New "Missing link" for evolution!

[Axeli]

*snip*

The process of natural selection - of evolution isn't random. Random being, "things change arbitrarily." That's only mutation. There are random elements involved with natural selection, but there's a filters involved: competition within a specific environment.

Species aren't "just" changing randomly, the changes that are likely to get passed on help them survive and reproduce in their habitat. So while there are random elements involved, evolution on a large scale is not a "random" process. I am not saying it's the work of a supernatural intentional being - just that people like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins wouldn't call the process random.

I know you're not, but you're not looking at the big picture. The habitat and the other competing species are at the base also created by the same randomness.

Of course, there's the matter of what you consider random. There are always the laws of physics behind everything, so technically there's no such thing as chaos or order (though it's hard to say whether the universe at its core is more chaotic or predetermined).

However, the point was to point out that though life began and kept going on a certain kind of "randomness", even randomness has it's logic. If you keep randomly putting pieces together, they randomly fall apart and randomly stay together. Suddenly you don't have just pieces, but also combinations, combinations that keep slowly getting more and more complex as you keep putting more pieces together.
The force putting the pieces together is of course the interaction force of atoms, not some higher being.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I know you're not, but you're not looking at the big picture. The habitat and the other competing species are at the base also created by the same randomness.

The formation of the geological habitat is separate from the process of natural selection. The world is chaotic, the process of natural selection (<- specifically that, not the whole nature of the universe) is not random.

We're talking about evolution after all.

 

[HE3ED]

How? Is it difficult to believe that, over the space of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, two isolated populations that were once of the same species can eventually accumulate enough differences that they can no longer successfully breed? Once they can no longer create viable offspring, they are separate species. That is "macroevolution".

Organisms in nature tend not to reproduce well compared to non mutated organisms. For example, the drug resistant strains of bacterium that have developed from overuse of antibiotics are consistantly out competed in reproduction by their unmutated brotheren and the mutated strand dies out. I also don't buy the Evolutionist explaination for the beginning of life.

Edit: Sorry for my inability to quote someone well. The forum takes getting used to.

P.S. congrats on the 1337 posts sneakypenguin.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Good grief, so many people dying to disprove God's existence.

It's really not up to atheists to disprove your god's existence, anymore than it is up to those who don't believe in santa claus to disprove his existence. Theists make the assertion that their god exists; therefore, the onus is on them to provide evidence.

It's funny how people can see things so differently, where people see a "missing link" I just see a new critter we discovered, where people see common ancestors I see a common designer. To me similarity does not mean relation.

To insist that common descent is a matter of interpretation is a blatant admission of your total ignorance of the subject at hand.

Both belief systems require faith I just place my faith in creationism.

How, pray tell, does accepting that evolution occurs require faith? The evidence is there, mountains of it. No faith required. Creationism, on the other hand...


Edit: Also, guaranteed way to instantly create a huge thread: Mention evolution, creationism, or religion. >_<

I can't "prove" my God to you, because it is a faith( as the Bible says "faith is the substance of things hoped for the the evidence of things not seen"

I know very little of evolution as Biology wasn't exactly my fav in college but under my faith common descent is a matter of interpretation. I don't believe we evolved from primates(or whatnot) but that we where created alongside.
And both ideologies require faith mine requires faith in a omnipotent God, otherside has to have a faith in where did the universe come from, was matter just here was it spawned from nothing, either way both sides have to have some sort of "faith" in a begining of sorts. (now i'm sure there is a theory that answers that question but I don't think it would satisfy me)

I can't argue with someone about this that isn't a "Christian" I approach it from a different angle which is incompatible with debate on the opposing side. You seek evidence I seek faith and accept the Bible, that's just the way it is.

 

[mdk31]

How? Is it difficult to believe that, over the space of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, two isolated populations that were once of the same species can eventually accumulate enough differences that they can no longer successfully breed? Once they can no longer create viable offspring, they are separate species. That is "macroevolution".

Organisms in nature tend not to reproduce well compared to non mutated organisms. For example, the drug resistant strains of bacterium that have developed from overuse of antibiotics are consistantly out competed in reproduction by their unmutated brotheren and the mutated strand dies out.

Er, what? Could I get a source on that?

So-called "superbugs" are on the rise in hospitals in reality, precisely because they out-compete their non-resistant brethren.

