Avatar image for willpayton
#1 Edited by willpayton (22082 posts) - - Show Bio

Although the Theory of Evolution is one of the most tested, well supported, and accepted theories in science, it still happens quite often on this site that people get into arguments about whether Evolution is actually even true or not. This tends to happen in the various religion threads like clockwork.

The purpose of this thread is to present and compile informational links, videos, and pieces of evidence for why Evolution is true, and to be able to use this as a resource in future discussions. Instead of getting into yet another argument about whether there is or isnt evidence supporting Evolution, you can now just link to this thread and be done with it.

(If you run across any new pieces of evidence or interesting resources, please PM me and I can include it here at the top of the thread.)

Let's begin!

What is a scientific "theory" and how is it validated?

A theory in science is an explanation of some system or aspect of the natural world. A theory usually explains how individual facts and natural laws fit together, makes testable and falsifiable predictions about what that system should look like, and is generally very well substantiated by observations and experimentation. When a scientific theory becomes an "accepted" theory (i.e. it gains scientific consensus) that theory is pretty much understood to be a fact and a correct explanation of how that aspect of nature works. Examples of such theories are Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the Germ Theory of Disease, Plate Tectonics, and of course Evolution by Natural Selection.

In science, theories make predictions, those predictions are then tested, and either the tests support the theory or contradict it. If they support it, we keep testing in new ways until we have a very high level of confidence in the theory. If any observation or experiment contradicts the theory, that theory is discarded. All it takes is one of a theories predictions to shown false for a theory to be rejected.

Also, here's a great video explaining the difference between the words "law", "hypothesis", and "theory" in science:

What is the Theory of Evolution?

Evolution says that all species on Earth are linked through common ancestors back to a first organism. When organisms reproduce, small random changes are introduced that lead to new and different traits. By the process of Natural Selection, those traits that allow an organism to reproduce more are then more likely to be represented in the next generation. Through this process beneficial genes are passed on and harmful ones die off. So, while changes at the level of the DNA are initially random, the selective process of the environment causes organisms to adapt.

The strength of Evolution as a theory is that its predictions have been tested and supported over more than 150 years by many different and independent types of evidence, from DNA to fossils to geographical distributions and comparative anatomy. And, no one has yet found any evidence that contradicts Evolution. If they ever do there's a Nobel Prize waiting for them. =)

What predictions does Evolution make?

  • we should find simpler organisms in the fossil record the further back we look
  • traces of the relationship between species should be observed in their DNA
  • changes from species to species should be gradual (i.e. there should be transitional forms)
  • fossils for the first of a species should be found geographically where it's predecessors would be located
  • species should be seen to become more well-suited to their environment over time
  • an old Earth... at least old enough for all the changes we see to have taken place

Links to general information and evidence for Evolution:

Wikipedia has two very comprehensive pages on Evolution in general as well as the evidence for common descent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Talkorigins also has a very good page with tons of evidence for common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Another page with more evidence for biological evolution:

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4

Videos about Evolution:

This is a well-produced and short video mostly focusing on the evolution of whales.

This is a very good video that covers a lot of evidence for Evolution. Definitely watch this!

Here's another video with more animations and meant more as a general explanation of how Evolution works:

Evidence supporting Evolution:

Here I will be posting individual pieces of evidence for Evolution with a general explanation of it as well as links to more comprehensive information. I'll initially post a few and then grow this section over time.

1) Darwin's Finches

No Caption Provided

One of the clues that gave Darwin the idea of Natural Selection was the variety of Finches he found on the Galapagos. They were mostly very similar birds, but with a lot of variation in beak size and shape. Altogether there are 14 species of finches associated with Darwin. What he concluded was that all these species were just variations caused by initial groups of finches from nearby South America that flew to the islands a long time ago. Because of the distance between the islands, the finches couldnt move from island to island, so they were isolated and eventually over time evolved to be better suited to their environments. This was one of the first and it's still one of the best pieces of evidence for Evolution by Natural Selection.

More information:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150211-evolution-darwin-finches-beaks-genome-science/

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/31-finches.html

2) Chromosome #2 and how humans are related to apes

If you see above in the "predictions of Evolution" section, you'll see that Evolution predicts that we should see traces of our common ancestry in the DNA of us versus other animals. So, if chimps and us evolved from an ancestor, we should see common code in our DNA. Do we?

Well, yes, of course we do. We can not only see the same code, but also differences... with more differences in more distance relatives as Evolution predicts. In fact all the evidence from DNA confirms Evolution. But, there's a difference in our DNA versus that of the "great apes".

