Evidence for Evolution

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

fiest note the 'seems', secondly my reason for the statement was the

in religion, when the theories do not fit the facts, the facts are discarded

not disproved, but discarded, whether true or false it seems to suggest

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You know what, Last Child? If we had revised our scriptures a few centuries ago to "fit the known facts," our Bible would be utterly messed up by now.

I don't think anyone is asking that. The main point is (well, at least mine is) is that religion should not have a place in this field of science. The basis of religion is something that can't/shouldn't change, where as science is ever in motion.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That's only true if you throw out the latest known science that shows that BIRDS, NOT reptiles, are descendants from dinosaurs.

Of course, 2000 years ago the people could hardly be expected to know how some dinosaurs bones were similar to those of birds. And some reptiles did live in the age of the dinosaurs and have survived today.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That is incorrect. Those theories are in no way opposed to one another. The dinosaurs were in the PROCESS of evolving into birds when the astroid hit. By the way - I did not mean you couldn't have discussed this in the evolution thread. But your bible stuff isn't science.

I may interpret this wrong but not all dinosaurs were evolving into birds, only a group among them. *imagines a T-rex with wings* Heehee.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I never said they were one - I said they weren't OPPOSING theories. And actually - it is pretty much a fact that at the time of the dinosaurs disappearance - the astroid hit off the coast of Mexico.

Last thing I heard was that there are many different possible causes for the extinction of the dinosaur and that it may very well have been a combination of several, if not all possible causes, be it competition by mammals or birds, astroids or diseases ect... Which is why I love dinosaurs so much ( <-- has been besotted with them as soon as she could write ) and there will always be new documentaries that see their extinction from another angle or puts another possible cause in the lime light.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Archaeoptrix (forgive the spelling, which no doubt is bad ) existed 150 to 130 million years ago, and is classified as a bird. The dinosaurs ruled the land from 200 million years ago. I don't see why one should think that these new races of birds that were invading the pterosaur's Cretaceous shouldn't have stemmed from them.

And who says that Archaeoptrix wasn't also dinosaur?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

in fact, archaeopteryx is more often classified as dinosaur, earniel

[Earniel]

Thought so.

Whoo, darn, I can't even remember how to type archaeopteryx, my younger self would be so embarassed of me. Must. get. sleep. G'night.

[Jonathan]

(RÃ*an's quotes have all been transfered from the Creationism thread)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, that's no advantage scientifically. It's scientifically neutral, IMO.

I didn’t say scientifically. Just saying you can fit in god in any model since he’s above everything. Advantage, since nothing else can fit into any model.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yet anthropologists pick up arrowheads all the time and have no problem concluding they are NOT a result of naturalistic processes, but are rather a result of intelligence and intent and design

Yes, it's subjective, but we make these types of analyses all the time. That's what SETI is all about - the search for extraterresterial intelligence looks for certain types of things that indicate intelligence rather than randomness.

But evolution is about randomness. It has been proved repeatedly that very complex structures can form at completely at random.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then why was gradualism dropped?

Where did you get that from? It’s true that in the fossil record, you can see a relatively sudden appearance of new species in a geologically short time period (from a Christian point of view, this can still be considered a long period of time – the earth being no older than a few thousand years). The theory that changes can occur quickly - punctuated equilibrium (which most of the scientific world adheres to) - is often mistakenly seen as the opposite concept of gradualism, which certainly isn’t the case. We’re still talking about gradualism, just that evolutionary changes can happen faster sometimes. A lizard will not give birth to a bird, but a lizard will give birth to other generations of lizards that will gradually change to become more bird like. There is no clear line of demarcation between an old species and a new one (gradualism), but sometimes these changes can take place in a relatively short amount of time (punctuated equilibrium).
I can tell from my own experience that in the microscopic world, our tiny friends bacteria are quite eager to take “leaps� when they evolve rather than evolve slowly.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I believe it certainly will have changed - some species will have gone extinct, as we observe today, and some new ones will come about, as we observe today. But birds will produce birds, etc. etc. What we observe today is that there seem to be LIMITS to the change, and new species come about from EXISTING genetic info and end up with LESS genetic info.