I also don't buy the Evolutionist explaination for the beginning of life.

The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. The origin of life is within the realm of abiogenesis, which is currently a hypothesis given that there is not yet enough evidence to state with confidence how life arose. Evolution is concerned with the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

 

[mdk31]

Pshhhh. like we needed even MORE evidence for evolution. This isn't even fair any more (and it hasn't been for the last 100 years.) evolution versus creationism is like a heavyweight boxer versus a leperous retard puppy. just not a fair fight at all.

True fact, but I so enjoy beating on puppies.

 

[HE3ED]

Er, what? Could I get a source on that?

I forgot where its from I'll ask my professor and get back to you.

So-called "superbugs" are on the rise in hospitals in reality, precisely because they out-compete their non-resistant brethren.

They are on the rise in hospitals because all the competing bacteria are being killed by the antibiotics. Without them the unmutated bacterium would have the upper hand

I also don't buy the Evolutionist explaination for the beginning of life.

The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. The origin of life is within the realm of abiogenesis, which is currently a hypothesis given that there is not yet enough evidence to state with confidence how life arose. Evolution is concerned with the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

How can you talk about what life is if you don't know how it began?

 

[RelexCryo]

Good grief, so many people dying to disprove God's existence.

It's really not up to atheists to disprove your god's existence, anymore than it is up to those who don't believe in santa claus to disprove his existence. Theists make the assertion that their god exists; therefore, the onus is on them to provide evidence.

-actually, under Standard Rules of Debate, Creationism is a widely held theory. Because it is a widely held theory, it does not need to be proven. It must be disproven. The Pythagorean Thoerum operates similarly.(by definition, the Pythagorean Theorum can never be proven.)

Both belief systems require faith I just place my faith in creationism.

How, pray tell, does accepting that evolution occurs require faith? The evidence is there, mountains of it. No faith required. Creationism, on the other hand...


Edit: Also, guaranteed way to instantly create a huge thread: Mention evolution, creationism, or religion. >_<

There is actually some evidence as to the validity of creationism. Whether or not it's conclusive is the issue. For example, some animals evolved A LOT of beneficial mutant traits in a VERY shot period of time- some people argue that this is suppporting evidence that evolution is guided by a Creator, since it is mathematically improbable that so many beneficial mutations would occur in a such a short period of time. For example, the infamous "dinosaurs became birds" theory- it has been reasoned that if a meteor really did wipe out the dinosaurs, than it would have wiped out the tortoises and crocodiles that shared the same living space. And of course, the necessary mutations for dinosaurs to become birds, happening all so rapidly, would have been somewhat unlikely...even so, an atheist would argue that even if dinosaurs became birds, it would still prove nothing. Ultimately, there is a difference between supporting evidence, and CONCLUSIVE supporting evidence, which is also the difference between a theory and a fact.


EDIT: oh, and please read my post on page 9 rather than ignoring it.

 

[mdk31]

Er, what? Could I get a source on that?

I forgot where its from I'll ask my professor and get back to you.

So-called "superbugs" are on the rise in hospitals in reality, precisely because they out-compete their non-resistant brethren.

They are on the rise in hospitals because all the competing bacteria are being killed by the antibiotics. Without them the unmutated bacterium would have the upper hand

I also don't buy the Evolutionist explaination for the beginning of life.

The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. The origin of life is within the realm of abiogenesis, which is currently a hypothesis given that there is not yet enough evidence to state with confidence how life arose. Evolution is concerned with the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

How can you talk about what life is if you don't know how it began?

What are you saying, that because we do not know for sure the origin of something, we can not define it?

 

[mdk31]

Good grief, so many people dying to disprove God's existence.

It's really not up to atheists to disprove your god's existence, anymore than it is up to those who don't believe in santa claus to disprove his existence. Theists make the assertion that their god exists; therefore, the onus is on them to provide evidence.

-actually, under Standard Rules of Debate, Creationism is a widely held theory. Because it is a widely held theory, it does not need to be proven. It must be disproven. The Pythagorean Thoerum operates similarly.(by definition, the Pythagorean Theorum can never be proven.)

Both belief systems require faith I just place my faith in creationism.

How, pray tell, does accepting that evolution occurs require faith? The evidence is there, mountains of it. No faith required. Creationism, on the other hand...


