Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!

[chimeracreator]

Back on the topic of evolution: Another common criticism of natural selection is the development of more complex body parts such as an eye. Some say species couldn't have developed eyes through evolution because without the entirety of the eye (iris, pupil, retina, etc.), the eye as a whole would be useless, so species that developed mutations with only one part of the eye wouldn't survive, thus wouldn't reproduce. In my opinion, this is one of the best counters to natural selection, though I've seen some answers for it that haven't quite satisfied me.

Ah the irreducible complexity argument. Mind if I take a stab at it when it comes to the eye? Thankfully we have a lot of living examples that show a lot of what's believed to be the intermediate stages.

So first we have photosensitive spots which can detect light or darkness. This is a relative simple chemical reaction even some bacteria have them.

After that we see the surfaces that these receptors are put on start to curve. This gives the added advantage of allowing creatures to better discern what direction the light is coming from, which is a good thing where you're on the lookout for a shadow that might be your dinner or try to make you its dinner. Slugs have these.

Then these spots become enclosed which offers a two fold benefit. First it helps protect the spots against damage and it also produces what is known as the pinhole effect to increase resolution. We see these in species like the nautilus which has a pinhole eye that is simply an enclosed photosensitive spot with no lens.

Once we have a pinhole the next step is to give it extra protection against random debris because getting stuff stuck in there can be a real pain. If this covering high a higher refraction index than the surrounding material then you also have the added benefit of focusing light into your photoreceptors thus improving image quality which is what we see with squids.

After that it's just a matter of fine tuning the muscles around the lens to sort out the pupil and the like. Unfortunately for humans because eyes grow from the brain we have a blind spot where the optic nerve connects that invertebrates don't have. If you want more information about this check out http://www.d.umn.edu/~olse0176/Evolution/evoeye.html.

 

[Guffe]

I am still living (like most of us Finns) in the time were we worship Odin and Thor... Soon it's midsummer slaughter

 

[Haefulz]

3. This is a bit of ex post facto logic. Basically if the conditions were any different we wouldn't be here to question them so the fact that they exist doesn't prove anything about why they exist. These could be wholly random in which case we got lucky and can talk about why they came about. They could also be a result of his noodly appendage guiding us for the grand purpose of creating pasta to honor him. Unfortunately we have no proof either way.

Well said. Basically what this means is that we're here because of the way the universe works. The universe doesn't work that way because we are here.

Back on the topic of evolution: Another common criticism of natural selection is the development of more complex body parts such as an eye. Some say species couldn't have developed eyes through evolution because without the entirety of the eye (iris, pupil, retina, etc.), the eye as a whole would be useless, so species that developed mutations with only one part of the eye wouldn't survive, thus wouldn't reproduce. In my opinion, this is one of the best counters to natural selection, though I've seen some answers for it that haven't quite satisfied me.

I guess this is the problem that hounds the whole theory, how can something so complex just have appeared? The eye is just a good summation of the whole argument. When you get down to it, it?s more a question of how something came into being that can not only self replicate, but also fed itself. Then you move up one step and ask how they can organize themselves and specialize. All bets are out the window. Then you add the fact that it only takes one cell going rouge to give someone cancer. So the real miracle is not that things are changing and growing, but that their doing it in concert.

It's such an interesting subject. After learning about mutations and how species reproduction lets those mutations actually carry on, I think the key to really understanding how evolution and natural selection work is to realize that every living thing on Earth is the way it is because if it wasn't that way, it wouldn't be here.

 

[Bat Vader]

The way I see it, folks can believe what they want. I couldn't care less if you believe in evolution, intelligent design, Scientology, or the Nine Divines. Whatever floats your boat. That is the way that I see it, As long as the person isn't hurting anyone else they can believe in whatever they want to believe in. Plus, it isn't my job to tell people what to believe or not believe in.

So if I believed that all black people, jews and homosexuals should die but I never act on it, that's cool?
Alright then.

The first three sentences of that post are not mine. They belong to a different post that I was quoting.

 

[KefkaCultist]

Don't be completely short sighted, evolution is only a theory.

If it were real, and we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? You can't explain that.

