Evidence for Evolution

[brownjenkins]

there are theories and evidence for a younger earth ... there is no "evidence" for "a creator", no matter where you put the age mark ... but that would be the other thread

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Of course evolution can be observed in the "physical" world. Weve only given many many examples of exactly how.

you have given numerous example of mutations and microevolution, you have not given any evidence that macroevolution happened or even could happen,

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

there are theories and evidence for a younger earth ... there is no "evidence" for "a creator", no matter where you put the age mark ... but that would be the other thread

there are is no evidence of "big bang" either but it is taught any way ,oh wait other thread again

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

you have given numerous example of mutations and microevolution, you have not given any evidence that macroevolution happened or even could happen,

Evolution (and there is only one kind...) has been observed directly both in the laboratory and in the wild. We can see its mechanisms when we study DNA.

Even without these direct observations it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow (like certain people insist on seeing in order for them to buy evolution...). This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence AGAINST evolution.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

there are is no evidence of "big bang" either but it is taught any way ,oh wait other thread again

the big bang is a theory arrived at by taking the physical state of the universe today and projecting it backwards... from one physical state to another

we do not pretend to know, or teach, what caused the initial "big bang" state to come about... it is an unknown, without evidence by which to examine it

evolution theory is also the study of evidence we can observe and interpret

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Evolution (and there is only one kind...) has been observed directly both in the laboratory and in the wild. We can see its mechanisms when we study DNA.

Even without these direct observations it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow (like certain people insist on seeing in order for them to buy evolution...). This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence AGAINST evolution.

please don't give me that fossil record stuff, when you find a fossil sometimes you can tell what animal it came from, and you know that at one time the animal lived and now the animals dead, just because you find a ham bone next to a steak bone it doesn't mean that a pig was evolving into a cow, it might just mean that they got buried in the same place.

i know animals have mutations, fruit fly experiments are a lotta fun but at the end of the experiment you still have fruit flys you don't have a new kind of fly, we know micro evolution works and is observable the dog example i gave a while back i'm not arguing mutations or microevolution, just the idea that something can come from nothing

and what is this crap your giving me that evolution doesn't need drastic changes for evidence, you guys say we evolved from goo, i'd say from goo to a human is pretty drastic wouldn't you??

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

and what is this crap your giving me that evolution doesn't need drastic changes for evidence, you guys say we evolved from goo, i'd say from goo to a human is pretty drastic wouldn't you??

given millions and millions of years? no

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

just because you find a ham bone next to a steak bone it doesn't mean that a pig was evolving into a cow, it might just mean that they got buried in the same place.

wow where to begin... the fossil record can be used as good evidence for evolution not because things got buried in the same place... (?) but because for the most part what we see in the fossils themselves, over and over, corresponds to what evolution would predict. Its just that simple. Creationism doesnt predict whales having limb bones. What would be the point? But they do.

i know animals have mutations, fruit fly experiments are a lotta fun but at the end of the experiment you still have fruit flys you don't have a new kind of fly

actually at the end of our manipulation of say corn or soy bean genetics we DO have new kinds of plants. Plants that act and look nothing like the original. Same with bacteria. Same with quite a few things.

we know micro evolution works and is observable the dog example i gave a while back i'm not arguing mutations or microevolution, just the idea that something can come from nothing

well actually you were arguing against evolution but if its just about something "coming from nothing" then that of course has nothing to do with evolution. I think thats that genisis thing. Or maybe even physics. First law of thermodynamics anyone?

and what is this crap your giving me that evolution doesn't need drastic changes for evidence, you guys say we evolved from goo, i'd say from goo to a human is pretty drastic wouldn't you??

Id say an all powerful creature snapping his fingers and popping us into existance out of "nothing" is a lot more drastic. wouldnt you?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

wow where to begin... the fossil record can be used as good evidence for evolution not because things got buried in the same place... (?) but because for the most part what we see in the fossils themselves, over and over, corresponds to what evolution would predict. Its just that simple. Creationism doesnt predict whales having limb bones. What would be the point? But they do.

whales having limb bones doesn't hold water(no pun intended) click here

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

actually at the end of our manipulation of say corn or soy bean genetics we DO have new kinds of plants. Plants that act and look nothing like the original. Same with bacteria. Same with quite a few things.

but when your done with the experiment you are still left with a plant, or a bacteria, you don't get an animal from a plant, or bacteria.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well actually you were arguing against evolution but if its just about something "coming from nothing" then that of course has nothing to do with evolution. I think thats that genisis thing. Or maybe even physics. First law of thermodynamics anyone?