All great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23. Why is this? If humans and apes are related through a common ancestor, then either humans lost a chromosome sometime in the past, or apes gained one. How would we know what happened and when? Will this shoot down Evolution or can it support it?

As it turns out, chromosomes have markers in the middle called Centromeres and markers at the ends called Telomeres. By studying the DNA of humans and apes we've found that on the human #2 chromosome there are matching Telomeres and Centromeres that show that chromosome #2 was originally two separate chromosomes that were merged into one.

No Caption Provided

When looking at the DNA of apes and humans, we can see that they are mostly the same code... with chimpanzees being our closest relatives. Because of that we can even look at their chromosomes and know which 2 chromosomes from our common ancestor were initially merged to form our #2 chromosome.

.

.

.

.

.

.

In this video Ken Miller talks about this fact and how it was presented in the famous case that shot down Intelligent Design in schools, with the judge ruling that Intelligent Design was just Creationism pretending to be science.

More information:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

3. The fossil record of human evolution

No Caption Provided

Evolution predicts that the fossil record should show remains of transitional forms between current species and those that came before. For humans, we now have a very good record and collection of fossils and skulls that paint this picture. From our current form of Homo sapiens to our predecessors Homo erectus and back through Australopithecus afarencis, we can clearly see the progression of brain size and how the skeletons changed over time. The fossil record is a beautiful illustration of what Evolution predicts and really cant be explained in any other way that makes sense.

You can find a list of human fossils here and a good article on human evolution here that has a section on the fossil evidence.

I also found this very good series of blog posts from a paleontologist (who is apparently a theistic evolutionist) discussing the human fossil record. It's a religious site, but the information seems pretty good and the author looks like he's reputable.

Lastly, this very interesting video on evidence that you can find right in the human body.

And here's an interesting video that talks about why eggs are shaped the way they are, and a nice example of how Evolution works to solve problems:

Avatar image for willpayton
Avatar image for lordraiden
#3 Posted by lordraiden (9663 posts) - - Show Bio

Nice. Thank you for tagging me.

Avatar image for keenko
#4 Posted by Keenko (5187 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Happy to be tagged, but what warranted it? Again not in a bad way, just curious.

Avatar image for willpayton
#5 Posted by willpayton (22082 posts) - - Show Bio

@keenko said:

@willpayton: Happy to be tagged, but what warranted it? Again not in a bad way, just curious.

Since I got the idea for this from the religion thread, I went through and got a list of people that had been posting recently and included them. I figured that anyone who's posted there with some frequency might be interested in this.

Avatar image for pipxeroth
#6 Posted by Pipxeroth (9222 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Very nicely done. Hopefully one day everyone will understand that [most] religions and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
#7 Posted by Cable_Extreme (16790 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I'm glad you added Darwin's finches. Some of the most convincing visible effects of evolution are vestigial features. I suggest perhaps linking specifically to information about vestigial features as well since it helps people visualize actual evolutionary evidence. Great job btw.

Avatar image for dum529001
#9 Edited by dum529001 (3992 posts) - - Show Bio

A gathering a molecules needs no common ancestor with all other molecules.

DNA molecules can have some similarities but it does not mean they all come from a being who possesses all DNA molecules of living things since molecules can form in multiple different ways. Just because animals are living does not mean they defy the basic rules of chemistry.

I believe in chemistry because that is what biology is based on.

Humans and chimps are two different animals. Cased closed. Their chemistry is not the same.

The DNA is made of chemicals called genes and combinations of those genes are what decide the type of physical characteristics of an animal's organ systems. Molecules that build other molecules.

With the DNA's genes being made up of rows of combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine(all of which is lined with phosphate deoxyribose) , on more than one row, chimps have a molecular combination that is different than a human's.

The DNA molecule of humans is different than the DNA molecule of chimps. You wouldn't take two different types of alcohol molecules and say they are the same. Being very similar does not mean you are the same.

In a chemical reaction, two different chemicals reacting to the same thing will not take the same path of reaction.

Chimps are not gorillas, and Gorillas are not orangutans. They are all different, DNA-wise, and because of that their organ systems are built and function differently.

ALL THESE APES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CREATURES. STOP EQUATING APPLES TO ORANGES.

And there is no super-powered gene that allows humans or other animals to morph their DNA molecule into another, gaining new genes. The only thing that makes humans different from each other is that some genes are used in greater or lesser amounts than others and gene deletions which is known as "mutations".

The basic molecular structures of the DNA being changed is something every life form resists and makes sure does not happen.

