Evolution, what's your take on it?

[QUOTE="erc500"]

Just to clear some things up for people, evolution is both theory and fact.

Evoultion has been observed in fruit flies, therefore it is fact.

It is also a theory used to describe the observed facts

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. (A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population)

123625

Are you sure the Fruit flies were a result of Macro? Or was it just Micro?

There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, there is variation and speciation

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

There is no such thing as 'kind', we've observed speciation, we have the fossil record (and since you probably don't get it, according to the theory, EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, just like if you have children, you'll be the transition between your parents and your children), we have all that other evidence I don't really recall since I don't spend all my time here arguing with people that think that a scientific theory doesn't deserve merit because it's "just a theory", meaning that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh yeah, retro viruses, something about ascorbic acids I think, uh... Junk DNA or something. Well, someone who cares more will probably write up a list.

Zagrius

Oh the fossil record is just interpretation on things. and how can every fossil be a transitional form? Thats riduculous, i can look at the fossil record and see no transitional forms. Its all interpretation of evidence without much fact(Observation) to back it up.

As for the virus, does that neccesarily mean humans and animals can evolve? Cause we have yet to see it.

That's your problem right there. You think that a transitional fossil would look like some sort of half-fish, half-lizard thing. Well no. Every generation is a transition between the generation preceding it and the generation following it.

And to compare the oh-so-not-scientific evolution (it's just a theory! Maybe you should go learn what a theory means in the scientific community) to something else yet again, just because you can't count to googol doesn't mean the number doesn't exist.

So things just evolved instantly? a lizard gave birth to a bird? Is that what your saying? Or a whale gave birth to a cow? and it didn't take millions of years for them to evolve? and they didn't leave transitional forms in between, behind? Find that hard to beleive.

And no i don't think all fossils should be like that. I think there should be billions of fossils around and there should be many transitional forms between each of em for evolution to be true.

And im not saying evolution isnt true, it very well could be. But i don't see it possible and its completely rubbish to me.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="erc500"]

Just to clear some things up for people, evolution is both theory and fact.

Evoultion has been observed in fruit flies, therefore it is fact.

It is also a theory used to describe the observed facts

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. (A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population)

erc500

Are you sure the Fruit flies were a result of Macro? Or was it just Micro?

There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, there is variation and speciation

What?

Wow so ignorant....

Variation is within the kind. Eg a green dog gives birth to a blue dog. Is it a new kind? No its micro evolution.

Macro is saying one kind can somehow become another over millions of years.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

There is no such thing as 'kind', we've observed speciation, we have the fossil record (and since you probably don't get it, according to the theory, EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, just like if you have children, you'll be the transition between your parents and your children), we have all that other evidence I don't really recall since I don't spend all my time here arguing with people that think that a scientific theory doesn't deserve merit because it's "just a theory", meaning that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Oh yeah, retro viruses, something about ascorbic acids I think, uh... Junk DNA or something. Well, someone who cares more will probably write up a list.

123625

Oh the fossil record is just interpretation on things. and how can every fossil be a transitional form? Thats riduculous, i can look at the fossil record and see no transitional forms. Its all interpretation of evidence without much fact(Observation) to back it up.

As for the virus, does that neccesarily mean humans and animals can evolve? Cause we have yet to see it.

That's your problem right there. You think that a transitional fossil would look like some sort of half-fish, half-lizard thing. Well no. Every generation is a transition between the generation preceding it and the generation following it.

And to compare the oh-so-not-scientific evolution (it's just a theory! Maybe you should go learn what a theory means in the scientific community) to something else yet again, just because you can't count to googol doesn't mean the number doesn't exist.

So things just evolved instantly? a lizard gave birth to a bird? Is that what your saying? Or a whale gave birth to a cow? and it didn't take millions of years for them to evolve? and they didn't leave transitional forms in between, behind? Find that hard to beleive.

And no i don't think all fossils should be like that. I think there should be billions of fossils around and there should be many transitional forms between each of em for evolution to be true.

And im not saying evolution is true, it very well could be. But i don't see it possible and its completely rubbish to me.

Wow, you really like to twist things, don't you. I'm saying that according to evolution, you won't see an animal with the head of a fish and the tail of a lizard. You'll see a fish, and another fish, and another fish, and another fish, and so on and so forth. Then, without even realizing it, you'll notice that what once were flippers suddenly became legs! When you'll notice that you'll ask yourself "wait, what the hell?", and you'll look back at its ancestors, and closely examine their flippers, and see how veeeery veeeery slowly the flippers changed into the legs, a little bit every generation. The process was just so slow that you didn't notice the change between every generation when skimming through them. Just like when you stare at a clock, you sometimes don't even really see the hour-dial move, but suddenly you've already been staring at it for thirty minutes.

