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

Recommended Videos

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
Dfskelleton said:
OT: Yeah, we could have originated from Monkeys, and maybe we didn't, but honestly, I don't care. Seriously. I fail to see why it's such a pressing issue to so many people, because it's something we have little to no control over. Maybe you have to be one of those people obsessed with discovering where we came from, but I've never bothered, because I feel that I have more relevant and important things to do than ponder the past of my species.
If someone came out tomorrow with sure-fire, 100% scientific proof that evolution is 100% factual (and it might as well be), I'll say "Okay" and not give it a second thought.
While the accountant, the construction worker, the plumber, the fireman may have no practical need of an understanding of evolution, they--and we--all rely on people who do. And while some creatards may be content to keep their superstitions to themselves, others are not, and they must not be allowed to infect others and subvert education.
 

Matt King

New member
Mar 15, 2010
551
0
0
-sigh-
how about you just leave people alone, people are stupid, YES WE GET IT, if they want to be stupid just leave them alone


also i am calling that this thread will eventually just descend into religion bashing
 

wizzy555

New member
Oct 14, 2010
637
0
0
wizzy555 said:
ManThatYouFear said:
how come only we have really evolved to this state with humans all over the world of different colours and styles all related to the same ancestor, but how come the orangutan never did?
You can ask the same question about elephants or fig trees. Some species are more successful than others, some are more adaptable to different environments, some can only thrive in a specific environment.
To expand more orangutans are adapted for rainforests, they eat fruit and need trees to hide in. Humans are adapted for the African planes (if we disregard technology), we can cope in the sun, run fairly fast (for a primate) and eat a lot of different things we find. We are pretty terrible at living in trees. We can also swim (which has led to a crazy theory that we are aquatic apes).

Now once you mix in technology (fur coats) we can function pretty well in both Europe and Asia. The orangutan would still be stuck trying to figure out a way to evade lions once outside a rainforest.
 

pirateninj4

New member
Apr 6, 2009
525
0
0
Elate said:
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.
Oh I was just so close...bravo.
 

Aurgelmir

WAAAAGH!
Nov 11, 2009
1,566
0
0
AwkwardTurtle said:
[
Well, I wouldn't call choosing not to believe in evolution "stupidity" if it's an educated decision. Like I said, I'm all for the bare minimum of teaching evolution. However, that's where any sort of societal intervention should end though in my personal opinion. If after being taught the theory of evolution an individual chooses to not believe it I think that's perfectly fine. I think the assumption being made here is that because someone doesn't believe in the theory of evolution they will automatically be opposed to it being taught to others.

My point being that it should be perfectly fine for two people to happily co-exist while having different beliefs about the world. I'm not saying that there aren't people who don't believe in evolution and try to get it banned. These are people I do not support on the simple basis that they're trying to stop freedom of speech. However, I would argue that it's perfectly fine for a person to not believe in evolution and not have this crusader-like fervor to have everyone believe in evolution.

In a way I just find it a bit rude to live with the attitude of "Evolution is the one truth and everything else is wrong. If you believe in something else you must be stupid!" I thought it might be interesting to present an alternative view-point.
But it is stupidity. Because evolution isn't a vague concept which just sit by itself on a shelf. As I said earlier: Evolution is apart of Biology, which is a Science. You are not allowed to pick and choose what part of science you "believe in" Science = facts. Sure sometimes we are wrong in science, and we adapt out theories, but that is done by professionals who see that our understanding of some concepts were wrong. Like how Newtonian physics worked for us for ages, and still do, but it wasn't accurate on the quantum level, and lead to new theories being developed.

And you know, I have been educated in physics, didn't really like electromagnetism so I choose not to believe in it.
See how stupid that sounds?
 

vezon

New member
Jun 21, 2012
15
0
0
I do believe in Evolution and those who dont are shortsighted.
BUT.
People think that evolution means that we came from monkeys.WRONG.
We are not monkeys only our ancestor was common but we are different species.
And no, our monkeys will never evolve in humans, but they can sometime achieve greater intelect and get on 2 legs but they will be different.
In another words they are not our parrents but brothers.
Second if u want to see evoultion in action u should not look at mammals which has lifespan in years but living things which has a lifespan in hours. U need at least 1000 generation for somekind of changes.
Do u know why do we need better and better antibiotics? Because bacterias can have >1000 generations in a few years.
3rd believing in God its not the opposite believing in Evolution. They can come along easily.