Next you'll be claiming that the world is round like that dude in the other thread. What's wrong with you people, has the world gone mad.

>_> I ALMOST sent a well written a response to the first two lines, but I luckily read your last one before doing so and I'm fairly sure you're using sarcasm.

I had something typed up and I don't want to waste it, so I'm still gonna attach it with this post. It's an abridged version though, with a lot of scolding cut out. ^_^

A scientific theory is more than just "hey guys, what if THIS is what happened?". A theory in science is actually a collection of evidence, facts, and repeatable tests used to support it. The theory of evolution is just as solid of a scientific theory as the Theory of Gravity.

Also, the phrase "we evolved from monkeys" is sorta incorrect. The scientific theory is that today's humans and today's primates have common ancestors meaning that, over time, we started as one species and separated into two different ones. There is actually evidence, such as fossil records and carbon dating, to support this. You know what else is proven to have common ancestry? Birds and reptiles. If you have a hard time believing that we share the descendants of primates, then try to wrap your head around that one.

 

[mrhappy1489]

Why are people so fucking stupid?! I don't get it!

In the last two days, I've actually come across several people in my daily life that legit think evolution is a conspiracy, a farce, *insert derogatory name here* etc.

Evolution is a measurable thing that we can WATCH HAPPEN! STOP THE STUPIDITY!!!

End rant. Someone please tell me these people are not the norm. Someone! Anyone!

Share your stories about interactions with people who say its not real.

People are generally just stupid and idiotic when it comes to these things, I try not to be cynical but seriously the amount of times people confuse scientific theory with I have a theory that jellybeans are actually made from the frozen intestinal tracks of super giants, is baffling. I will say that you can't really see evolution around you, it takes a fucking long time, plus as humans we have this nasty habit of intervening where we aren't wanted and we kind of influence the goings on in that respect.

 

[Haefulz]

Back on the topic of evolution: Another common criticism of natural selection is the development of more complex body parts such as an eye. Some say species couldn't have developed eyes through evolution because without the entirety of the eye (iris, pupil, retina, etc.), the eye as a whole would be useless, so species that developed mutations with only one part of the eye wouldn't survive, thus wouldn't reproduce. In my opinion, this is one of the best counters to natural selection, though I've seen some answers for it that haven't quite satisfied me.

Ah the irreducible complexity argument. Mind if I take a stab at it when it comes to the eye? Thankfully we have a lot of living examples that show a lot of what's believed to be the intermediate stages.

So first we have photosensitive spots which can detect light or darkness. This is a relative simple chemical reaction even some bacteria have them.



After that we see the surfaces that these receptors are put on start to curve. This gives the added advantage of allowing creatures to better discern what direction the light is coming from, which is a good thing where you're on the lookout for a shadow that might be your dinner or try to make you its dinner. Slugs have these.



Then these spots become enclosed which offers a two fold benefit. First it helps protect the spots against damage and it also produces what is known as the pinhole effect to increase resolution. We see these in species like the nautilus which has a pinhole eye that is simply an enclosed photosensitive spot with no lens.


Once we have a pinhole the next step is to give it extra protection against random debris because getting stuff stuck in there can be a real pain. If this covering high a higher refraction index than the surrounding material then you also have the added benefit of focusing light into your photoreceptors thus improving image quality which is what we see with squids.


After that it's just a matter of fine tuning the muscles around the lens to sort out the pupil and the like. Unfortunately for humans because eyes grow from the brain we have a blind spot where the optic nerve connects that invertebrates don't have. If you want more information about this check out http://www.d.umn.edu/~olse0176/Evolution/evoeye.html.

Good job explaining the intermediate stages. I do have a question about the first development of a simple light-detecting eyespot though. Can just one single mutation somewhere in the species cause something even so basic as an eyespot to appear? I would think it would take a perfect combination of multiple mutations (and if that's the case, I'm sure it would still eventually happen given time)

 

[mrhappy1489]

Don't be completely short sighted, evolution is only a theory.

If it were real, and we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? You can't explain that.

Finally. You would think that nobody thought this whole evolution thing out at all.