But its all interpretation... It doesnt make Evolution any more real. and how do they suddenly become legs? Surely we would notice the middle one? There should be millions of fossils for Evolution, yet there are very view that can even be considered transitional.

123625

It wasn't suddenly.... How the heck do countless generations with miniscule differences between each constitute "suddenly"? I'm sorry, but I really don't care enough to continue with this. Have a good day.

[QUOTE="erc500"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="erc500"]

Just to clear some things up for people, evolution is both theory and fact.

Evoultion has been observed in fruit flies, therefore it is fact.

It is also a theory used to describe the observed facts

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. (A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population)

123625

Are you sure the Fruit flies were a result of Macro? Or was it just Micro?

There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, there is variation and speciation

What?

Wow so ignorant....

Variation is within the kind. Eg a green dog gives birth to a blue dog. Is it a new kind? No its micro evolution.

Macro is saying one kind can somehow become another over millions of years.

Variation is the changes from one generation to another, its how your not identical to your parents.

Speciation is when two groups of the same species living in different ecological systesm can no longer succesfully mate due to variation and thus are different species

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="erc500"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="erc500"]

Just to clear some things up for people, evolution is both theory and fact.

Evoultion has been observed in fruit flies, therefore it is fact.

It is also a theory used to describe the observed facts

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. (A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population)

erc500

Are you sure the Fruit flies were a result of Macro? Or was it just Micro?

There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, there is variation and speciation

What?

Wow so ignorant....

Variation is within the kind. Eg a green dog gives birth to a blue dog. Is it a new kind? No its micro evolution.

Macro is saying one kind can somehow become another over millions of years.

Variation is the changes from one generation to another, its how your not identical to your parents.

Speciation is when two groups of the same species living in different ecological systesm can no longer succesfully mate due to variation and thus are different species

Variation within the same kind won't produce anything new other than a few differences, such as looks appearance and genes and etc. We won't suddenly change with a bunch of variations. Thats just a wild theory.

[QUOTE="erc500"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="erc500"]

Just to clear some things up for people, evolution is both theory and fact.

Evoultion has been observed in fruit flies, therefore it is fact.

It is also a theory used to describe the observed facts

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. (A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population)

123625

Are you sure the Fruit flies were a result of Macro? Or was it just Micro?

There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, there is variation and speciation

What?

Wow so ignorant....

Variation is within the kind. Eg a green dog gives birth to a blue dog. Is it a new kind? No its micro evolution.

Macro is saying one kind can somehow become another over millions of years.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="erc500"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="erc500"]

Just to clear some things up for people, evolution is both theory and fact.

Evoultion has been observed in fruit flies, therefore it is fact.

It is also a theory used to describe the observed facts

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. (A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population)

shivaskunk9mm

Are you sure the Fruit flies were a result of Macro? Or was it just Micro?

There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, there is variation and speciation

What?

Wow so ignorant....

Variation is within the kind. Eg a green dog gives birth to a blue dog. Is it a new kind? No its micro evolution.

Macro is saying one kind can somehow become another over millions of years.

Well thats just theory. The currant fact now is, that a dog gives birth to a dog and that dog will continue to give birth to a dog.

Variation doesnt make anything new only minor differences, such as appearance, hair length, genes, traits and etc. It doesnt change anything to make them a different kind.

Cut the crap okay? Your statement has been refuted...jointed

Must of missed it then.... cause i don't see how theory and pictures make something fact.

[QUOTE="jointed"]Cut the crap okay? Your statement has been refuted...123625

Must of missed it then.... cause i don't see how theory and pictures make something fact.

:roll:

You said that there were no transitional fossils of fish with legs...that wiki article proves you wrong.

[QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Cut the crap okay? Your statement has been refuted...jointed

Must of missed it then.... cause i don't see how theory and pictures make something fact.

:roll:

You said that there were no transitional fossils of fish with legs...that wiki article proves you wrong.

I didn't see any legs though....

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Cut the crap okay? Your statement has been refuted...123625

Must of missed it then.... cause i don't see how theory and pictures make something fact.

:roll:

You said that there were no transitional fossils of fish with legs...that wiki article proves you wrong.

I didn't see any legs though....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basilosaurus_hind_limb.gif

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Cut the crap okay? Your statement has been refuted...jointed

Must of missed it then.... cause i don't see how theory and pictures make something fact.