Living things are even shut down and die when something tries to come along and change their basic DNA molecular structure, such as virus infection. Cells then suicide attack the virus until it dies.

Gene deletions, also known as mutations, can have a neutral effect or they can have a negative effect. Genetic mutations happen since the DNA can not work right 100 percent of the time. They can occur randomly or be caused by some living and environmental conditions.

What I'm saying is this: Humans do not add any new molecular combinations, known as genes, that make up the DNA. Humans merely change how they express their DNA and the DNA is getting weaker throughout the generations.

Biology is understood through chemistry, not fairy tales about how all the DNA molecules of living things that came from a another living thing who possessed all DNA molecules and was split apart one day. Because of how chemistry works, evolution is as likely to be real as the easter bunny, so its nothing more than wishful thinking.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#10 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001:

At least you are wanting to talk 21st century science

Avatar image for dum529001
#11 Posted by dum529001 (3992 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001:

At least you are wanting to talk 21st century science

Of course. Is studying the universe against the law?

Avatar image for thedandyman
#12 Posted by TheDandyMan (5175 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001: Do you think the 97% of scientists who accept some form of evolution (and that number's from a Christian source) should be fired? If they're stupid enough to believe in something that's just as likely to exist as the Easter bunny then how can we trust them to come up with other valid theories?

Avatar image for mrhamwallet
#13 Posted by MrHamWallet (3194 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution isn't real because my God says so and he's definitely real.

Avatar image for dum529001
#14 Edited by dum529001 (3992 posts) - - Show Bio

@thedandyman said:

@dum529001: Do you think the 97% of scientists who accept some form of evolution (and that number's from a Christian source) should be fired? If they're stupid enough to believe in something that's just as likely to exist as the Easter bunny then how can we trust them to come up with other valid theories?

Evolution is not the only scientific study I question. The scientific community as a whole is not always honest about everything.

To think that every hypothesis and scientific study has value is just naive.

Basically:

Evolution is one the greatest pieces of fiction ever told.

Evolution is not scientific discovery, its science fiction. It should not be taught in schools. Anything can be called a scientific study, but that does not mean it makes any sense and exists in the real world.

Not only that, but its has not contributed to any advancement in biochemistry, agriculture, medicine, etc.

DNA is made rows of specific nucleotide combinations. Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine are the four nucleotides. The difference between life forms comes from the difference of nucleotides they possess on each row.

DNA molecules can be made of billions of nucleotides. How can random changes of any kind to a random DNA molecule, produce all the life-forms seen on earth? Its like saying that my Marvel vs Capcom fighting game can form after billions of years of random change to a random computer disk.

Computers disks are made of billions of binary code characters, ones and zeros, but I would never say a game of Marvel vs Capcom can randomly appear through random changes to a computer disk. Sadly, this is the sort of nonsense that evolution says about DNA.

No Caption Provided

Evolution is a lie. If you say this theory is foundational to what people know about the world then, yes, this theory is a lie.

There are millions of chemical reactions your body is doing every second and all goes towards making different structures work together and work well, all because of DNA molecules. The amount of chemical reactions the body does in a day could fill several books and would take up more than 500 gigabytes of data on a computer hard drive.

Avatar image for lordraiden
#15 Posted by lordraiden (9663 posts) - - Show Bio

If a lot of the religious felt the theory of gravity conflicted with their bible beliefs, then that too would be treated no different than the theory of evolution, and would fight against it's education, and hear the exact same thing, it's just a theory?! As soon as something comes in conflict with the bible, be it history or scientific, it gets questioned, and thrown out the window by the right hard core fanatics. Although as someone mentioned previously, it doesn't have to conflict with their belief in a god, I think it does conflict with the/their idea of a personal god! Evolution takes away their idea that their special and were created special, is what I've read from a lot of the religious and where their problems lie with evolution. I could be wrong?

Avatar image for flumox56
#16 Edited by Flumox56 (2301 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Very nicely written and thought out explanation on the science of Evolution.

@pipxeroth said:

@willpayton: Hopefully one day everyone will understand that [most] religions and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed, But then I am an Atheist with slight leanings towards Agnosticism, So maybe I just dont get It.

Also, I do not think it will be to long before most humans start to be born without an Appendix, I think it is around 1 in 10000 at present (At least that is what I read somewhere).

Avatar image for mortein
#17 Posted by Mortein (6037 posts) - - Show Bio

Nice job, I would try to get involved into this debate, but I get too annoyed every time I try, both by the poor understanding of evolution by it's proponents, and even more so by ridiculous "arguments" from it's opponents. Luckily, in Europe evolution denial is not a big problem.

