The Evidence for Evolution

@outside_85 said:

@johndanielmclemore: And I have something for you:

!

@willpayton:

Have you had a look at the new "Net of Life" they have instead of the old Darwinian tree of life?

I remember reading something about it, but honestly I'm not too familiar with it. Not sure how much research has been done about it or how much traction is has so far. I'll have to spend some time looking it up.

@willpayton:

It uses horizontal gene transfer theory and quick epi genetic change to explain some things that the old tree can't. But it means horizontal connections of darwins branches hence calling it a net.

@flumox56: Oh, didn't know gravity was just a theory. My bad.

Yeah that's basically what I remember. I think it's an interesting idea, although I'll admit that I'm not that knowledgeable in the field of epigenetics.

@theparadox:

Do I sense a wee bit of sarcasm.

By the way Newton’s theory is not the only one, There are others, Even with all the different trials that have been done, It is still being studied and more is being understood,

At some point it was realized that general relativity cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, After that the Quantum Field theory was used to describe gravity in its framework, We (and by we I mean Scientists) continue to expand our knowledge on?, well ?, Everything.

What if in two hundred years Humans are able to travel to a different Solar system, and discover a planet where the laws of gravity work a little differently, Is that possible, I dont know, I am no expert, But I would Imagine if you ask most Scientists if we definitely know everything about gravity and how it works, I would be surprised if they said yes, Though they might say they have a pretty good Idea.

That to me says its a theory, But maybe I am just an Idiot who does not know what I am talking about, That too is a possibility

Or a theory.

Plus why are we talking about gravity so much on a thread about Evolution ?.

Me either, but I can see that we need to go there.

101 reasons why evolution is true.

Nice, I'll have to go through that list and maybe add some of those to the OP.

By posting that link, I think you in essence just dropped the mic, and walked away.

@dum529001: Uhh yes it is you said it yourself that it is a mutation therefore its evolution.

@flumox56:There was no sarcasm, and you're are right. Why are we talking about this? But to prevent flame wars and rustled jimmies, we should probably stop.

@theparadox:

Sorry bud.

I think because I can be a bit of a sarcastic sod sometimes myself (though usually in a good natured way) I sometimes wrongly assume everyone else is the same.

Really sorry again.

Be well and be lucky.

@flumox56: you too bro

https://www.facebook.com/ImProudToBeAtheist/videos/10153691997489483/?fref=nf

@flumox56: Josh Feuerstein, urg, the way this guy talks makes me think he might actually think he's making some smart arguments. At least the likes of Michael Behe try to use some science to argue against evolution but I don't think Josh really has any idea of what he's talking about.

@thedandyman:

I know bud, Josh Feuerstein is a total & utter pillock, He can not get even simple facts right yet some people still take this Idiot seriously.

@thedandyman: Don't really care much for Dusty, I mean I watch TAA but Dusty can be mean sometimes.

This dude is much better

@myfavoriteviltrumite23: I did used to watch a bit of Dusty but the way he presents his points is quite intense and can often involve a fair amount ad hominem, I imagine he would have gotten along with Feuerstein back when he was a Cristian. Armoured Skeptic seems more knowledgeable on scientific matters than Dusty so I'd stick with him if I want to see a rebuttal rather than just entertainment.

@myfavoriteviltrumite23:

Nice one for posting that, I had not heard off the Armoured Sceptic before, But I will definitely be checking out more of his vids.

So thanks.

Added this very interesting video. Check it out:

If evolution is true then why are there still magikarp?

People are actually still debating whether or not evolution

People, as in the layperson, yes, scientific community, not so much, at all. That's why the conclusion came to the theory of evolution, which the creationists tout as theory, not fact, obviously not grasping the meaning and definition of theory in the scientific community. It's ironic how the fanatical religious minded doesn't seem to have a problem with the THEORY of gravity, but it's only just a theory to them when it comes to biology? Religion can be such a shopping basket, i'm sure one will be able to shop for their religion online soon enough and add what they want from a religion into their basket :-)

What I find most ironic, is that when religious apologists really want to attack Evolution, when they really want to make people doubt and question it... they say that Evolution is not scientific and it's based only on faith.

Hmm...

The fanatical/hardcore literalists have a habit of skewering the language and try to bring scientific minded down to their level. They're constantly trying to invoke things like gods and deities and faith on people who don't believe in such things, like you stated, that if someone believes in evolution it's because of faith etc, It's painful to hear in debates, but that's generally the literalists for the most part. There are more sophisticated theologians who are above that shite.

On a personal level, I don't really care what people believe, if it is suppose to be just that, there personal belief, but it stops being personal when they try and work it into the school system and start throwing a tantrum when their religious views are questioned outside their homes and can't work out why they teach science in the science class and not.......wait for it.......intelligence design? What is the theory behind intelligence design? what is it's platform? other than something intelligent built the universe platform?? That's it, that's where it starts, that's where it stops! They have no theory to support any peer review work, hence why there's nothing of the sort in science, because it's not science. They're are very clever the creationist people in that sense, i'll give them that much, since 1987!

beware i'm gonna say something a bit unpopular now... and this is not about science, it's just MY personal opinion so don't take it too personal... BUT, if in 2016 you still don't believe in evolution... you're either really f****** stupid or just openly ignorant. Wake up!! there's evidence all over the place!!

it's like having most pieces(like 90%) of a puzzle that totally looks like an orange, but still insisting it may be a banana... that's just really stupid!! snap out of it.