Actually we observe the opposite. As far as I know there is no evidence that there are any limits. If you can find something that contradicts this, please present it. All organisms are remarkably similar and from a biochemical point of view and there is nothing, no sign whatsoever, that suggests that a species cannot gradually turn into a new species – a species that wouldn’t be able to breed with the original species.
New species don’t necessarily come from existing genetic info at all. We have viruses that incorporate their DNA in us all the time and a considerable amount of our DNA are in fact archaic virus DNA.
I would also like to present our friends bacteria again . They prove that it’s not only existing genetic info that’s involved when they evolve into new species. Basically, if new genetic material is available, the bacteria can put it to use. In fact, I did a lab today on this very thing! . We poured some jellyfish genes on some bacteria and got a new bacteria strain that (if you irradiate them with UV light) can glow in the dark!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't see how this is against creationism The recent mudslides in California produced changes from vertical to horizontal in minutes. Earthquakes produce changes from vertical to horizontal in minutes.

I did say � Without any traces of volcanos or earthquakes that shook the area…� but I admit that the lack of traces doesn’t mean a mudslide or similar didn’t happen. It’s still amusing that you can see footprints from really big dinousars on a vertical wall

Originally Posted by Lief

I'll have to watch one of my dinosaur videos again. I remember hearing about the birds taking over the skies from the dinosaurs, pushing some of the larger dinosaur fliers toward extinction. I don't recall hearing anything about their evolving into birds except from one different video, which had a separate section for each of the primary possible theories, one being the astroid collision and one being evolution to birds.

Just a quick note – none of the “dinosaur fliers� were in fact dinosaurs. They were pterosaurs, flying reptiles. All dinosaurs were per definition land living .
From what I know, it don’t recall ever hearing birds would be the descendants of flying lizards either. Birds evolved from theropods that had a skeletal structure similar to those of today’s birds. Flying lizards had skeletons that differs quite a lot from those of birds. On an interesting note birds and flying lizards evolved their wings independent of each other. Two other kind of animals have evolved wings independently; bats and insects
And yes, like many other kids I had a true passion for dinosaurs when I was little, I knew everything about them!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jonathan

Just a quick note – none of the “dinosaur fliers� were in fact dinosaurs. They were pterosaurs, flying reptiles. All dinosaurs were per definition land living

i've already said that somewhere, but i was ignored

Originally Posted by jonathan

Birds evolved from theropods that had a skeletal structure similar to those of today’s birds

mostly coelurosaurs and procompsognathids, tho i believe there was a strain that came down from the coelophysid line IIRC

[Rían]

(wedding stuff this weekend - I'll be back next week )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i've already said that somewhere, but i was ignored

I didn't ignore it - but I felt you covered it well.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I didn't ignore it - but I felt you covered it well.

there was someone who ignored it

and what is up with your av and title

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

there was someone who ignored it

and what is up with your av and title

Ask the illustrious SGH.

[Sister Golden Hair]

What? I don't see anything wrong with your av, or title.

[Jonathan]

I read an interesting article the other day about how scientists have managed to use modified viruses that can transform themselves into computer transistors. With this technology, it would be possible to create faster computers.

To get viruses with the right properties, scientists have exposed the viruses to natural selection, thus letting evolution be the guide. The scientists used a DNA synthesis machine to randomly put together a billion gene pieces, to which the viruses were exposed. The reason was so that evolution would get some genetic material to work with.

The goal was to create a virus that could form bonds with zinc sulfide crystals. What the scientists did was to pour the viruses and the gene pieces on a plate made of zinc sulfide and then see if any of the viruses had "soaked up" a gene that made it possible for them to form bonds to the plate. The viruses that couldn’t bind to the plate were killed off.

The scientists were actually to find the needle in the haystack and isolate one virus that had absorbed a piece of DNA that gave it the properties the scientists were hoping to find. So through directed evolution and by using some random DNA, the scientists could develop the virus they wanted

Perhaps in the future, it will be a good thing to have viruses in your computer

Interesting site on directed-evolution technology - http://www.cambrios.com/

[azalea]

So what you're saying is that intelligent beings manipulated a situation so as to create a specific life they desired through evolution?

[Jonathan]

Yup, directed evolution. Pretty cool eh?

Now they directed it by controling the viruses' environment. Outside the lab the environment - with climate changes and such - is much more random and not controlled by a higher intelligence.

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

fiest note the 'seems', secondly my reason for the statement was the not disproved, but discarded, whether true or false it seems to suggest

It's sinence in witch they do that.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Your statement saying that the "basic premise is NOT open to being changed" is only because nothing is as well supported by science as the overall premise of evolution. If something comes along and blows evolution out of the water - then yeah - it would be discarded - just like thousands of theories related to many things have been before. But so far - nothing comes as close to explaining so much as evolution does.

