Evil-ution

[martiandancer31 10+ year member]

Agreed, so low that the progress would've taken 4 billion years..... Oh wait, that's the theory supported by fossil records and evolution theory.

I lul'd a little bit at the "theory supported by a theory" thing....cue terrible inception meme here. Also, could you link me to some of these fossil records that supposedly support the theory? Thanks.

edit: eff you and your epically messed up post quotes. I finally went through the trouble of fixing this one!!!! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

If you're interested in learning the scientific basis that shows why every legitimate scientist and rational person believes evolution, do a search on YouTube for Dr. Ken Miller. He will explain to you on a technical biological level why not only evolution has never had a single piece of evidence prove it wrong, but why many arguments from critics, when look at

more closely, actually end up showing exactly the things that evolution would predict.

It's called a theory, but in the context of science, a "theory" is different than a theory in any other context. There's a difference between laws, theories, and a hypothesis. Gravity is a law. We can explain how it works, and make predictions about events due to experience and experiments, and we know the force that causes it. But we still don't understand why gravity exists. We know it directly proportional to mass of an object, but we still don't know why gravity itself exists. As for evolution, we understand not only how it works, but why it works. In many ways, you could say we have a more thorough understanding of evolution than gravity.

But anyway, check out Dr. Ken Miller. Very interesting stuff that will answer any question you could ever possibly have and clear up any misconceptions you have about the subject.

Now if you just refuse to believe it no matter what because of spiritual beliefs, that's fine. Just don't say that evolution is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when you do so, because according to any level of scientific scrutiny, it is.

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

Also, according to the last post, evolution is shown to be the mechanism that created every living thing on this planet from DNA and genetics. The fossil record alone would not prove evolution as a valid theory, but ther has never been a find that does not exactly line up the predictions of evolution. It just reinforces it even more.

The minute someone finds a Golden Retreiver fossilized along with a T-Rex, evolution would absolutely be shot to pieces. But that won't happen, because I can't happen, because studying the DNA of each animal shows that they were not alive in the same periods.

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

Also, according to the last post, evolution is shown to be the mechanism that created every living thing on this planet from DNA and genetics. The fossil record alone would not prove evolution as a valid theory, but ther has never been a find that does not exactly line up the predictions of evolution. It just reinforces it even more.
The minute someone finds a Golden Retreiver fossilized along with a T-Rex, evolution would absolutely be shot to pieces. But that won't happen, because I can't happen, because studying the DNA of each animal shows that they were not alive in the same periods.

that won't happen because the trex would eat and then **** out the golden retriever.

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

I'd like to see them.

I'd also like to see your explanation of ahole-ic.

 

[martiandancer31 10+ year member]

Also, according to the last post, evolution is shown to be the mechanism that created every living thing on this planet from DNA and genetics. The fossil record alone would not prove evolution as a valid theory, but ther has never been a find that does not exactly line up the predictions of evolution. It just reinforces it even more.
The minute someone finds a Golden Retreiver fossilized along with a T-Rex, evolution would absolutely be shot to pieces. But that won't happen, because I can't happen, because studying the DNA of each animal shows that they were not alive in the same periods.

"These earliest cockroach-like fossils ("Blattopterans" or "roachids") are from the Carboniferous period between 354–295 million years ago."

Cockroach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

Ok? That's because cockroaches have been around since that period. Golden Retreivers have not. Finding someone from present day, or at least from the last few hundred years fossilized with something that was only around millions or hundreds of millions of years ago would disprove evolution.

Find a T-Rex fossilized with someone that lived from that period on, and still survives today does nothing to disprove evolution, or even weaken it in the slightest. If anything, looking at cockroach DNA and comparing it to other species alive today that are more recent would only make the argument for evolution stronger.

 

[martiandancer31 10+ year member]

Ok? That's because cockroaches have been around since that period. Golden Retreivers have not. Finding someone from present day, or at least from the last few hundred years fossilized with something that was only around millions or hundreds of millions of years ago would disprove evolution.
Find a T-Rex fossilized with someone that lived from that period on, and still survives today does nothing to disprove evolution, or even weaken it in the slightest. If anything, looking at cockroach DNA and comparing it to other species alive today that are more recent would only make the argument for evolution stronger.

I just did this.

(edit: this is really kind of a troll, I'm just trying to point out that I don't really see a difference between finding fossils of something that's around today that are 50 million years old, and finding something that was around 50 million years ago still around today. I don't see how the order in which these things were discovered matters)

 

[martiandancer31 10+ year member]

and, in conclusion,

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

I meant to say if you find something that has only been around (like a dog breed) for a few hundred years fossilized in the same layers of rock with a species of dinosaur or creature that has not been alive for hundreds of millions of years, that would be a serious blow to evolution. I just typed it out wrong when I was sitting in Subway eating some dinner.