Avatar image for chazz85
#18 Edited by Chazz85 (5201 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001: Yes but i can physically prove this one. If this is about religion prove your god is more real then the fossils? i do believe intelligent design had to be involved somewhere but evolution is just fact. every school in my country teaches it as truth and it is most likely true.

Avatar image for dum529001
#19 Edited by dum529001 (3992 posts) - - Show Bio

@chazz85 said:

@dum529001: Yes but i can physically prove this one. If this is about religion prove your god is more real then the fossils? i do believe intelligent design had to be involved somewhere but evolution is just fact. every school in my country teaches it as truth and it is most likely true.

Denial of how chemistry works is taught in schools? Oh, joy!

Avatar image for theparadox
#20 Posted by TheParadox (844 posts) - - Show Bio

@chazz85: Eveloution is not fact. It's a theory.

Avatar image for chazz85
#21 Posted by Chazz85 (5201 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001: No proof of evolution over multiple fossil records is taught in schools. Also if evolution does not work explain this

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Your statement makes sense i'll give you that but with 99% of the scientific community against you and piles of evidence. it's hard to disprove this theory and it is most likely true.

yes with more evidence behind it then 99% of religions and a lot of more evidence then many scientific theory like string theory and dark matter.

Avatar image for flumox56
#22 Edited by Flumox56 (2301 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001 said:
@thedandyman said:

@dum529001: Do you think the 97% of scientists who accept some form of evolution (and that number's from a Christian source) should be fired? If they're stupid enough to believe in something that's just as likely to exist as the Easter bunny then how can we trust them to come up with other valid theories?

Evolution is not the only scientific study I question. The scientific community as a whole is not always honest about everything.

To think that every hypothesis and scientific study has value is just naive.

I am not trying to attack your beliefs, After all I am happy for anyone to believe in what ever they want if it makes them happy and does not have an adverse effect on anyone else.

But the difference between science and Religion (For the most part) is for instance, If I was a scientist and I came up with a new theory on say the string theory (or evolution) , And it was very well received, I got lots of accolades and was published in lots of science journals, Then someone else came up with a better theory that essentially blows mine out of the water, while my personal pride might take a hit, I would be happy because the new theory give us a better understanding of that particular subject, And that is what science strives for,A better understanding of our Universe.

Where Religions (again for the most part) are so rigid in their particular belief system, That they will dismiss or plain deny anything that does not fit their view of how things are, No matter what evidence is presented.

Again I do not mean to Offend, But that is just how I (Personally) see it, And like science, I do not claim to be 100% correct all of the time.

I should also point out, I am talking about Religions as a whole, Not all Religious individuals.

Avatar image for dum529001
#23 Edited by dum529001 (3992 posts) - - Show Bio

@chazz85 said:

@dum529001: No proof of evolution over multiple fossil records is taught in schools. Also if evolution does not work explain this

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Your statement makes sense i'll give you that but with 99% of the scientific community against you and piles of evidence. it's hard to disprove this theory and it is most likely true.

yes with more evidence behind it then 99% of religions and a lot of more evidence then many scientific theory like string theory and dark matter.

Not really.

Like I said, when a scientific study throws out common sense and facts, such as how chemistry works, I don't have to value that study or accept it. There is nothing presented as evidence that I have not seen in this thread.

I have seen the evidences for evolution before and am not convinced by either the evidence or the entire theory as a whole.

Whether the subject is biology, astrology, medicine and other things, people have been proven wrong no matter how many who held to a certain idea.

Avatar image for chazz85
#24 Posted by Chazz85 (5201 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001: Valid points you seem to have a solid reason to disagree with me and thats your opinion and one of the few i have heard against evolution that makes sense. Iam just clarifying you understand the evidence and are not ignoring it in the name of a deity and completely ignoring the evidence under the argument of god said no. But you seem to have a good and logical reason to disagree with me. Only time will tell who is correct.

Avatar image for edblank
#25 Posted by EdBlank (1480 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution isn't real because my God says so and he's definitely real.

Welp. Not gonna let that one slide.

I am sure it was your PREACHER who spoke to you, not a voice from above but I will let you tell it:

How EXACTLY did your G-d speak to you and was this the only thing G-d had to say to you directly?

Avatar image for flumox56
#26 Edited by Flumox56 (2301 posts) - - Show Bio

"If they're stupid enough to believe in something that's just as likely to exist as the Easter bunny then how can we trust them to come up with other valid theories?".

Wow, So the existence of the Easter Bunny is comparable to Evolution ?.