Edit: Also, guaranteed way to instantly create a huge thread: Mention evolution, creationism, or religion. >_<

There is actually some evidence as to the validity of creationism. Whether or not it's conclusive is the issue. For example, some animals evolved A LOT of beneficial mutant traits in a VERY shot period of time- some people argue that this is suppporting evidence that evolution is guided by a Creator, since it is mathematically improbable that so many beneficial mutations would occur in a such a short period of time.

Which animals? Sources please?

For example, the infamous "dinosaurs became birds" theory- it has been reasoned that if a meteor really did wipe out the dinosaurs, than it would have wiped out the tortoises and crocodiles that shared the same living space.

By whom? What data did they use to support this conclusion?

And of course, the necessary mutations for dinosaurs to become birds, happening all so rapidly, would have been somewhat unlikely...

Rapidly? Haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

even so, an atheist would argue that even if dinosaurs became birds, it would still prove nothing. Ultimately, there is a difference between supporting evidence, and CONCLUSIVE supporting evidence, which is also the difference between a theory and a fact.

Right, science isn't in the business of proofs, that's left to mathematicians. Science is concerned with gathering evidence and devising laws and theories that explain and incorporate all the available evidence, while contradicting none of it.

Also, a theory isn't a hunch or a guess. I really wish people would take the time to learn what "theory" means in science.

 

[HE3ED]

What are you saying, that because we do not know for sure the origin of something, we can not define it?

Its kinda pretentious to define something when you don't know everything about it. Let alone voice an opinion with so large of a whole.

Creationism doesn't have holes. Its always a credible theory because it doesn't depend on science to "prove" it right or wrong. It depends on faithfuls who follow it like you follow evolutionism, with zeal.

 

[mdk31]

What are you saying, that because we do not know for sure the origin of something, we can not define it?

Its kinda pretentious to define something when you don't know everything about it. Let alone voice an opinion with so large of a whole.

Do you know everything about robots? Do you feel you can define what a robot is?

Creationism doesn't have holes. Its always a credible theory because it doesn't depend on science to "prove" it right or wrong. It depends on faithfuls who follow it like you follow evolutionism, with zeal.

I don't follow evolution"ism" with zeal, I accept it occurred and occurs because that is what the evidence shows. I have no need for silly stories scribbled down by bronze age goat herders.

 

[Delicious]

Both theories have massive holes in each. Here is why.

No one was around when these events fucking happened.

Keep this in mind before you start spouting off nonsense about how your side of the argument is unassailable and how the opposing isn't.

And someone mentioned earlier that this could help Evolution become a law instead of a theory, which it won't because it can't. A "law" is not an upgrade from theory; it explains what will happen, whereas a theory explains why it will happen.

Example: Law of Gravity. Shit falls down. Definite fact. The Theory of Gravity is much less concrete, so much so that we have more evidence for the theory of Evolution.

Theory=!Law people.

 

[mdk31]

Both theories have massive holes in each. Here is why.

No one was around when these events fucking happened.

So? One can still gather evidence of what occurred in the past.

And someone mentioned earlier that this could help Evolution become a law instead of a theory, which it won't because it can't. A "law" is not an upgrade from theory; it explains what will happen, whereas a theory explains why it will happen.

Example: Law of Gravity. Shit falls down. Definite fact. The Theory of Gravity is much less concrete, so much so that we have more evidence for the theory of Evolution.

Theory=!Law people.

For FSM's sake, learn what a theory is in science before you spew this nonsense. Please, it's giving me a headache.

Wow, sorry, I misread that at first. It's late, sorry. Yes, I agree with the above. Disregard my above line, I did a stupid.

 

[Delicious]

Both theories have massive holes in each. Here is why.

No one was around when these events fucking happened.

So? One can still gather evidence of what occurred in the past.

But you can't say for certain. That is my point, so we all need to stop pretending that we know everything. It is all up the air at this point.

 

[HE3ED]

Do you know everything about robots? Do you feel you can define what a robot is?

Nope, i can tell you what i think it is, a robotics expert can tell you what a robot is right now, but no one knows what robots will be like or were like thousands of years ago. Maybe robots were in existance on another world long before we had learned to cutivate the ground. I know nothing for sure and it isn't possible to.