Y'know, that does bring up an interesting point. What if the monkeys one day start catching up? A group of "the missing link" shows up in a jungle somewhere. The societal changes once they gain communication and mental skills could be massive.

'Course, I never claimed to be a scientist, so I suppose there could be some reason they will never evolve further.

The real problem I can see, is that deforestation plus the never ending need to expand, will prevent anything like this ever really happening. Plus human's always intervene whether they be scientists or just poachers. Thanks to us the only things that can conceivably evolve are oceanic creatures, microorganisms and insects. I feel safe in the assumption that we'll never see a proper mammalian evolution again, at least one the results in sentient, near human evolutions.

 

[Asita]

3. This is a bit of ex post facto logic. Basically if the conditions were any different we wouldn't be here to question them so the fact that they exist doesn't prove anything about why they exist. These could be wholly random in which case we got lucky and can talk about why they came about. They could also be a result of his noodly appendage guiding us for the grand purpose of creating pasta to honor him. Unfortunately we have no proof either way.

Well said. Basically what this means is that we're here because of the way the universe works. The universe doesn't work that way because we are here.

Back on the topic of evolution: Another common criticism of natural selection is the development of more complex body parts such as an eye. Some say species couldn't have developed eyes through evolution because without the entirety of the eye (iris, pupil, retina, etc.), the eye as a whole would be useless, so species that developed mutations with only one part of the eye wouldn't survive, thus wouldn't reproduce. In my opinion, this is one of the best counters to natural selection, though I've seen some answers for it that haven't quite satisfied me.

That particular example is actually pretty easy to debunk. For a quicker explanation, see here:
Of particular interest to the claim is that - as noted in the video - we can point to organisms that exist today which display the simpler eyes described (and superior ones in the case of the Octopus, as they lack our optic nerve induced blind spot), meaning that the claims of the irreducible complexity of the eye don't just show the fault to be a lack of imagination on the part of the claimant, but a problematic lack of research as well.

For further viewing, I suggest the following:

 

[mrhappy1489]

Don't be completely short sighted, evolution is only a theory.

If it were real, and we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? You can't explain that.

Next you'll be claiming that the world is round like that dude in the other thread. What's wrong with you people, has the world gone mad.

>_> I ALMOST sent a well written a response to the first two lines, but I luckily read your last one before doing so and I'm fairly sure you're using sarcasm.

I had something typed up and I don't want to waste it, so I'm still gonna attach it with this post. It's an abridged version though, with a lot of scolding cut out. ^_^

A scientific theory is more that just "hey guys, what if THIS is what happened?". A theory in science is actually a collection of evidence, facts, and repeatable tests used to support it. The theory of evolution is just as solid of a scientific theory as the Theory of Gravity.

Also, the term "we evolved from monkeys" is sorta incorrect. The scientific theory is that today's humans and today's primates have common ancestors meaning that, over time, we started as one species and separated into two different ones. There is actually evidence, such as fossil records and carbon dating, to support this. You know what else is proven to have common ancestry? Birds and reptiles. If you have a hard time believing that we share the descendants of primates, then try to wrap your head around that one.

I'm starting to enjoy this thread, though I might have to stop posting at some point. It really isn't that hard to see the similarities between reptiles and birds, without the feathers, there is a distinct similarity, plus the structure of the bones is very similar and the means of reproduction also. Obviously there are distinct differences, more so than that of Apes and Humans, but whats there is there and there is certainly enough evidence to prove it, unless some mystical being descends from the sky proclaiming that they are completely different and that birds are super advanced slugs.

 

[J. Mazarin]

The ever-amazing collective intelligence of the OFF-TOPIC DISCUSSION BOARD, ladies and gentlemen!

We have a grand display for you today! Why, just look at our:

-Members who despite having it explained to them over 9000 times still don't understand the definition of "scientific theory"

-Individuals who think they can make themselves sound smarter by claiming to believe in micro but not macroevolution, completely ignoring the concept that saying this is akin to saying that it's possible to walk to your neighbor's house, but not down the block

-Rapscallions who think "opinions" are a valid substitute for scientific experimentation and research

-Nanny-poos who are stiiiiiiiiiiiilll asking the functionally retarded question "if we evolved from MONKEYS, why are there still monkeys?" (NO, NANNY-POO. YOU ARE THE MONKEYS.)*

And, you do bring up a good point. Acting so zealous, on either side of the topic, gets no one anywhere. This matter will only be resolved through tempered discourse and shared knowledge.

