Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Thunderhorse31]

The fossil record is the evidence that supports this theory.

Evolutionary Biologist Henry Gee writes:

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

What he means is that if you find two fossils in your backyard, one resembling a small human and one resembling a large one, what can you assume? That they are father and son? Perhaps uncle and nephew? Perhaps they aren't even related. The fact is that we don't know for sure, and that's even dealing with two skeletons of the same species that might be 30 years apart in age.

Even if we had a fossil from every single generation and every conceivable intermediate between fish and man, it would still be impossible in principle to establish firm ancestor-descendant relationships. Sure, we can argue that there are indeed many intermediate steps, but we can't conclude from the fossil record that any one step descended from another.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

I'm skeptical, to me the argument seems to be based on the magical ingredient"time" .
All the theories have such massive holes in them I find it irresponsible to just accept it as "fact"

A theory in science is different from the standard idea of a theory.

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has large amounts of evidence to support it and little evidence that works against it. The theory of evolution has large amounts of supporting evidence and little evidence working against it.

Also it's not time that causes evolution. It's the slight genetic differences from one generation and another. It's just that you only notice these genetic differences when you compare a species to it's ancient relatives. Then you can see how over time these gradual genetic variations eventually led to massive changes.

But I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how life started in the first place.

That's because there really isn't one. Right now all we have to go on are hypothesis for how life on earth began. However, these are lacking in supporting evidence as it's hard to trace anything back to billions of years ago.

However, this does not disprove the theory of evolution. We may not know exactly how life began, but we do know that modern life came to be through evolution.

I definitely could believe that differentiation in species could be caused by evolution, even drastic change to the point we consider it a whole different species. But a single common ancestor? That somehow arose from a pool of mud? I consider that improbable at best.

Also, something you could perhaps clear up for me, I always see darwinists defending the plausibility and possibility of evolution, but they never how we know it was evolution. Just because something (In an astronomically unlikely event)could happen, doesn't mean did happen. What evidence is currently out there of how modern life came from evolution.

I think I basically agree with you, just for the record, I just want to clear some things up.

There is actual evidence that the organelles of a cell can self combine in the right conditions, so maybe numerous ameoba species started everything?

I think they are asking how we somehow went from a pool of amino acids to a living organism. However I don't know the answer to that.

The self combining theory works for that, but then you would still need everything to self combine and then join together, and work properly, and then reproduce. So everything about our origins is speculation and one in a trillion or a quadrillion chance, but it's possible.

 

[Dando Dangerslice]

But I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for how life started in the first place.

there was one on the first page of this thread

Was it my bit on self-replicating proteins?

Yeah! Good job

 

[sneakypenguin]

[quote="twistedshadows" post="18.111665.1963333"One of the real-life examples of an observed, documented "changing species" is the English peppered moth. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution[/quote] Is that really a changing of species though? your article
"The evolution of the peppered moth has been studied in detail over the last two hundred years. At first, many of peppered moths had light coloration, which made them camouflaged them against the light-colored trees and lichens which they rested upon. Due to the pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-colored moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]"

Isn't that more okay we have black and white moths, white moths get eaten so more black?

It isn't a new species its just a trait that became more prevalent.
Its not like the moth changed into a waterbug or beatle or something.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I feel a little in the dark here, can someone fill me in on the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution? Is it, as I think someone already said, just a question of size? As in, small things evolve and big ones don't?

micro is on an individual level

macro is on a species level

 

[Haydyn]

Strands of DNA may be simular, but that doesn't technically mean that two types of creatures would be from the same ancestor. Also, if every creature did come from the same ancestor, then wouldn't there be simularities in all DNA? In contradiction to myself, maybe all DNA of lifeforms on Earth would be extremely different from say, a creature from another planet? But if that is the case, then DNA could be simular based on simular enviroments.

Side note: why is it that evolution walks hand in hand with the Big Bang? It's so hard to explain my point without slightly mentioning C*******ism. How about this:

If evolution is real, then that basically means that all lifeforms (besides plants, I'm 'assuming') came from one ancestor, but that doesn't really rule out every other explanation. Nevermind. I'm doing my best to not get banned again (different forums).

 

[JodaSFU]

The fossil record is the evidence that supports this theory.

Evolutionary Biologist Henry Gee writes:

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

Quote mining, excellent discipline!

The sad thing is here, that they don't just pretend that that's the right order. They make a number of radiometric dating tests, to assert the subject's age, where after they compare it to other fossils, and what do you know? They happen to find, that the age of the specimen not only fits the layer of sedimentary rock in which they found it, they also fit it to the species, which they suspected it was a predecessor/successor to.

Every single piece in the fossil record, has been put to this test. Two types of dating methods, of which one offers several backup methods: Sedimentary rock dating, and radiometric dating. So.. you tell me. How is this not scientific?

 

[Alex_P]

Strands of DNA may be simular, but that doesn't technically mean that two types of creatures would be from the same ancestor. Also, if every creature did come from the same ancestor, then wouldn't there be simularities in all DNA?

Well, here's one obvious similarity: they all have DNA.

-- Alex

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

I admit that I have decided to go ahead and post from page 2, but out of curiosity, why does OP think he gets to immediately jump to commenting on the validity of a scientific theory and present alternatives when he clearly doesn't really understand the theory? It's obvious he (and many others in this thread) doesn't really know the definition of a species and has only a vague idea of what evolution entails. His whole beef actually seems to be with gradualism while he fails to comment on punctuated equilibrium.

He doesn't believe that the age of the earth can be determined while giving no evidence that he understands enough geology to argue with the accepted age and goes ahead and presents an alternative age that he pulled out of thin air.

He doesn't know anything about the Big Bang if he is willing to assert that there is no evidence for it, which means we can probably add astronomy and physics to geology, biology, genetics, and more in the list of subjects he knows very little about.