I am blown away, I never new there was mountains (not literally) of evidence to suggest the Easter Bunny is real, That is amazing, Why dont more people know about this ?.

Avatar image for thedandyman
#27 Edited by TheDandyMan (5175 posts) - - Show Bio

@flumox56: Just in case you didn't know, I myself don't believe that evolution is as likely to exist as the Easter bunny. The user I was talking to does though.

But if the Easter bunny doesn't exist then who gives out all the chocolate eggs? Answer me that.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#28 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone here know what "methylation" is in bio chemistry?

Avatar image for flumox56
#29 Posted by Flumox56 (2301 posts) - - Show Bio

@thedandyman:

I know bud.

As for who gives out all the chocolate eggs?, Well that is easily answered.

They come from ,,,,,, erm ,,,, well, they are given by ,,,,,, by ,,,,,, oh,,,, I will have to get back to you on that one.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for knightsofdarkness2
#30 Posted by Knightsofdarkness2 (8155 posts) - - Show Bio

A gathering a molecules needs no common ancestor with all other molecules.

DNA molecules can have some similarities but it does not mean they all come from a being who possesses all DNA molecules of living thing since molecules can form in multiple different ways. Just because animals are living does not mean they defy the basic rules of chemistry.

I believe in chemistry because that is what biology is based on.

Humans and chimps are two different animals. Cased closed. Their chemistry is not the same.

The DNA is made of chemicals called genes and combinations of those genes are what decide the type of physical characteristics of an animal's organ systems. Molecules that build other molecules.

With the DNA's genes being made up of rows of combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine(all of which is lined with phosphate deoxyribose) , on more than one row, chimps have a molecular combination that is different than a human's.

The DNA molecule of humans is different than the DNA molecule of chimps. You wouldn't take two different types of alcohol molecules and say they are the same. Being very similar does not mean you are the same.

In a chemical reaction, two different chemicals reacting to the same thing will not take the same path of reaction.

Chimps are not gorillas, and Gorillas are not orangutans. They are all different, DNA-wise, and because of that their organ systems are built and function differently.

ALL THESE APES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CREATURES. STOP EQUATING APPLES TO ORANGES.

And there is no super-powered gene that allows humans or other animals to morph their DNA molecule into another, gaining new genes. The only thing that makes humans different from each other is that some genes are used in greater or lesser amounts than others and gene deletions which is known as "mutations".

The basic molecular structures of the DNA being changed is something every life form resists and makes sure does not happen.

Living things are even shut down and die when something tries to come along and change their basic DNA molecular structure, such as virus infection. Cells then suicide attack the virus until it dies.

Gene deletions, also known as mutations, can have a neutral effect or they can have a negative effect. Genetic mutations happen since the DNA can not work right 100 percent of the time. They can occur randomly or be caused by some living and environmental conditions.

What I'm saying is this: Humans do not add any new molecular combinations, known as genes, that make up the DNA. Humans merely change how they express their DNA and the DNA is getting weaker throughout the generations.

Biology is understood through chemistry, not fairy tales about how all the DNA molecules of living things that came from a another living thing who possessed all DNA molecules and was split apart one day. Because of how chemistry works, evolution is as likely to be real as the easter bunny, so its nothing more than wishful thinking.

This. From a biological and chemical standpoint it isn't very plausible.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#31 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for pipxeroth
#32 Posted by Pipxeroth (9222 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for spareheadone
#33 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone here know what "plietropy" is?

It's worth learning about. (Though I might have spelt it wrong)

Avatar image for theparadox
#34 Posted by TheParadox (844 posts) - - Show Bio

@chazz85: So basically your "proof". Humans and apes look alike, boom, evolution confirmed.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#35 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

Thanks for tagging me.

I'll be reading it soon.

Avatar image for willpayton
#36 Edited by willpayton (22082 posts) - - Show Bio

What I'm saying is this: Humans do not add any new molecular combinations, known as genes, that make up the DNA. Humans merely change how they express their DNA and the DNA is getting weaker throughout the generations.

Biology is understood through chemistry, not fairy tales about how all the DNA molecules of living things that came from a another living thing who possessed all DNA molecules and was split apart one day. Because of how chemistry works, evolution is as likely to be real as the easter bunny, so its nothing more than wishful thinking.

Mutations do indeed add information to DNA... and I will be adding evidence and information for this to the OP over time.

If you want to disprove Evolution all you need to do is write up your ideas and test results and publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. If you are right then I guarantee you that you will get a Nobel Prize.

Until that happens, all you have are unsubstantiated claims based on personal incredulity... which is a logical fallacy.