JD is right here. RÃ*an says that parts of the theory of evolution is open to "being changed when the facts don't fit". I think that is a poor way to describe it. All scientific theories where there are loopholes or where the scientists aren't sure of the mechanisms are subjects to change. There are enough facts to state that evolution exists - humans, plants, bacteria etc. evolve. It's just that sometimes the scientists don't really know how this and that happened during the evolution. So they come up with a theory for that part of the evolution and if they later find facts that support or don't support that very evolutionary pathway or whatever, they tweak or change that part to better reflect reality. However the theory of evolution as a whole will still be intact regardless of the tiny parts that might be changed over time. Organisms evolve.

One must understand that this is science and this is how science works. Just because physicians may modify their models, chemists don't know all the steps in the synthesis of a substence or biologists don't know why a cell reacts to a substance like it does - it doesn't mean that the models, synthesis or response don't exist/take place.

[Insidious Rex]

Indeed. And thats a point thats often ignored by those who disagree with evolution or science in general. Science, unlike certain religions, doesnt have a problem making it clear that it doesnt have all the answers. The very concept of science is about the constant and never ending search for accurate knowledge.

Heres an interesting list of 13 things that "Do not make sense" scientifically that New Scientist put together.

1 The placebo effect
2 The horizon problem
3 Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
4 Belfast homeopathy results
5 Dark matter
6 Viking's methane
7 Tetraneutrons
8 The Pioneer anomaly
9 Dark energy
10 The Kuiper cliff
11 The Wow signal
12 Not-so-constant constants
13 Cold fusion

The Viking's Methane one is especially intruiging.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

I found this funny, my NationStates Gov't At the other day:

Evolution: Truth Or Witchcraft?

Government Acts
The Issue
Religious and scientific leaders have clashed recently over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

The Debate
"Ach, good to see you haff made it here in one piece," says evil doctor Beth Dodinas as you wake up strapped to a chair in a secret lab. "As you can see from my brilliant experiments, science has now solved zer problems of zer vorld und ve need nothink else! I propose zat ve do AVAY vith zer teachink of silly thinks like religion und concentrate on zer FACTS! For a start, ve must teach our children where ve came from. Ve shouldn't be teaching anythink that hasn't been scientifically proven - er - accounted for, I mean. Igor, release our guest - I haff a monkey to show him..."

"That's a LIE, son, we come from the great meteor of truth!" yells firebrand preacher Pastor Richards, kicking down your door. "We cannot allow there transgressions against the HOLY truth to continue! All the heathens should be thankful we don't burn them at the stake for their devilry! This nation's true and just government must ban the filth and corruption being spread bah these WICKED men!"

"What I'm wondering is why we need to take sides on this," says student Jack Wall. "After all, it's only a theory. An unproven theory. It's not like it has any bearing on real life - let's just allow the biologists to teach evolution but emphasise that it's only a theory, but also make them teach other theories such as creationism. Heck, we can tell them that crackpot theory that we're all descended from canteloupes too! Then everyone goes away happy."

"Stop bickering already!" says Faith Jefferson, Minister of Education. "I say that you can have your cake and eat it, too. Education should be split if it stops this debate. The parents can send their children to secular schools or religious schools, based on what they want their kids to hear. It's expensive, certainly, but the education budget has been needing boosted for ages anyway."

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

1 The placebo effect
2 The horizon problem
3 Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
4 Belfast homeopathy results
5 Dark matter
6 Viking's methane
7 Tetraneutrons
8 The Pioneer anomaly
9 Dark energy
10 The Kuiper cliff
11 The Wow signal
12 Not-so-constant constants
13 Cold fusion

Earlier today I read an article where the author joked that God is a placebo effect

I'm not familiar with the Viking's methane (maybe something to do with the Viking landers on Mars?), I'll look it up on Google as well as some of the other things you mentioned.

Btw the Wow signal is clearly a highly scientific proof that there is intelligent life out there ().

[edit]Hey Spidey, whenever I get that NationStates issue, I choose #3. I like when "everyone goes home happy" and maybe they get a bit more educated too

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Earlier today I read an article where the author joked that God is a placebo effect

Funny Id always heard that god is the Perfect Drug. Hmm... maybe hes both...