(sorry about my rudeness. i can't stand this)

What evidence?

@lordraiden: @willpayton:

Ik bible is supposed to be holy and still said that earthe is in the center of universe.

Btw i can prove that the gravity theory is true anytime.

I understand how existing features in organism populations change according to environmental pressures. Ie fish lose eyes and grow bigger mouths and teeth when stuck in very dark environments. These changes are not random mutation driven as many Darwinists would have it, but rather they are plieotropic changes driven by the "technology" that already exists in the cells of the organisms.

The environment causes chemical signals which cause chemical changes in the cell which in turn causes genetic switches to turn on and off in the fish, also chemical signals cause the protiens to loosen up ready to be slightly adjusted , signals cause new RNAs to come in to edit the main RNA strand or become spliced into the main strand, thus producing adjusted protiens.

So a sophisticated system of inputs and outputs enable fish to change according to their environment in only one generation.

Is this Darwinian evolution? I don't think so.

My mom needs to see this she's one of the few that don't take evolution as a thing.

@thedandyman:

What are magikarp?

@spareheadone: Yeah it's a Pokemon thing

There are ways to see evolution in action across a human lifetime. The Brown Anole was introduced into Florida from the Caribbean where it came in contact with the native Green Anole. Being more aggressive the Brown Anoles began to dominate available habitat resources, forcing the Green Anole higher into the branches of trees.

That said the majority of the Green Anoles really struggled to survive in this arboreal shift in their lifetime and the majority of them failed to breed. Those that did generally havd larger foot pads that enhanced the lizard's gripping abilities. Twenty generations on (about forty years) and larger foot pads are found on almost all Green Anoles in their Florida range.

Not only does this show the evolution of a feature due to environmental pressures, but it also shows a fairly rapid process visable in a human lifespan. While this new 'bigfoot' green anole isn't a seperate species, or even subspecies it is evolving towards genetic distinctivness.

Not to be a smart ass or anything, but technically the earth is in the center of the universe.

@impurestcheese: I choose you!!!!

It would be great to see and understand all the processes in the cell that took place with these anoles.

Technically there is no center of the universe.

Right now the best evidence is that the universe if infinite. So, imagine we're a point on an infinite plane. Is that the center? No. In fact the idea of a "center" doesnt make sense in that context because there's no edges at all.

Or even if the universe is finite, we'd still have no center. Imagine the universe as the 2D surface of a sphere. Where on that 2D surface is the center of your 2D universe? Again, there is none.

The universe is all space (and time) that exists. There is no such thing as "outside" of the universe, there's no "edges", and hence no center.

@spareheadone: Yes it would.

Got to warn you I only know four attacks and have a 4x weakness to being set on fire

This can be a difficult subject and I totally understand if you don't get it at first.

So we have two possibilities. Either the universe is infinite or it isn't. Let's say it is infinite. How do we find the center of an object? Take the total distance divided by two. Well if we divide infinity by two what do we have? Your answer is infinity. It doesn't matter where you choose your starting point, the total distance will always be infinity so therefore we can conclude that the center of an infinite universe is everywhere.

Now let's say the universe is finite. The principle behind a finite universe is very similar. There is no beginning or end. It wraps around in a way that once you cross the entire distance of the universe you are back at the beginning. In this example depending on where you start anywhere could be considered the center of the universe.

Sorry if that wasn't very clear I don't explain this very often. I could find you a link if you would prefer that.

@impurestcheese: I will team you up with a water Pokemon.

Ha!

@petey_is_spidey:

Heeheehee

I do understand it. I have a degree in astrophysics.

You could think of it in the sense of "the center of the universe is everywhere" which is not entirely wrong, but it's misleading. Normally the "center" of something implies that that thing has extents and an edge. This is not the case for the universe, whether it's infinite or finite.

So the issue here is the same as above. Even though you could imagine that any point in a finite universe is the center, it's misleading. The universe is not like an object in space, the universe encompasses all space. Typical notions like "center" or "edge" do not really apply.

This also applies to the Big Bang, and many people mistakenly think that the BB happened at some point and everything expanded from there. This is wrong. The BB happened everywhere and everything expanded relative to everything else.

BTW also note that I'm speaking of the entire universe, and not the "observable universe". The observable universe does indeed have a center, and it's wherever you're observing from.

I do appreciate the offer, but it's not needed.

Oh, no, this would not be evolution in action; the example you're providing would be a description of Mendelian Genetics in action; the Anole is still an Anole, it's not becoming an entirely different/new vertebrate (e.g. something like a tadpole becoming an octopus; I know, technical, an example of an invertebrate).