You might want to consider that instead of 97% of world scientists being wrong about... science, that maybe it's you who are wrong. If you want to learn, you first have to be willing to admit that you may not know everything already. I'd humbly suggest that thinking that 97% of experts in a field (in which you're not an expert) are all wrong is the first sign that you might be wrong, very, very, wrong. Think about it.

Avatar image for willpayton
#37 Edited by willpayton (22082 posts) - - Show Bio

@flumox56: I added your video to the OP. Thanks!

Avatar image for dum529001
#38 Edited by dum529001 (3992 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@dum529001 said:

What I'm saying is this: Humans do not add any new molecular combinations, known as genes, that make up the DNA. Humans merely change how they express their DNA and the DNA is getting weaker throughout the generations.

Biology is understood through chemistry, not fairy tales about how all the DNA molecules of living things that came from a another living thing who possessed all DNA molecules and was split apart one day. Because of how chemistry works, evolution is as likely to be real as the easter bunny, so its nothing more than wishful thinking.

Mutations do indeed add information to DNA... and I will be adding evidence and information for this to the OP over time.

If you want to disprove Evolution all you need to do is write up your ideas and test results and publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. If you are right then I guarantee you that you will get a Nobel Prize.

Until that happens, all you have are unsubstantiated claims based on personal incredulity... which is a logical fallacy.

You might want to consider that instead of 97% of world scientists being wrong about... science, that maybe it's you who are wrong. If you want to learn, you first have to be willing to admit that you may not know everything already. I'd humbly suggest that thinking that 97% of experts in a field (in which you're not an expert) are all wrong is the first sign that you might be wrong, very, very, wrong. Think about it.

Scientific study isn't about popularity. There are plenty of things in the world that are not officially published and It does not make them any less true.

If you disregard basic facts as a basis for your scientific hypothesis, you are wrong whether you are a professional or not or how many people agree with each other on it.

My claims are not "unsubstantiated" because what I'm saying is based on real-life chemistry. Its not my fault that evolution is based on wishful thinking. Stating facts about chemistry is not a "logical fallacy". Ignoring basic realities of chemistry is a "logical fallacy", which is what the theory of evolution does.

And no, mutations do not add new genes.

Avatar image for xlr87t3
#39 Posted by XLR87T3 (9835 posts) - - Show Bio

Humans share 70% of their DNA with Slugs. And 50% with bananas.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#40 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001:

Mutations such as polyploidy or chromosome duplication do add genes the task for Darwinists is to find a way for them to become functional/advantageous which if they were we would see evidence of polyploidy being dominant in today's lifeforms rather than an interesting occurrence. For example if Down's syndrome was an advantage we would all have it.

Avatar image for dum529001
#41 Edited by dum529001 (3992 posts) - - Show Bio

@spareheadone said:

@dum529001:

Mutations such as polyploidy or chromosome duplication do add genes the task for Darwinists is to find a way for them to become functional/advantageous which if they were we would see evidence of polyploidy being dominant in today's lifeforms rather than an interesting occurrence. For example if Down's syndrome was an advantage we would all have it.

Repeating the same gene is not getting a new gene. The DNA sometimes makes mistakes when it copies itself. Going by your reasoning, autism is evolution.

Avatar image for willpayton
#42 Posted by willpayton (22082 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@dum529001 said:

What I'm saying is this: Humans do not add any new molecular combinations, known as genes, that make up the DNA. Humans merely change how they express their DNA and the DNA is getting weaker throughout the generations.

Biology is understood through chemistry, not fairy tales about how all the DNA molecules of living things that came from a another living thing who possessed all DNA molecules and was split apart one day. Because of how chemistry works, evolution is as likely to be real as the easter bunny, so its nothing more than wishful thinking.

Mutations do indeed add information to DNA... and I will be adding evidence and information for this to the OP over time.

If you want to disprove Evolution all you need to do is write up your ideas and test results and publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. If you are right then I guarantee you that you will get a Nobel Prize.

Until that happens, all you have are unsubstantiated claims based on personal incredulity... which is a logical fallacy.

You might want to consider that instead of 97% of world scientists being wrong about... science, that maybe it's you who are wrong. If you want to learn, you first have to be willing to admit that you may not know everything already. I'd humbly suggest that thinking that 97% of experts in a field (in which you're not an expert) are all wrong is the first sign that you might be wrong, very, very, wrong. Think about it.

Scientific study isn't about popularity. There are plenty of things in the world that are not officially published and It does not make them any less true.

If you disregard basic facts as a basis for your scientific hypothesis, you are wrong whether you are a professional or not or how many people agree with each other.

