Evolution - dispelling the myths

Okay, I'm sick of reading all these ignorant and misinformed posts posted by slack-jawed incestuous hicks who obviously know nothing of what they are talking about.

To be short and sweet:

Evolution HAS and DOES occur.

Evolution has been OBSERVED occurring.

Speciation has been OBSERVED occuring.

A theory in science has a different meaning than in normal everyday speech. All you people who say "but evolution is only a theory!" need to realise that in science a theory is defined as : structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Everyone needs to read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Evolution HAS and DOES occur.

Evolution has been OBSERVED occurring.

Speciation has been OBSERVED occuring.

Ok, I pretty much agree with what you said here, except this:

And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Show me proof. in fact it doesn't even have to be proof, show me any evidence what so ever that this is the case.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

And that proves? all I see is some fragmentary skulls that are either from a human or an ape. I saw a show once where they took a skull like that made a copy of it and had an artist who knew human and ape anatomy and he created what the face would have looked like, they where all amazed at how much it looked like a half man half ape, I noticed however that if you got rid of his nose and ears (since the cartilage was long gone, he had to make up his own) and replaced them with an apes nose and ears and coverd the face in hair it would look exactly like an ape, not necessarily a type that is still alive today but are you going to tell me that a species can't go extinct?

Show me proof. in fact it doesn't even have to be proof, show me any evidence what so ever that this is the case.

It was just a quick response due to me being busy at the time. I might look into it and respond in depth later.

Perhaps it would be easier to discuss macro-evolution in general since resolving that would achieve a similar but more significant result.

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

Show me proof. in fact it doesn't even have to be proof, show me any evidence what so ever that this is the case.

It was just a quick response due to me being busy at the time. I might look into it and respond in depth later.

Ok maybe I should take back the "show me any evidence at all" because you could show me a picture of a waffle and say it's proof of evolution.

'Evidence' requires some intuition, proof does not. Intuition is subjective therefore evidence can be subjective too. Also some evidence may not appear convincing until more pieces of the puzzle are in place. We obviously disagree on whether this constitutes evidence so I'll leave it at that and move on.

You guys are sad. You fail to realize that both creation and evolution could happen. first of all, evolution has been observed. But thats  just the thing. it has only been observed since Darwins time. who says we wernt created and then evolved from that.Hmmm?

EVOLUTION? thats blasphemy. the bible- the worlds only reliable source, states, as requested by  god how we came to be from the unlawful acts of adam and eve. FOOLS! DO YOUR RESEARCH!

dude, you really need to chill. Evolution has been witnessed. i dobelieve we were created but, as i just said, evolution HAS been observed.OK? OK.

yeh but evolution is like gravity, when it's been proven i'll shut up, until then you haven't got a leg to stand on in reality.

yeh but evolution is like gravity, when it's been proven i'll shut up, until then you haven't got a leg to stand on in reality.

I'm struggling to understand how you can agree with someone about the fact that evolution has been actually observed by scientists, not just in theory, but actual measurements tested against their theory, and then say it's not "proven". This is as good as it gets, buddy: if you want scientific "proof" then that's all there is.

People here seem to be very confused as to what a scientific theory is. A short summary: A theory is developed which accommodates the existing data. Further measurements are made, usually ones which haven't been made before, and the theory is tested against them. That is, the theory must be capable of making predictions which the measurements will either fall in with, or will disagree. If they agree, then the theory survives, and gains a little more credibility. If the measurements do not agree, then the theory is either revised, or dumped.

At no point do you ever "prove" something using science. The evidence can be in overwhelming agreement with the theory, which makes it therefore a very good theory, but this just means that most rational people happen to agree with it, because the alternatives are too wacky and the evidence fit too well.

So if you're looking for a proof of the existence of gravity, you're out of luck. It's just that gravity happens to fit the data extremely well: alternatives are in the realm of the nutty.

i know plenty of intelligent people at school, 6th formers taking science A levels say that they don't think gravity is the answer, this is a grammar school where many of these people are applying for Oxbridge. some teachers are inclined to agree with them, there are a lot of holes in the gravity theory.

. . . some teachers are inclined to agree with them, there are a lot of holes in the gravity theory.

And those holes would be what, exactly? Give us some specifics.

An example of how gravity is flawed is seen in the planets it doesn’t explain how Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not after all they are both big. One has rings, the other does not. Does gravity play favorites?  There are other ways to explain why things fall besides this flawed theory.

This (again: sigh) is not a counter-example to the existence of gravity. That one massive planet has rings and another does not does not prove or disprove anything at all. It is perfectly feasible that a certain type of matter collects round one planet in one way, and in a different way around another planet. It depends a lot on the intial conditions of the material available when the planet condensed under gravitational rotation.