:roll:

You said that there were no transitional fossils of fish with legs...that wiki article proves you wrong.

I didn't see any legs though....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basilosaurus_hind_limb.gif

Don't see that as much proof for evolution though... and when i was talking about legs for fish, mentioned i would need a start and middle and end result.

Actually that looks more like fin of some sorts not a leg at all when i think about it.

Proof of evolutions existance:

What were thumbs used for one hundred years ago? Not much.
What are thumbs used for nowadays? Playing games, using a remote control and general stability and for grip on some things.

This is evolution through the advancement of science.

And if you want a chart showing start, middle, end results of fishies with legs that you can ignore or downplay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fishapods.jpg

This thread is hilarious!!! :lol:

123526 you're like the definition of irony!

bean-with-bacon

mmmhmm sorry i don't beleive in theory.

And if you want a chart showing start, middle, end results of fishies with legs that you can ignore or downplay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fishapods.jpg

Zagrius

Gotta love those artist's renderings.

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

This thread is hilarious!!! :lol:

123526 you're like the definition of irony!

123625

mmmhmm sorry i don't beleive in theory.

But you will believe a book written 2000 years ago which has no evidence supporting it what so ever? I just don't get people like you, I'm sorry but I really don't.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

And if you want a chart showing start, middle, end results of fishies with legs that you can ignore or downplay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fishapods.jpg

123625

Gotta love those artist's renderings.

Obviously based on discovered fossils. It's not like they made them up...

Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

By the way, how much evidence did you require before you accepted Christianity as the truth?

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

This thread is hilarious!!! :lol:

123526 you're like the definition of irony!

bean-with-bacon

mmmhmm sorry i don't beleive in theory.

But you will believe a book written 2000 years ago which has no evidence supporting it what so ever? I just don't get people like you, I'm sorry but I really don't.

So theres no evidence supporting Jesus? Wow, ingnorant much Go onto Notionconspiracy's profile and reada bit.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

And if you want a chart showing start, middle, end results of fishies with legs that you can ignore or downplay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fishapods.jpg

Zagrius

Gotta love those artist's renderings.

Obviously based on discovered fossils. It's not like they made them up...

Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

By the way, how much evidence did you require before you accepted Christianity as the truth?

Please don't change the subject we're not discussing my faith.

And i hardly think a few bones can be elerborated accurately like that.

Image A

Image B

Image C

Doesn't look like just a few bones to me.

Image A

Image B

Image C

Doesn't look like just a few bones to me.

Zagrius

So they perfectly match that artist's rendering?

Any way you offer no real proof for evolution only that it should be considered fact because gravity and atoms are considered fact. But oh well, thats science for you. Good night.

I go nothing against science only what it's become.

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

This thread is hilarious!!! :lol:

123526 you're like the definition of irony!

123625

mmmhmm sorry i don't beleive in theory.

But you will believe a book written 2000 years ago which has no evidence supporting it what so ever? I just don't get people like you, I'm sorry but I really don't.

So theres no evidence supporting Jesus? Wow, ingnorant much Go onto Notionconspiracy's profile and reada bit.

I do not dispute the existence of Jesus, there is quite a bit of evidence supporting he did in fact exist, it's the whole son of good thing I doubt, but I dare say evolution has a lot more evidence then Jesus and yet you accept that without question then say evolution is wrong because there is not enough evidence, I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

123625, just saying things dont make sense to you doesn't mean they don't happen, just because you don't believe variations can't lead to speciation doesn't mean it can't happen. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution.

I think you're confusing a scientific theory with just theory. A scientific theory has to be rigorously and continuously tested and refined and peer reviewed. Things aren't given the title of theory as soon as they are thought up. They have to be able to predict and explain observations and lo and behold thats what the theory of evoulution does. Its not perfect but its a damn sight closer to the truth than "god did it"

Yeah, whatever. Since you don't even know what a scientific theory is, I find it hard to believe that you know anything about what science was or became.Zagrius

Scientific theory is explanation of an obseerved fact.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

And if you want a chart showing start, middle, end results of fishies with legs that you can ignore or downplay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fishapods.jpg

123625

Gotta love those artist's renderings.

Obviously based on discovered fossils. It's not like they made them up...

Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

By the way, how much evidence did you require before you accepted Christianity as the truth?

Please don't change the subject we're not discussing my faith.

And i hardly think a few bones can be elerborated accurately like that.

No, I think if we are discussing the old arguement of 'no observable evidence' we should discuss some of the points in a faith that has had 'no observable evidence' in living memory, and infact, the only acutal evidence for the existence of a supreme being is all thoughtfully bound into a book that can fit in my pocket.