Pffft, let the labcoats do that. This is an internet message board, if I can't take lazy, self-righteous jabs at people I don't like then what purpose does it serve?

*Yes, that was a joke. Cookies all around if you get the reference

 

[Roggen Bread]

Evolution did happen. Evolution does happen.
But somehow, I can't shake the feeling, that a higher power has had it's influence.
I am from Germany, we teach evolution in school, in religious education,we are NOT told, that god created the world.
Some teachers share there personal believes (he did, bladibla).
All in all, there should be almost no pure creationists here (speaking for the christian population.
I have got no Idea, how the muslimic or buddhist folks see this), but this is no country populated mostly by morons, like the US.

My personal view:
I am studying biomedical engineering, so I am quite familiar with all kinds of sciences.
And the more I learn, the more I understand how fucking complex the (human) body is built, how even more complex some other species are built, the more I believe in a kind of intelligent design.
The simplest organisms, work with such complexity, there is no way, we ("evolution's peak", lol) could come up with something like this on our own.
We still haven't reverse-engineered quite a darn lot of things.
So In a way, I do believe that certain processes, certain logics, certain ways how things just flow (pun intended), are in fact designed by the greatest engineer of all times.
And I seriously pull my fucking hat in front of this guy.

I do know, that everything basically works with the same 4 or 5 dynamics (osmotic pressure, gradient of concentration, gravity, pressure and so on), but they are so well implented and flawlessly used.

 

[chadachada123]

Derp.

Evolution happens? Yes.

The main problem in communication that absolutely bloody no one can bridge is "Is evolution the reason we are here?" Many non-evolutionists ask that question, say no, and then claim evolution doesn't exist. Many evolutionists ask that question, say yes, and then lambaste non-evolutionists regardless of if they believe it exists or not.

I, personally, say that yes, evolution happens, but it's not adequate to explain how we came to be. Lots of niggling little questions I have, be they "Where'd the first incidence of life come from, and how did it come up with a method of reproduction over one lifespan?", "Where are the millions of missing links?", "How did the universal constants end up so finely tuned?" and "How, exactly, does a species evolve a wing without becoming excessively clumsy, and thus die?" have gone either unanswered or answered by an unrefined hypothesis. Sure, there's hilarious amounts of evidence for evolution in the past, but I still can't see it being singularly accountable for our existence. That's like saying "Because there's much evidence that the victim was shot to death, we can conclude that a gun shot him," without concerning who was holding it. I believe there had to be intervention, divine or otherwise.

OT: I've met someone who told me that if you lose too much calcium, your bones become soft and then begin bending and twisting, turning you into a jellyfish-like thing.

THAT'S NOT HOW OSTEOPOROSIS WORKS!

Note that it will be very clear from your response whether or not you actually read my response *and* watched the related but incredibly important videos.

1) The first incidence of life is not important to evolutionary theory. It IS important to abiogenesis, which is the primary explanation for how life could arise. Other possibilities include: life being seeded by aliens, life being seeded by asteroids from other planets, or some combination of the two. But these have little evidence to back them up compared to abiogenesis.

If we ARE talking about abiogenesis, though, then I provide you with this video, which explains how 'life' could arise from 'non-life.'


2) Transitionary species are incredibly rare. This video explains why very well:


This is in addition to the fact that fossils are already a very rare occurrence. The vast, vast majority of creatures will not become fossils. The majority of species that have existed in the past 3 billions years will never have any evidence of their existence.

3) Not related to biology. At all. Also related: The Anthropic Principle. If various universes have different constants, and only one in a billion have constants that could allow for star formation and possible life, we wouldn't exist in any of the other 999,999,999 universes to comment on how unlucky we are to not be able to exist. We exist, the universe has certain constants. There's no need to go any deeper than that if there's no evidence that other universes even exist.