Id say an all powerful creature snapping his fingers and popping us into existance out of "nothing" is a lot more drastic. wouldnt you?

exactly the point of my first post, arguing about evolution and creation is unscientific for the simple reason that theorys themselves are unscientific in the way that they are unobservable in the physical world, and that both theorys take faith

[Spock]

"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell."
Aldous Huxley

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i found it!

i bolded the last part, 'cause it's an assumption that may be unfounded

we say that they were very close to today's humans due to things like brain cavity size... and in some rare and more recent cases, dna fragments... but this doesn't mean that they had the capability to be as intelligent as we are

today's monkeys use tools much like early man (of millions of years back) were thought to use... and those monkeys have existed just as long as we have, yet have not advanced in intelligence any further (or much, one would assume)

for a long period of time it appears that mankind developed a slight edge, fashioning rough stone tools and eventually (about 12,000 years ago) shaping naturally-occurring metals (copper)... but this does not mean they had the intellectual capacity to go any further... it may be that as recent as 5-10,000 years ago that mankind developed the intelligence (in terms of physical brain makeup) to achieve some of the things we did in more recent history

intelligence is not an on/off switch... we see many animals, monkeys in particular, that show rudimentary intelligence and it may be that it just took that long for a more advanced capacity to evolve in humans

If that's true, it certainly would explain things better than the current model does. I assume this is new research that you've located, for I haven't heard of it in either my own research or the history honors class that I'm currently taking (which briefly covers the prehistory of early man). I'm curious to know what the evidence in support of the new theory is.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Id say an all powerful creature snapping his fingers and popping us into existance out of "nothing" is a lot more drastic. wouldnt you?

The Bible says nothing about God "popping us out of thin air." It says things came into being when God spoke. It also says that God created living beings out of dust-organic material-not thin air.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

whales having limb bones doesn't hold water(no pun intended) click here

I have actual pictures of limb rudiments on modern day whale skeletons. Want to see?

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK04.JPG
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/PLTWHL01.JPG
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/PLTWHL02.JPG

From both pilot whales and humpback whales. Nevermind the pelvises... Please explain that photographic evidence away then...

but when your done with the experiment you are still left with a plant, or a bacteria, you don't get an animal from a plant, or bacteria.

a plant?? So when you are done with "changing" a monkey "into" a man you are still "left" with a mammal? Really I think you are really reaching here. You do realize the grand variation within the plant kingdom right? In essence you are saying well evolution is allowed as long as its in the same kingdoms. Well yer pretty much 90% of the way there boss! Just take that one last step and youll be on board.

exactly the point of my first post, arguing about evolution and creation is unscientific for the simple reason that theorys themselves are unscientific in the way that they are unobservable in the physical world, and that both theories take faith

eeesh... all that and you manage to come back around to your original erroneous statement against evolution? This is simply repeating something we explained was incorrect before.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Bible says nothing about God "popping us out of thin air." It says things came into being when God spoke. It also says that God created living beings out of dust-organic material-not thin air.

Hmm so no problem with dust but primordial soup is out?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Think of mammoths and elephants. Same species (I think) but they adapted to the different areas they lived in. I don't know how long the elephant-like animals have been around - it can't have been that many millions of years - still they had time to adapt. If the mammoth had been given some more time, they might have evolved into a species separate from the elephant.

Different families at least: Mammuthus, Elephas (Asian elephant) and Loxodonta (African elephant). But the Mammoth example is still aplicable IMO since there were different types of Mammoths, living in different environments. (I came across this (slightly dated) article when verifying my thoughts)

And on a side-note: very intrigingly, it is also supposed that one mammoth sub-species managed to outlive its cousins a long time on Wrangel Island near Russia. It's very interesting material to research.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hmm so no problem with dust but primordial soup is out?

you are just proving my point again and again, neither can be conclusively proved, although both have some evidences, give me a little time on the whale thing and i'll find plenty of data for you to swim through(pun intended)

[rohirrim TR]

this will start you out click here

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

eeesh... all that and you manage to come back around to your original erroneous statement against evolution? This is simply repeating something we explained was incorrect before.

I've been staying out of this thread, but just peeked in - would you please clarify this: what did you "explained was incorrect before"? That macroevolution was unobserveable?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

you are just proving my point again and again, neither can be conclusively proved

Well once again remember that the primoridal soup/dust thing is a different topic. NOT evolution. Its orgins. So it proves nothing about evolution.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hmm so no problem with dust but primordial soup is out?

Men were made out of dust. With the other creatures, it's not so clear. Vegetation came on the third day, and on the fifth day came the first real description of animals. This would fit with what we know from science if the days are taken as symbolic (as they should be, IMO), for modern science readily accepts that vegetation did arise on the Earth before animals.

Here's the first description of animals in the scripture, and where they emerged (not detailed, but the Bible isn't all that detailed on these matters. Its primary purpose isn't pre-human history).

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:20-23

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teams, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning- the fifth day.

Perhaps there was a primordial soup, and perhaps not. But it is evident from scriptures that the first animals lived in the sea. Birds also, according to scripture, were among the first animals. This does not fit with current scientific theory so well, but I'm sure science will get there one day.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've been staying out of this thread, but just peeked in - would you please clarify this: what did you "explained was incorrect before"? That macroevolution was unobserveable?

Read up and find out