Please never, ever use 'no observational evidence' as reasonable doubt not doing research. You have been shown the error in this thinking so I don't think that flogging that dead horse will do anybody any good.

Heres a thought for you. Why don't you, for a change, actually consider the evidence given to you before dismissing them offhand because they don't line up with your approved text. If you think that is just too much effort for you, at least pretend to have considered them and come up with a semi intelligent counter argument instead of the old 'no transitiorial fossils' groung that had been treaded, pugred with fire and salt. It makes debating more livley and will reduce my contempt for your inorance immensly.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]Yeah, whatever. Since you don't even know what a scientific theory is, I find it hard to believe that you know anything about what science was or became.123625

Scientific theory is explanation of an obseerved fact.

Yeah, basically. But when you say that something is 'just a theory', it shows a lack of understanding of the standing of a scientific theory in the scientific community.

No, I think if we are discussing the old arguement of 'no observable evidence' we should discuss some of the points in a faith that has had 'no observable evidence' in living memory, and infact, the only acutal evidence for the existence of a supreme being is all thoughtfully bound into a book that can fit in my pocket.

Please never, ever use 'no observational evidence' as reasonable doubt not doing research. You have been shown the error in this thinking so I don't think that flogging that dead horse will do anybody any good.

Heres a thought for you. Why don't you, for a change, actually consider the evidence given to you before dismissing them offhand because they don't line up with your approved text. If you think that is just too much effort for you, at least pretend to have considered them and come up with a semi intelligent counter argument instead of the old 'no transitiorial fossils' groung that had been treaded, pugred with fire and salt. It makes debating more livley and will reduce my contempt for your inorance immensly.

Chavyneebslod

I was going to say this only you said it a lot better :D

Sigh im just sick of people telling me Evolution is fact when it isnt.123625

But there is the fact that evolution occurs. The theory only explains how it happens. You just seem to have this weird notion that there's 'kinds' of animals, a notion that isn't held by scientists.

[QUOTE="123625"]Sigh im just sick of people telling me Evolution is fact when it isnt.Zagrius

But there is the fact that evolution occurs. The theory only explains how it happens. You just seem to have this weird notion that there's 'kinds' of animals, a notion that isn't held by scientists.

Sigh give me an example of Macro evolution happening, not Variation within kinds. And the kinds notion is held with me and many others and it is currently a fact, actually.

[QUOTE="123625"]Sigh im just sick of people telling me Evolution is fact when it isnt.Zagrius

But there is the fact that evolution occurs. The theory only explains how it happens. You just seem to have this weird notion that there's 'kinds' of animals, a notion that isn't held by scientists.

Then why are people getting more and more stupid with each passing generation? Take a look at a 2nd grade school book from 1805. A senior in highschool could barely read that thing nowadays. De-Evolution occurs. Things degrade.

Sigh im just sick of people telling me Evolution is fact when it isnt.123625

Look, evolution is the change in the gene pool of a species over time, this is an observed fact. This fact is different but related to the theory of evolution.

I just want you to get your facts straight. Debating the theory of evolution is fine, it isnt perfect but to outright deny it based on believes is foolish in the extreme

[QUOTE="123625"]Sigh im just sick of people telling me Evolution is fact when it isnt.Zagrius

But there is the fact that evolution occurs. The theory only explains how it happens. You just seem to have this weird notion that there's 'kinds' of animals, a notion that isn't held by scientists.

Thank you Zagrius. Why can't people just accept te fact that people have worked hard for years to prove! Stop being so stubborn and open your minds.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="123625"]Sigh im just sick of people telling me Evolution is fact when it isnt.123625

But there is the fact that evolution occurs. The theory only explains how it happens. You just seem to have this weird notion that there's 'kinds' of animals, a notion that isn't held by scientists.

Sigh give me an example of Macro evolution happening, not Variation within kinds. And the kinds notion is held with me and many others and it is currently a fact, actually.

Fine, show me your reputable science book that defines the word 'kind' as it relates to animals.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="123625"]Sigh im just sick of people telling me Evolution is fact when it isnt.mohfrontline

But there is the fact that evolution occurs. The theory only explains how it happens. You just seem to have this weird notion that there's 'kinds' of animals, a notion that isn't held by scientists.

Then why are people getting more and more stupid with each passing generation? Take a look at a 2nd grade school book from 1805. A senior in highschool could barely read that thing nowadays. De-Evolution occurs. Things degrade.

You don't get it do you. Stop trying to tell me Evolution is a fact when it is not.