Creationism doesn't have holes. Its always a credible theory because it doesn't depend on science to "prove" it right or wrong. It depends on faithfuls who follow it like you follow evolutionism, with zeal.

]I don't follow evolution"ism" with zeal, I accept it occurred and occurs because that is what the evidence shows. I have no need for silly stories scribbled down by bronze age goat herders.

Evolutionism is as much a matter of faith as Creationism. And you listen to a man by the name of Charles Darwin who scribbled down his silly story in the Galapagos about a hundred and fifty years ago .

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Snip.

One or the other, pal. You can't pretend to be humble and unknowing and yet be privileged to unspecified "evidence" that I'm apparently blind to at the same time. It can't work both ways. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't work either way.

It's possible that life could begin "spontaneously." Is it possible that an intelligent designer could begin the same way? No. We know life exists, but you have no evidence for god - and no way to create him through randomness. We can speculate how life began, but when you speculate how a god who supposedly created all life began - what once seems like a simple answer ("god did it") becomes a trick question.

But that's only as far as I can tell.

I was being sarcastic, friend. I see the same evidence that you do, and yet I see it differently. My point is much like the puzzle comparison that I made earlier.

We know that life exists. Any proposal as to how it came to be is speculation. As far as speculating the origin of God, I do conveniently believe he created the universe, which to me does imply there is a plane of existence beyond it. That's as much as I can guess, because I recognize that it is beyond me to understand.

Imagine that you found a plain DVD on the ground, without any prior knowledge thereof, or of any technology. You could test it to see what it was made of, you could speculate that it was made from a mold, that there was a large sheet of plastic that was cut into that shape, or even upon seeing the rings that maybe each was fused to the end in the opposite way that a tree grows (you might even speculate the same). You could never really know for certain. However, since your naked eye cannot read as a laser, you would never know that there was any data on that disk. You wouldn't even think to look. You might figure it to be a crude (or extravagant) mirror or reflecting device. To someone watching you examine it, who knew what it was, you would seem a fool. To you and any unknowing peers that you might have, whatever solution you came to would be the obvious choice.

As far as you and I know scientifically, we're on a rock in the middle of a vacuum. We can inspect it, and the vacuum from afar, and find things on it and in it all we want, but there are some things about it just beyond our capacity.

Snip.

I believe that God spoke the stars and planets as well as life as we know it into being. Those and their components are what we call "the universe". Strangely enough, if the being known as God created the universe as we know it, he must have come from somewhere else. I don't know where, it isn't my place to know. Convenient, yes. Logical, in it's own right, yes. How could a creation know what "created" its creator? We don't understand existence, and we can't, because we are inside it, let alone the level of existence a being beyond us. I believe it is very logical to think that there is something beyond our universe. Our universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

I get it. It is a very difficult thing to accept, the idea that you can't know everything. Trust me, it comes to you eventually. It came to me, not as a failure on my part, nor does it mean that I am somehow a superior person because of it.

Any self-respecting scientist will tell you that we don't know the first thing about anything in most areas. Not all scientists without faith are out to "kill" God, and not all scientists with faith are out to defend Him. Most scientists do what they do because they recognize that we know nothing, and they'd like to work towards knowing a little more.

Faith is an appropriate term. Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and being certain of what we do not see. I believe that God exists, because I see him working all around me. Things that shouldn't happen, do. Things that are doomed for failure suddenly succeed. I see it in my life, the lives of others, my community, and the world at large. I attribute it to God because I know that He is doing it. I feel his presence all the time.

I hope that you understand this some day and come to know Him, so I can meet you in Glory. If you do not, that is a choice He has given you, and I'm sorry for you making it, but I won't hate you for it.

Back to the topic. This discovery is a good thing. For me, we have an opportunity to try to understand another piece of God's creation. I refer back to the puzzle, I'm fitting this piece into my Eiffel Tower, you can fit it into your Golden Gate bridge. Only time will tell what the final puzzle looks like, we may never know.

 

[RelexCryo]

Good grief, so many people dying to disprove God's existence.

It's really not up to atheists to disprove your god's existence, anymore than it is up to those who don't believe in santa claus to disprove his existence. Theists make the assertion that their god exists; therefore, the onus is on them to provide evidence.