My claims are not unsubstantiated because what I'm saying is based on real-life chemistry. Its not my fault that evolution is based on wishful thinking. Stating facts about chemistry is not a logical fallacy. Ignoring basic realities of chemistry is a logical fallacy, which is what the theory of evolution does.

And no, mutations do not add new genes.

It has nothing to do with popularity. I'm not talking about polling the general population and asking them about a technical field about which they know nothing about, I'm talking about the consensus of experts talking about their area of expertise. Big difference. And, even then I'm not saying that it proves anything, only that if you disagree with the vast majority of experts when it comes to that thing that they're experts on... then it's very highly probably and almost certain that you're wrong.

And yes mutations do add new information to DNA. Mutations are random changes to DNA, which can add or subtract information and re-arrange information that's there. There's also recombination at work. Your claim that it doesnt is just an unsubstantiated claim and nothing more.

If you have a better theory that explains the variation of species on earth now and in the last 3 billion years, all the DNA evidence, all the fossil evidence, all the morphological evidence, all the homological evidence, all the observed speciation in the last 150 years, and all the biochemical evidence... then stop talking about it on a forum about comic books and publish it.

Oh wait, I guess it's much easier to make totally unsubstantiated claims online than to actually prove that you know what you're talking about by getting a PhD and publishing in a peer-reviewed journal isnt it?

Avatar image for spareheadone
#43 Edited by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio

@dum529001:

I'm not saying polyploidy leads where Darwinists want it to.

In fact I think mutations are often not the random mistakes we used to think they were. Look up "mutational hot spots".

Avatar image for admirallogic
#44 Edited by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

First, 150 years of study is not important. There are many more years in many other things, some that don't even make sense. So don't use that amount of time as an argument.

Science can't be wrong as science itself is facts. Scientists can be wrong but not science.

A majority of scientists can be wrong as well. And evolution is still a theory. If it were truly accepted it would be a law, which means it's missing something.

Catholocism is only against the belief that humans and apes are of a common ancestor or are related by reproduction, as far as evolution goes anyway. From what I've seen I changed my standpoint on evolution as a whole but only by a small concept.

As for the layers of the Earth, that is easily explainable. If you were to make a planet the outcome of a sudden explosion of creatures would destroy them. When some of them are dead they start becoming part of the dirt and fertilizing it and such. Then plants grown better, so more animals can exist. But there has to be the already dead animals for everything to work correctly.

Finches are all the same species, just not exactly the same. So find a better example because that one was not so great.

The appendix houses germs, good ones. So why say we won't have it if it has a purpose? Wouldn't that be devolution?

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html?m=0

Avatar image for dshipp17
#45 Posted by dshipp17 (5479 posts) - - Show Bio
@chazz85 said:

@dum529001: Valid points you seem to have a solid reason to disagree with me and thats your opinion and one of the few i have heard against evolution that makes sense. Iam just clarifying you understand the evidence and are not ignoring it in the name of a deity and completely ignoring the evidence under the argument of god said no. But you seem to have a good and logical reason to disagree with me. Only time will tell who is correct.

Watch this video; it's very informative for why evolution isn't universally accepted.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for willpayton
#46 Posted by willpayton (22082 posts) - - Show Bio

First, 150 years of study is not important. There are many more years in many other things, some that don't even make sense. So don't use that amount of time as an argument.

The point is not that it's been around for a long time, it's that it has been studied and challenged for that long, and we've been finding new evidence for that long. A theory that's stood up to challenge in science for that long is impressive. Like I said above in the OP, Evolution is one of the most tested and well-supported theories in science.

A majority of scientists can be wrong as well. And evolution is still a theory. If it were truly accepted it would be a law, which means it's missing something.

Please, please... learn about science before you make these statements. I even make a special section in the OP called "What is a scientific "theory" and how is it validated?"because this comes up time and again and it gets tiring having to explain this so many times.

A "theory" in science is not what laymen normally calls a "theory". Laymen usually use the world "theory" to mean something like "hypothesis". Also, a "theory" and a "law" are two completely different things. Theories are not "some idea I just had", they're not hypothesis, and they certainly dont "graduate" into laws when they grow up.

Here's a video that explains this better:

Loading Video...

As for the layers of the Earth, that is easily explainable. If you were to make a planet the outcome of a sudden explosion of creatures would destroy them. When some of them are dead they start becoming part of the dirt and fertilizing it and such. Then plants grown better, so more animals can exist. But there has to be the already dead animals for everything to work correctly.

Not really.

Finches are all the same species, just not exactly the same. So find a better example because that one was not so great.