Why does everybody think he has a right to an opinion on everything? I have a Bachelor's degree in Biology and graduated with high honors and honestly even I don't have enough background to jump up and declare that in my infinite wisdom I have found the flaws in evolution and am ready to disprove it. Why doesn't an obvious high school kid like OP just chill out and study for another decade or so instead of trolling and see if he feels the same way with a couple of degrees under his belt?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Let me explain evolution to skeptics with a bat's ancestral monologue:

"I'm a small, nocturnal rodent that climbs trees.

Now I have this webbing on my forelegs, I can glide to escape danger.

Now I have longer fingers also with webbing, I can glide further and control my flight better.

Now my webbing is large enough and my arms strong enough for me to actually fly, I can take off from wherever I please and can go higher.

I start to eat things in the air and have more food available.

I grow bigger ears and can hear prey instead of relying on sight.

I start to make a sound to better hear where my food is."

See, the evolution of a modern bat in simple steps that don't strain the imagination. This all started with a simple flap of skin.

 

[Matronadena]

Earth is about 4 and a half billion years old, and there is evidence that life has been on our planet ( in it's most primal form) for about half of it " give or take several mass extinction events, and the time it took to regenerate, and repopulate." the time that land based amphibians, insects, and eventually reptiles through to mammals has only been around very very very very recently.

I mean recently...If the time of earth was a 12 month calendar starting Jan 1, and today is December 31st... life first came to land around early October...Dinos died out early December.... modern homo sapient sapient us, modern human, both physically, and mentally showed up around late afternoon/evening December 30th

there is ALOT of time...and it's very very very easy to let the concept and understanding of just how much time were actually talking, escape them.




and on the DNA thing I want to add....that every living thing on earth DOES have VERY similar DNA...Flowers share 25% of the same DNA as us....40-50% of our DNA with cabbages..


humans are the LEAST genetically diverse as we all share a common strand going back to about 75,000 years when our species almost went extinct, living less than a hundred possible breeding females in the world....it's called a genetic bottle neck, and nearly all species show the same bottle neck in their genetics going the same distance back...

 

[Dando Dangerslice]

Strands of DNA may be simular, but that doesn't technically mean that two types of creatures would be from the same ancestor. Also, if every creature did come from the same ancestor, then wouldn't there be simularities in all DNA? In contradiction to myself, maybe all DNA of lifeforms on Earth would be extremely different from say, a creature from another planet? But if that is the case, then DNA could be simular based on simular enviroments.

Side note: why is it that evolution walks hand in hand with the Big Bang? It's so hard to explain my point without slightly mentioning C*******ism. How about this:

If evolution is real, then that basically means that all lifeforms (besides plants, I'm 'assuming') came from one ancestor, but that doesn't really rule out every other explanation. Nevermind. I'm doing my best to not get banned again (different forums).

Also, there are similarities in all DNA. Plants too! Plants are our very distant cousins. We're more closely related to mushrooms (that is, if you believe in that kind of thing)

I feel a little in the dark here, can someone fill me in on the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution? Is it, as I think someone already said, just a question of size? As in, small things evolve and big ones don't?

micro is on an individual level

macro is on a species level

I'm not sure I understand. Individuals... evolving? Within their own lifetimes? Isn't that just... changing?

 

[ExodusinFlames]

I'm a big fan of this sort of thread and how its always so divided.

Science Vs Religion in a winner takes all matchup!!!

But seriously. I think both sides of the fence need to look at the plausibility of a unison of both.

Science has alot of ground in an evolutionary angle, without completely discounting faith. Whereas there are examples of evolution all around us, all of the time, why is it that one cannot, at the same time, marvel at the beauty that causes that life to be. Given the fact that we only know of ourselves in the universe, whats to say that evolution in and of itself is inherant in all forms of life. Why could it not be due to some say divine intervention. Especially in cases where it is not required. For example ... us. Why is it that primate ascended the evolutionary ladder faster than say, cats or fish? Which brings up the second part of the same question: Why is it that devotees of science have such a hard time grasping something bigger than themselves?

Perhaps its time for more to embrace both sides of the spectrum. Salute the G.U.T for what it is, but at the same time, realize that the potential for the divine spark, which theoretically exists in all beings, took a strong hand in that and all science as well.
Anyone who doesn't believe that can just look at biological interconnectivity.

Evolution + Faith = Wisdom.
Science without faith is cold, emotionless and dead, but intellegent and logical.
Faith without science is ignorant and blind, but warm and loving.
Why not allow the two to co-exist?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I'm not sure I understand. Individuals... evolving? Within their own lifetimes? Isn't that just... changing?

Exactly, there's no difference. Just superstitious skepticism.

 

[Dando Dangerslice]

Earth is about 4 and a half billion years old, and there is evidence that life has been on our planet ( in it's most primal form) for about half of it " give or take several mass extinction events, and the time it took to regenerate, and repopulate." the time that land based amphibians, insects, and eventually reptiles through to mammals has only been around very very very very recently.

I mean recently...If the time of earth was a 12 month calendar starting Jan 1, and today is December 31st... life first came to land around early October...Dinos died out early December.... modern homo sapient sapient us, modern human, both physically, and mentally showed up around late afternoon December 30th

there is ALOT of time...and it's very very very easy to let the concept and understanding of just how much time were actually talking, escape them.

Dinosaurs showed up late afternoon, December 30th. We were about fifteen seconds from New Year.

 

[Acid Armageddon]

It's still the THEORY of Evolution. The THEORY.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

I'm not sure I understand. Individuals... evolving? Within their own lifetimes? Isn't that just... changing?

Not possible. An individual doesn't evolve because an individual's changes aren't heritable. That's Lamarckian evolution, NOT microevolution.