edge

I see you as the being on the Right, sticking to your tried and true old ways. I'm sure you view me as being a 'crazy left winger' with crazy ideas. The balance keeps either side from pulling away too far in either direction. Based on my knowledge and observations of the way things work, I'll tell you that it's possible to create a warp field where we can bend space to travel great distances instantainiously. Based on your knowledge, you'll figure out how to make it. The idea always proceeds the creation. But without the other, the two will not be complete.

That's cute how you made yourself the progressive one knowing my politics. Adorable really. You also claim that "someone like me" couldn't come up with the idea and execute it without the help of "someone like you". I don't think I need to point of how ludicrous the idea is.

I'll wait till you get the rest of the questions up before I make another rant.

Originally Posted by The Edge

If you must know, I went to UCF (University of Central Florida)

Interesting...

[Lumie]

Does anyone else understand that evolution can't possibly explain how life began nor where matter came from to begin with, nor has any scientist ever in the history of man kind, been able to reproduce any sort of living thing from inanimate matter.

We can talk about evolution all day long but how did anything get here in the first place since everything at one point or another had to have come from literally nothing.

[aychamo_aycono]

Originally Posted by Lumie

Does anyone else understand that evolution can't possibly explain how life began nor where matter came from to begin with, nor has any scientist ever in the history of man kind, been able to reproduce any sort of living thing from inanimate matter.

We can talk about evolution all day long but how did anything get here in the first place since everything at one point or another had to have come from literally nothing.

Do you realize that evolution DOESN'T ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW LIFE BEGAN NOR WHERE MATTER CAME FROM TO BEGIN WITH? Evolution explains how life changed on earth. It doesn't EVEN ATTEMPT to explain how life originated. You get stupider every day troll. Why did they unban you?

[Lumie]

Do you realize that evolution DOESN'T ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW LIFE BEGAN NOR WHERE MATTER CAME FROM TO BEGIN WITH? Evolution explains how life changed on earth. It doesn't EVEN ATTEMPT to explain how life originated. You get stupider every day troll. Why did they unban you?

My point is that science cannot in anyway shape or form explain how existance started and that evolution is often used to attempt to discredit creationism. Man did not evolve from apes nor did every living organism evolve from a single celled organism. Every single thing that contains DNA had to have been designed by a higher intelligence and preprogrammed from the start therefor making evolution nonsense in the majority of cases. It's the same thing as a computer program programming itself...impossible.

[aychamo_aycono]

Originally Posted by Lumie

My point is that science cannot in anyway shape or form explain how existance started and that evolution is often used to attempt to discredit creationism. Man did not evolve from apes nor did every living organism evolve from a single celled organism. Every single thing that contains DNA had to have been designed by a higher intelligence and preprogrammed from the start therefor making evolution nonsense in the majority of cases. It's the same thing as a computer program programming itself...impossible.

After reading this, the below happened. I will never again become more stupid by reading what this guy has to say. (Thank you for inspiring me to go ahead and add you to the ignore list too!)

[Falmer]

Originally Posted by Lumie

...can't possibly explain how life began...

I'm 99% sure you're just a very persistent troll that never drops out of his role, since you have an absolutely batshit insane opinion about any given subject that even remotely allows it, but just in case you are not, then this man would like to have a word with you.

[Sylverlokk]

Originally Posted by nu_11

Nope.

I said were pretty close just like were pretty close to AI. In the next 10-20 years it will happen.

[Sylverlokk]

Originally Posted by Pancreas

I think the amount of evidence showing that organisms can and do change over time is rather overwhelming.

However, the explanation as to the how and why, mostly the why, that most people explaining the theory of evolution have presented leaves something to be desired.

Specifically, the "random" in random mutations is the source of my dissatisfaction. I understand that there are actually very few truly random actions in the universe, with almost all activity being some form of response in a near infinitely complex chain of events, but that's a bit of a separate discussion.

My issue is that certain organisms seem to defy the random mutation theory. My limited list of examples include sharks, alligators, cockroaches, ceolacanths, nautiluses or any other living fossils.