Heres a video of Dr. Ken Miller talking about evolution compared to intelligent design. Its pretty long, but its very interesting and definitely worth the watch.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

You can't just insult someone, deem yourself credible and move on. If darwin's theory of evolution is not currently the theory that is valid, you could link me to one that is. There has to be somewhere that the theory you follow is clearly depicted. I'm not trying to suggest that you lay out every little caveat nor did I elude to that. A theory can be summed up relatively quickly, as they do with almost anything. The premise of it is stated. That's not an unreasonable expectation since your OP invited questions. How can anyone question it if they aren't given access to it? So my request is not unreasonable as you stated. I'm not asking for everything you know. You stated that darwin's theory isn't the standard anymore. I asked what is. It should not be difficult to answer. Let's be reasonable.

I've summed it up twice for you and you sit there and reject it and say that what i'm telling you isn't the common held theory of evolution. So you look it up brainiac! I dunno use google and wikipedia. I paid a lot for my education I'm not going to sit here are lecture you for free. Evolution isn't simply one or 2 hypothesis, but an entire FIELD.

Want one unifying statement of evolution?

The phenomenon by which living things are changed into other living things through mutations.

Under this unifying statement you have theories about how it happens, the mechanisms for speciation, genetics. All of it.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

selective breeding - as in, people with some knowledge about how this stuff works went through specific efforts to achieve this result? As opposed to complete randomness?¿ Also, even though those two dogs look very different, they're still both dogs!!

Complete randomness in mutation, not in selection.

Dog breeds are artificial selection. Humans selectively breed, for example for small or large size. But because the gene pool is constantly mixed by strays and uncontrolled breeding, yes as you put it they are both dogs. However, this amount of distinction could've gone different. If the two breeds were in complete reproductive isolation they very well likely would no longer be able to form viable zygotes. At that point, you'd have 2 separate species and any new mutations would be solely isolated to the species it occurred in. This has been shown to happen in populations of fruit flies. But the fact that the 2 species can no longer access each others genes means they will very likely given enough time change to occupy their own ecological niche.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

I lul'd a little bit at the "theory supported by a theory" thing....cue terrible inception meme here. Also, could you link me to some of these fossil records that supposedly support the theory? Thanks.
edit: eff you and your epically messed up post quotes. I finally went through the trouble of fixing this one!!!! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif

Oldest Primate fossils: 65mya (million years ago.)

Oldest placental Mammals: 125mya

Oldest Mammals (marsupials): 160mya

Oldest Synapsids (mammal like reptiles): ~299mya

Oldest Reptiles: 315mya

Oldest Amphibians: 370mya

Oldest Fish fossils: 400-500 mya

Verify any of these results if you want

 

---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 PM ----------

 

I meant to say if you find something that has only been around (like a dog breed) for a few hundred years fossilized in the same layers of rock with a species of dinosaur or creature that has not been alive for hundreds of millions of years, that would be a serious blow to evolution. I just typed it out wrong when I was sitting in Subway eating some dinner.
Heres a video of Dr. Ken Miller talking about evolution compared to intelligent design. Its pretty long, but its very interesting and definitely worth the watch.

And I love ken Miller, his book "finding Darwin's God" is tops

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

I think it's funny how people see the mechanics of evolution every day, yet don't recognize it. Just understanding how giraffes developed long necks (in order to reach food up high, in turn letting then survive and spread the long neck genes) or the fastest and most muscular gazelles pass on their genes when they got away from the lions, since the lions ended up eating all the slowest gazelles shows the mechanics at work.

Question to all who still don't believe evolution is fact, even though there is more evidence supporting it than you could ever imagine, and not a single piece of evidence challenging it: If life on earth (all life, from single cell organisms to humans) did not come about by natural selection, how did in come about? You cannot say it came about as talked about in the Bible, for one reason because Adam and Eve were only two people, and they cannot account for all the different races of humans... Unless they reproduced and their offspring populated the earth and EVOLVED to live in certain climates (black skin in tropical zones like Africa to protect their skin, for instance).

So in order for the religion answer to be true, evolution has to exist, which makes your point moot in the first place.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"The book Nanomedicine states that the human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements—carbon, iron, oxygen, and others—are all present in the “dust” of the earth. Thus, as Genesis states, humans truly are formed “out of dust from the ground.”

How did those lifeless building blocks come together to form a living human? To illustrate the enormity of the challenge, consider the NASA space shuttle, one of the most complex machines ever devised. This technological marvel contains a staggering 2.5*million parts. It took teams of engineers years to design and put it together. Now consider the human body. It is made up of some 7 octillion atoms, 100*trillion cells, dozens of organs, and at least 9 major organ systems. How did this biological machine of mind-boggling complexity and superb structure come to be? By blind chance or by intelligent design?

Moreover, what makes humans live? Where does the spark of life come from? Scientists confess that they do not know. In fact, they cannot even agree on an acceptable definition of life. To those who accept the idea of a Creator, the conclusion is obvious. The Source, of course, is God.

What of the description in Genesis that Eve was fashioned from Adam’s rib? (Genesis 2:21-23) Before dismissing the account as myth or fantasy, consider the following facts: In January*2008, scientists in California, U.S.A., produced the world’s first mature cloned human embryos from adult skin cells. In fact, using similar techniques, scientists have cloned at least 20 animals. The most famous of these, Dolly the sheep, was cloned in 1996 from the mammary gland of an adult sheep."