The finches are indeed different species. Please read the links I provided above for the section on Darwin's finches. The finches may be able to reproduce with each other but they are geographically separated and are genetically and physically distinct. This is called "allopatric speciation", a step in species divergence.

The appendix houses germs, good ones. So why say we won't have it if it has a purpose? Wouldn't that be devolution?

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html?m=0

If you want to know about Evolution, look to science, not religion. These Creationists know very little about science and their goal is to make you believe what they believe, not to present you with facts. The purpose of this thread is to present facts and science.

Also, like I pointed out before, if these people could actually prove anything that they claim, then they'd already have won a Nobel Prize. Do they have a Nobel Prize given to them for disproving Evolution? No, they dont!

Science has a process that includes peer-review... for a very good reason. Any idiot can post some webpage claiming whatever they want. Are you going to believe all of it? Do you have the expertise to know when they're lying to you? In science to verify that claims are true we put them to scrutiny, over and over, and then some more. This is how we know science works.

Avatar image for willpayton
#47 Posted by willpayton (22082 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@chazz85 said:

@dum529001: Valid points you seem to have a solid reason to disagree with me and thats your opinion and one of the few i have heard against evolution that makes sense. Iam just clarifying you understand the evidence and are not ignoring it in the name of a deity and completely ignoring the evidence under the argument of god said no. But you seem to have a good and logical reason to disagree with me. Only time will tell who is correct.

Watch this video; it's very informative for why evolution isn't universally accepted.

Evolution isnt universally accepted because a lot of people are not knowledgeable enough to know when Creationists present them with a lot of pseudo-science and misinformation. Creationism is a religion, not a science. It's not based on facts, it's not based on logic or reason or the scientific method in any way, it's based on blind faith and emotion. This is why science universally rejects it and they cant get any papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals... because these people have no clue what they're talking about.

Avatar image for overmonitor
#48 Edited by Overmonitor (1515 posts) - - Show Bio

The OP completely misunderstands. Evolution is not about history. It is a process. It is not trying to prove humans came from monkeys. That's a historic debate. That's the point of confusion IMO. I'm not sure if humans came from monkeys, although evidence points to that being the case.

I am sure that individuals are born with different traits given to them by their parent's genes, and in a system with finite resources individuals born with certain traits are more likely to reproduce or survive than individuals with other traits.

For instance, animals with longer hair are more likely to survive in cold weather, so most animals in cold weather climates have thick fur. If one is born with short fur, they would be more likely to die before they pass on the short-fur genes than an individual who is more suited to survive in that environment. That is natural selection, and it's proven. It leads to evolution by proxy. It is evolution. We can make this happen in a lab or using a simulation right now. They do it to fruit flies and livestock and dogs to purposely select certain traits. It's undebatable.

Why is it so hard for people to separate that simple fact from the historical debate about where humans came from?

Evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it would be much more miraculous and impressive if God purposely put the plans and the system and its parameters in motion that eventually forced humanity to evolve than it would be if he simply sapped his fingers one day.

Avatar image for lordraiden
#49 Posted by lordraiden (9663 posts) - - Show Bio

@chazz85: Eveloution is not fact. It's a theory.

So is gravity. This refutation is so ignorant it's past the point of funny.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#50 Posted by dshipp17 (5479 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@chazz85 said:

@dum529001: Valid points you seem to have a solid reason to disagree with me and thats your opinion and one of the few i have heard against evolution that makes sense. Iam just clarifying you understand the evidence and are not ignoring it in the name of a deity and completely ignoring the evidence under the argument of god said no. But you seem to have a good and logical reason to disagree with me. Only time will tell who is correct.

Watch this video; it's very informative for why evolution isn't universally accepted.

Evolution isnt universally accepted because a lot of people are not knowledgeable enough to know when Creationists present them with a lot of pseudo-science and misinformation. Creationism is a religion, not a science. It's not based on facts, it's not based on logic or reason or the scientific method in any way, it's based on blind faith and emotion. This is why science universally rejects it and they cant get any papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals... because these people have no clue what they're talking about.

You made all of those claims about creation science from only watching a one hour video in 6 minutes? Only your willful ignorance about the available evidence can lead you to those assertions; after all, you won't even examine the information and have your world view crashed. Apparently, you don't realize that you're talking about biologists, chemists, physicists, geologists, archaeologists, astronomers, etc, all at the same time; you claim they have no clue? Nan, I think it's just your ignorance. As someone pointed out, just because something is not allowed into a peer-reviewed journal does not mean the information presented is not sound science. Please, go read the information and listen to this video.