That is a question for philosophy, and does not discredit science (let alone evolution) in the slightest. You may as well be invoking 'THERE MUST BE MEN IN LABCOATS CONTROLLING OUR BRAINS, BECAUSE OUR BRAINS COULDN'T BE IN VATS CONNECTING US TO THE MATRIX OTHERWISE.'

4) Simply put (and partially because I'm not yet a biologist and don't know the ENTIRE BODY OF AVIAN HISTORY): Their proto-wings didn't make them clumsy. It's likely for similar reasons that flying squirrels exist: for maneuverability. I'm just gonna post a link that contains a bunch of evidence and explanations, but one that caught my eye in particular is within:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Bi-pedalism provides an explanation for larger arms and eventual flight. Blah blah blah, increased muscle mass, blah blah blah. Just look at an Ostrich and consider that analogous to an early proto-bird. Then make it smaller and lighter to increase maneuverability. Yada yada, you eventually get a flying animal.

Your final bit, saying that evolution doesn't explain our origin, is redundant. Evolution doesn't seek to explain our origin. Abiogenesis does. Just want to reiterate that so you don't continue polluting the public's pool of knowledge with ignorance.

Edit: Dammit, that's what I get for leaving this page open for like an hour and only finally posting. Seems I was ninja'd with almost the exact same definitions. Ah well, at least I've got some awesome videos.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

The way I see it, folks can believe what they want. I couldn't care less if you believe in evolution, intelligent design, Scientology, or the Nine Divines. Whatever floats your boat. That is the way that I see it, As long as the person isn't hurting anyone else they can believe in whatever they want to believe in. Plus, it isn't my job to tell people what to believe or not believe in.

So if I believed that all black people, jews and homosexuals should die but I never act on it, that's cool?
Alright then.

The first three sentences of that post are not mine. They belong to a different post that I was quoting.

Ah I thought it might have been off. I accidentely deleted quite a bit of the quote and thought that whole bit was only yours.
But am I right?

 

[evilneko]

snip

While this is all fair and true, the OP here states "evolution is real." Which, to me at least, seems to mean he thinks it's a fact. Which it clearly is not. We can say that evolution is currently the best explanation, but we cannot say that it is real. Because honestly, someone could come out tomorrow with an entirely new theory that blows evolution out of the water.

People just keep going on about this. It's evolution! No, it's God's plan!

How about this...

What if evolution IS God's plan? -Law and Order Sound-

Maybe I should have my flame shield handy now.

Isn't that the intelligent design theory in a nutshell?

It's both. Allow me to explain.

Evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. This is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the above fact.

But I"m not here to argue. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, SAY IT TO ME IN A MANNER AS SOMEONE WHO WILL PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU ANYWAYS, BE IT FOR OR AGAINST EVOLUTION!!!

Okay, I won't argue with you, I will just point out that every assertion you made in that post has long been debunked. I point you to the Talk Origins archive [http://www.talkorigins.org/] in hopes that you might shed your ignorance.

Y'know, that does bring up an interesting point. What if the monkeys one day start catching up? A group of "the missing link" shows up in a jungle somewhere. The societal changes once they gain communication and mental skills could be massive.

'Course, I never claimed to be a scientist, so I suppose there could be some reason they will never evolve further.

Yeah you're right.

If evolution exists, why don't gorillas just evolve into humans? Also why don't fish turn into fish people?

Your move evolutionists.

I beleive you forgot your /sarcasm tags.

Or were you serious?

Evolution did happen. Evolution does happen.
But somehow, I can't shake the feeling, that a higher power has had it's influence.
I am from Germany, we teach evolution in school, in religious education,we are NOT told, that god created the world.
Some teachers share there personal believes (he did, bladibla).
All in all, there should be almost no pure creationists here (speaking for the christian population.
I have got no Idea, how the muslimic or buddhist folks see this), but this is no country populated mostly by morons, like the US.

My personal view:
I am studying biomedical engineering, so I am quite familiar with all kinds of sciences.
And the more I learn, the more I understand how fucking complex the (human) body is built, how even more complex some other species are built, the more I believe in a kind of intelligent design.
The simplest organisms, work with such complexity, there is no way, we ("evolution's peak", lol) could come up with something like this on our own.
We still haven't reverse-engineered quite a darn lot of things.
So In a way, I do believe that certain processes, certain logics, certain ways how things just flow (pun intended), are in fact designed by the greatest engineer of all times.
And I seriously pull my fucking hat in front of this guy.