There are which are not yet explained about evolution. Like how The Need is influencing what kind of mutations u are going through.
Ex. If a group of humans are forced on a very tiny island, doing most of your daily things in water, in a few genereation u will see somekind of changes on their legs.
2nd question. How did appeared the 1st virus. Because for me they come 1st than the livings.
 

Ledan

New member
Apr 15, 2009
798
0
0
Jacco said:
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.
*Hrumph*...*Cough-cough* These people are not the norm. From someone.

OT:
Had a biology teacher in 7th grade who was South African, and before and after the evolution unit she said some of the most stupidest things ive ever heard.
"I wasn't a snake earlier today, so evolution isn't true!". Horrible teacher in all respects, come to think of it.
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
I had something to contribute to this thread, but as I read it, I just realized that I'd be contributing to a trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls thread, which would be a silly waste of time. So I will just continue to read everyone's posts and lol :3
 

Redingold

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Mar 28, 2009
1,641
0
0
Haefulz said:
chimeracreator said:
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.
Basically, it comes down to everything you just said about the eye being wrong. Half an eye is certainly useful, more useful than no eye at all. Practically every stage in the evolution of the eye can be seen in some place in the animal kingdom.

Eyes would have first started as simple patches of light-sensitive chemicals on the surfaces of simple organisms. Light-sensitive chemicals are plentiful in nature and can be used for metabolism and detecting light. These spots exist on organisms such as green algae.

The next step is to form a pit wherein these chemicals lie. I shallow pit would cast shadows over the light-sensitive chemicals, and this would allow the direction of light to be discerned. Eyes like this exist in modern flatworms.

As the pits deepen, greater accuracy can be achieved, and the pit starts to look like an eyeball. Eyes like this exist in snails.

The next step in the evolution of the eye is the addition of an aperture, which makes the eye be similar to a pinhole camera. The increased resolution this offers allows simple shape recognition. Eyes like this exists in creatures like the nautilus.

The lens of the eye most likely started as a blob of mucus that helped focus light onto the light-sensitive cells, and over time this was optimised into today's lens shape.

The evolution of the eye is very well understood and offers no counterpoint to the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.
 

iseko

New member
Dec 4, 2008
727
0
0
Jacco said:
Why are people so fucking stupid?

Evolution is a measurable thing that we can WATCH HAPPEN! STOP THE STUPIDITY!!!
I believe that evolution exists but I can understand why some people believe in intelligent design. It's kind of hard not to sometimes.

miller/urey experiment said:
By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system


The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
This experiment 'proves' that amino acids can be formed out of their raw materials. But to go from THAT to even single celled organisms is quite frankly mind boggling. Even if you have the assumption that early life only used RNA (it's the general consensus) it is still a long way to go. Do you know how many proteins it takes to 'read' RNA and translate/build a protein? Even assuming you cut that number in half or more, the odds of it randomly happening is insane.

The structure of the tail of of a spermatozoon (that is how it is written in english?) is one of the main examples of intelligent design. It's almost unimaginable that this happened by chance. And if you understand evolution then you know there is no driving will. It's all chance. Personally I am of the opinion that just because you don't understand how something works, you don't have to assume a higher being did it (although you can't rule it out either). I think it is possible that everything happened through evolution and that I/humanity will never know/understand how it exactly occurred.
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
Show them this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCXzcPNsqGA

Ive used this program myself, its fantastic. Until my big bro messed it up I had my own species that could climb tough terrain effectively. Its not total proof of evolution but its good enough for me. Yknow, on top of all the evidence and that.
 

iseko

New member
Dec 4, 2008
727
0
0
Haefulz said:
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 understand the confusion but first you need to accept a few things:

1) just because something isn't useful at first, doesn't mean it gets selected out of the gene pool. For example: a multi cellular organism mutates by chance (and it is always by chance) in its DNA. It now has a couple of cells somewhere in its body that can detect green light. Is it useful? Not yet probably. But is it harmful? Nope. So if this organism has other characteristics so that it survives and reproduces, light detection gets introduced into the gene pool. It is still a long way go to an actual eye. But the road is not inconceivable. What if in a 1000 years (or more) another mutation occurs that transfers all these cells to the surface of the organism. This organism can now detect light. If this organism discovers that there are more predators when there is light (because it is warmer then? I'm just giving an example here) he can adapt to hunting for food at night. This gives him a MAJOR advantage. You would probably say that he needs a nervous system and a brain for that but not really. Maybe out of ten organisms that can detect light, there is one that doesn't like light. He will stay away from it. The other nine will have a higher chance of getting eaten. The one will most likely survive. This is just one example of how this could work.

Another 1000 years and red and blue get thrown in their. He can now see the spectrum as we can see it. Etc etc... After a million years you have the rudimentary eye ball.

2) in a park close to my home there lived an albino pigeon. It was the only albino pigeon there. Random mutation bla bla bla he had no pigment. Now. He lived on and even built a nest with his partner. So he didn't get selected away by predators or not finding a mate. You know what happened to him? He was in his nest guarding his eggs when lightning hit the tree. That's just plain old dumb luck. And I doubt that being albino made him more attractive to lightning. Sometimes random mutations that have no advantage/disadvantage have some bad F'ing luck. :p

Evolution in its simplest way of looking at it is like this:
A) random mutation occurs. The mutation gets tested for advantages/disadvantages in the current environment
A.1 it gives the organism a disadvantage: he (probably) dies off.
A.2 no advantage/disadvantage yet: it (probably) stays in the gene pool
A.3 it gives the organism an advantage: it is (most likely) accepted in the gene pool
A.4 the organism gets hit by lightning or something: tough luck

PS: sometimes evolution is weird. Humans don't really use their appendix any more so why doesn't it go away? Because when the appendix becomes smaller it has a higher chance of infecting (aka killing the person). So we now have an appendix that isn't used but it doesn't go away because that would kill us. Weird huh.

B) the environment changes somehow (I'm using the butterfly example)
In England during the industrial age, pollution changed white trees into black trees (cuz of all the dust). White butterflies normally lived on these trees so predators couldn't see them. Now that the trees were black, the butterflies were easy pickings for the predators. But some butterflies had a darker pigment so were harder to spot. They survived because of a mutation that was disadvantageous just a couple years before. How the tides can change :p. So now in a few generations time, the butterflies change from white to black.

There is more to it but that is the most important part. What you should remember the most is the difference between A.1/2/3/4.
 

Shodan1980

New member
Mar 29, 2010
148
0
0
I got to page three of this thread then I had to give up. If anybody lacks sufficient knowledge about evolution, read Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" The man may have been warped into a petulant arse by constantly arguing with idiots but the man writes good stuff. Its full of clear, well thought examples of evolution in the world aropund us and explains the process in a brilliantly insightful manner. Go away and read that, and maybe "The Selfish Gene" if you want more background then come back and see if you still doubt that evolution is happening all around us at all times and has been going on since the first organic chains formed in our oceans (or were transported here on a meteorite, nobody knows).

As for the "where's the missing link?" argument, they have found lots of missing links showcasing the evolution of man, the problem is a taxonomy one. If a hominid skeleton is found it has to be placed in a class, but there are dozens of finds that scientists are arguing which camp it belongs in endlessly because its so close to two. So one guy may claim a skeleton is a late Homo ergaster,another may claim its an early Homo heidelbergensis.

Pardon the awful quality but.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
Asita said:
Doclector said:
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.
Eh, they did and are evolving. We didn't descend from any variant of modern ape[footnote]At least not one that we know of[/footnote], we share an ancestral species though. Different populations of that species evolved in different manners, eventually resulting in the various great apes of today[footnote]And yes, categorically we are members of the Great Ape classification[/footnote].
Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. That's a thanks to everyone who did, as I woke up to ten replies for this. Apart from the one who hated on me for it. I did say I'm no scientist, twas just a guess.

Still, if an ape/monkey species did start to gain human levels of communication and thought, we're looking at a rather large sociological hurdle.