These creatures simply have not changed, or changed at a vastly reduced rate. If all mutations are detached random events that occur in every new generation and the environment is the filter by which these mutations are accepted or rejected, how are some organisms able to "suspend" this process and simply not change?

I just think that there is a much more specific process by which changes are initiated in new generations, and somehow this process is affected in part by a sort of "need" to change.

That is personal opinion and I can't offer much in the way of hard evidence but every time I hear the survival of the fittest model explained it fails to elicit much confidence in me.

They DO change, but the originals are so perfectly suited to their ecological niche that the change gives no competitive advantage to the new mutation and thus that mutation does not spread and dominate.

For there to be change there has to be either A) a new ecological niche to fill or expand into, or B) some change in the current environment which warrants improvement of the species to compete.

You are right about the need to change part but you are anthropomorphizing a random process. If the environment changed AND one of the mutations that existed benefited the individual enough then over generations that mutation would filter through the species because the individuals with that mutation would either breed more or die less.

[Sylverlokk]

Originally Posted by MrGraham

I'm actually of the opinion that our evolution as a species is hitting inertia. Every stupid mother fucker in this country is allowed to have children. The more educated you are, the less likely you are to have children. Not that this is a bad thing, but I think our society and technology has made evolution through genetic changes pretty much non existent in the coming years. We may eventually evolve into brains stuck into machines but I don't see us doing much in the way of evolving naturally.

I guess you saw idiocracy eh? The problem is the difference between the two types of people your talking about the stupid and the non stupid is largely illusionary and based on culture. Lack of education <> lack of ability.

[Lonin]

Is anyone else surprised that Lumie is apparently a religious nutto too? I always assumed that the majority of crazy conspiracy theorists were atheistic.

[Kaosu]

Originally Posted by Lonin

Is anyone else surprised that Lumie is apparently a religious nutto too? I always assumed that the majority of crazy conspiracy theorists were atheistic.

Hm. A lot of conspiracy theory articles he links to (not all), but one in particular from his NWO posts, quotes a lot of bible phrases.

Lumie is the Gary Busey of nutjobs. Crazy and annoying to a fault, but damn, is he entertaining.

[Lumie]

The book of Genesis of the Bible is the exact truth as to how the Earth and it's population were created. DNA can't code itself and cannot spontaneously appear so evolution is essentially meaningless and it is pointless to discuss or debate such a topic since it gets us no where. A good deal of science is merely an endless loop of self delusion attempting to explain things that are impossible to explain through science since it immediately disregards any sort of super natural possibilities and it's insistance that everything must have a logical explanatation.

Science fails to realize that infinity defies logic and yet it still exists but can never be calculated or pin pointed since it never ends and it never begins. In this same way, existence defies all logic since at one point all matter had to have eventually come from literal nothingness. This is impossible since something cannot possibly come from nothing and yet it's undeniably exactly what has happened and here's why.

Let's say for instance that we did all evolve from a single cell organism and that cell was formed in the primordial ooze or whatever you want to choose. Regardless of where anything came from, it's self evident that you can keep back tracking until you eventually reach the conclusion of "nothing". Where did the planet earth come from? Ok the big bang you say. Where did the matter that created the big bang come from? Um a black hole maybe. Ok...where did that black hole come from? etc etc and so on and so forth.

In reality, existence is actually created and bound together by a literal magic word, the true name of Jesus, whom is the living word and creator of all that is and was and ever shall be.

1In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He existed in the beginning with God. 3Through him ALL things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

[Lumie]

I'm 99% sure you're just a very persistent troll that never drops out of his role, since you have an absolutely batshit insane opinion about any given subject that even remotely allows it, but just in case you are not, then this man would like to have a word with you

Believe what you like but I'm no troll. Who is this man and what does he have to do with anything? Please elaborate.

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Kaosu

Lumie is the Gary Busey of nutjobs. Crazy and annoying to a fault, but damn, is he entertaining.

No he isn't. He doesn't even believe what he says. He takes the most extreme position in whatever thread he comes across. Naturally, in an evolution thread, he's derailing it into a religious discussion.