I do know, that everything basically works with the same 4 or 5 dynamics (osmotic pressure, gradient of concentration, gravity, pressure and so on), but they are so well implented and flawlessly used.

But would you agree that your personal incredulity has no bearing on the merits of evolution? That is the problem a lot of people have. They cannot fathom how something so complex could have evolved, but that's a human failing--we often have trouble conceptualizing anything on a massive scale. Many also make the mistake of equating primordial cells with modern ones, but they were much simpler back then.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I, personally, say that yes, evolution happens, but it's not adequate to explain how we came to be. Lots of niggling little questions I have, be they "Where'd the first incidence of life come from, and how did it come up with a method of reproduction over one lifespan?", "Where are the millions of missing links?", "How did the universal constants end up so finely tuned?" and "How, exactly, does a species evolve a wing without becoming excessively clumsy, and thus die?"

I'll go through these "niggling little questions" for you.

The origin of life is not in the field of Evolution, that's called Abiogenesis. This Youtube playlist [http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0696457CAFD6D7C9] details current theory in abiogenesis and also explains the evolution of many of the mechanisms essential to life as we know it.

The "missing links" are dead, but do you have any specific ones in mind? There are many very complete evolutionary transitions in the fossil record and Wikipedia has articles on many.

Why exactly would evolution explain the so-called fine-tuning of the universe? Regardless this point is fallacious due to the anthropic principle. Of course the universe seems like exactly the kind of universe we need to live in, we do after all live here.

Flight is something of an unsolved problem in evolutionary biology, which means there's no overwhelmingly and obviously true theory for how it evolved the several times it independently did. With insects it's generally held that wings are either modified gills or radiators. With pterosaurs and avians it's been theorized that their protowings were for incubating eggs and that they, like bats, moved on to using them for gliding before flight. In these theories the intermediate stages provide competitive advantage for the organism or at the least do not give a disadvantage (the clumsiness you mentioned).

 

[Labyrinth]

Good job explaining the intermediate stages. I do have a question about the first development of a simple light-detecting eyespot though. Can just one single mutation somewhere in the species cause something even so basic as an eyespot to appear? I would think it would take a perfect combination of multiple mutations (and if that's the case, I'm sure it would still eventually happen given time)

The thing is, there are various different definitions to 'detect'. For example, you could argue that our skin detects UV light by producing vitamin D, or IR light through heat sensitivity. If you've got a cell which photosynthesises through exposure to sunlight, you've got something that can, arguably, detect it. Not well, but it doesn't have to.

Edit: I'll stick in something from Wikipedia to suggest the chemical nature of the detecting: "..photoreceptor proteins in the cell absorb photons, triggering a change in the cell's membrane potential." This means that the photons themselves cause a change in the chemistry of the cell. Our human eyes have different cells that respond to different wavelengths of light. The mechanism for that doesn't have to be as complicated as occurs in our eyes. All it requires is that a protein in a cell changes when it is hit by photons/not hit by photons/hit by photons of a particular wavelength.

 

[TAdamson]

Y'know, that does bring up an interesting point. What if the monkeys one day start catching up? A group of "the missing link" shows up in a jungle somewhere. The societal changes once they gain communication and mental skills could be massive.

'Course, I never claimed to be a scientist, so I suppose there could be some reason they will never evolve further.

Yeah you're right.

If evolution exists, why don't gorillas just evolve into humans? Also why don't fish turn into fish people?

Your move evolutionists.

I beleive you forgot your /sarcasm tags.

Or were you serious?

Oh I wasn't clear enough?

Why aren't there insect people? Huh? Huh? Or Mollusc people apart from Cthulhu? What about fungus people? If evolution is real why don't they exist?

And what about algae? Why don't they just turn into proper plants?

And slime moulds... Why are they so weird? Why don't they evolve into something more sensible?

Evolution is just a theory. You shouldn't believe everything you read... Except the bible.