-actually, under Standard Rules of Debate, Creationism is a widely held theory. Because it is a widely held theory, it does not need to be proven. It must be disproven. The Pythagorean Thoerum operates similarly.(by definition, the Pythagorean Theorum can never be proven.)

Both belief systems require faith I just place my faith in creationism.

How, pray tell, does accepting that evolution occurs require faith? The evidence is there, mountains of it. No faith required. Creationism, on the other hand...


Edit: Also, guaranteed way to instantly create a huge thread: Mention evolution, creationism, or religion. >_<

There is actually some evidence as to the validity of creationism. Whether or not it's conclusive is the issue. For example, some animals evolved A LOT of beneficial mutant traits in a VERY shot period of time- some people argue that this is suppporting evidence that evolution is guided by a Creator, since it is mathematically improbable that so many beneficial mutations would occur in a such a short period of time.

Which animals? Sources please?

For example, the infamous "dinosaurs became birds" theory- it has been reasoned that if a meteor really did wipe out the dinosaurs, than it would have wiped out the tortoises and crocodiles that shared the same living space.

By whom? What data did they use to support this conclusion?

And of course, the necessary mutations for dinosaurs to become birds, happening all so rapidly, would have been somewhat unlikely...

Rapidly? Haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

even so, an atheist would argue that even if dinosaurs became birds, it would still prove nothing. Ultimately, there is a difference between supporting evidence, and CONCLUSIVE supporting evidence, which is also the difference between a theory and a fact.

Right, science isn't in the business of proofs, that's left to mathematicians. Science is concerned with gathering evidence and devising laws and theories that explain and incorporate all the available evidence, while contradicting none of it.

Also, a theory isn't a hunch or a guess. I really wish people would take the time to learn what "theory" means in science.

First off, I apologize for not being able to name more sources. I've heard of a few, but can't name any others off hand.

Secondly, I didn't claim that the "dinosaurs became birds theory" Grant advocated in the original Jurassic park was the origin of birds, I simply said some people believe that dinosaurs became birds.

Thirdly, as for what a theory is:

1. First you observe a phenomemon

2. then you propose a hypothesis for it's nature

3. then you do testing. if you have INCONCLUSIVE supporting evidence, it becomes a theory.

4. If you have CONCLUSIVE supporting evidence, it becomes a law, fact, or principle.

EDIT: It's worth noting that even laws, (the Law of Entropy, for example) are considered to be *possibly* wrong, due to the inherently subjective nature of perception. Hence, some people argue that "theory" is the highest state one can obtain-despite the tendency of common textbooks to use the phrase "law" which admittedly doesn't necessarily make such usage correct.

 

[traceur_]

Plz people, you are all being arseholes.

I'mm an athiest for several reasons, its my personal choice. I don't expect christians to try and convert me, its not their place to do so. As they consider themselves to be a considerate and tolerate religion then they should respect that some people don't have any beliefs. The same applies to me, I don't go round to christian houses and say "god doesn't exist, everything that you say is a lie". I respect their beliefs no matter how idiotic they sound to me.

I wish these people would come to my door so I can rant to them. the only time I would disrespect their beliefs is if they came to my door ramming christianity down my throat.

christians or athiest, you are still human and its human nature to condone other peoples beliefs because they don't match yours.

anyway, this thread is about a scientific discovery NOT religion. I couldn't really care less, I'm not a p....(whatever ross from freinds is).

This.

Also I'm sorry if this has already been pointed out but for those who say evolution is "just a theory", you must understand that in terms of science other than mathematics and physics, a theory denotes the highest status an explanation can attain. Many people mistake the word "theory" and think it means what is actually referred to as a hypothesis.

Scientific theories are comprehensive frameworks for describing, explaining and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigorous observation, experimentation and logic.

Please [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=PlayList&p=F68BCE501C48ED6F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1] watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=PlayList&p=F68BCE501C48ED6F&index=0&playnext=1] these [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI]

I ask this of the people arguing in this thread: Please, if you wish to have a long, heated debate, do so via PM, do not clog this thread with pointless arguments.

If you wish to have a reasoned debate with someone of opposing belief, feel free to do so here, please exchange ideas in an intelligent and accepting manner, no one is wrong here. Avoid using condescending remarks as they only display your arrogance.

OT: This find is awesome.