Jupiter has lots of moons, but it's bigger. Saturn might well have been in contact early on in its formation with a lots of looser, smaller, objects that collected in certain ring formations.

Oh, and by the way, gravity does have an explanation for the ring patterns around Saturn, when chaos theory is taken into account. The distance of some orbits, factoring in the mass of the material involved, results in some of them being more stable than others. The "gaps" in the rings of Saturn can fairly easily be accounted for using certain non-linear models.

Oh, it would so nice if there were actually something approaching informed debate now and again. Sigh (again) . . .

Once again, Mundi is possibly the only one showing any sort of sense here; Bullhorn, stop talking.  Just stop.  Do you have anything to contribute other than what is essentially: "There are problems with your theory, I won't use concrete examples that can't easily be shot down to disprove your theory, or suggest a plausible theory of my own, in fact this post is utterly useless and hasn't contributed anything"?  No? Didn't think so.

Next, old_mother_hubbard, look I'm sorry buddy, I understand that you're trying to have an intelligent conversation, it's just that you're failing.  A few good things to stay away from would be:

a) subverting the topic with your meaningless babbling; this thread was about evolution, now you've somehow managed to change it into an argument about the existance of gravity, and again, like bullhorn, failed to substantiate any of your statements.

b) Sounding like a third grader:

i know plenty of intelligent people at school, 6th formers taking science A levels say that they don't think gravity is the answer, this is a grammar school where many of these people are applying for Oxbridge. some teachers are inclined to agree with them, there are a lot of holes in the gravity theory.

Punctuation and syntax generally help in conversations like this, but as I didn't bash bullhorn for this, I'm not getting into it with you.  Be this as it may, I still managed to decipher what you typed, and, to my surprise, it was still childish.  I'll break down what you said:
A) You know smart people
B) They disagree with gravity
C) You know teachers
D) These teachers disagree with gravity
E) In conclusion, there are a lot of holes in the gravity theory, but I'll convieniently omit any of these, as I can't substantiate my claims.

Look: I know smart people too.  They agree with gravity.  I know teachers.  They too, agree with gravity.  The gravity theory has no holes in it.

There, that line has the exact same amount of validity as your post, which is to say none.  You've failed to back yourself up in any way.

And lastly, old_mother_hubbard, you failed to respond to Mundi's question.  He directly asked you a question, and then you post directly after him and ignore his post, with something about gravity and not evolution.

Please do me a favor and don't post unless you're actually going to say something meaningful to the subject at hand you two (by which I mean, of course, bullhorn and old_mother_hubbard).

And now to my actual point in this argument, which is that if we look at this logically, humans have to have evolved from something.  Look at the facts: -We have seen evolution occur in other, if not all, species of animals
         -Humans are a species of animal
Saying that humans didn't evolve from something else is akin to excepting humans from being subject to the laws of nature, which is sheer arrogance.  And the reason we say we evolved from monkeys is because we share something like 99% of the same DNA as they do, so it's a fairly small leap in logic to come to the conclusion that we evolved from monkeys.

Sorry for the long post, try to stay on task guys.

Just because you don’t agree with what I have to say and the way I phrase it is fine, but I will express my viewpoint when I choose, and how I choose. I’m not sure if your referring to my gravity post but I was demonstrating how it is possible that the theory is flawed.  If you don’t like the fact that I believe the world is flat fine, bit my viewpoint will remain the same.  When I was in my last years of university I took an ethics class and we discussed arguments.  One of the things a person does when they don’t like an argument or is loosing one, is they resort to personal attacks that can include the persons grammar or what they believe to be invalid points in their arguments.  They don’t address the facts at hand but attack the person themselves. Lets not go to that level.  I have never gone off task sir.

Alright, no, again bullhorn, you've simply ignored every point I made and then decided to misconstrue it in a way that seems to suit you better.

I never said the way you phrase things invalidated your arguments, I said that it would be helpful to use syntax and grammar so you could get your point across.

Next,

I’m not sure if your referring to my gravity post but I was demonstrating how it is possible that the theory is flawed.

Shockingly you seem to have not only misunderstood my post, but completely ignored the actual words in it:  I clearly said my problem with your post was that your "hole" in gravity was an extremely shoddily thrown together example that was easily torn apart by Mundi, in effect, you had nothing to back up your "hole", and therefore your post was fairly useless.  I also don't think I once mentioned your belief of the earth being flat, but I wouldn't expect you to know that as you seemingly didn't read my post all that carefully.

I'm glad to see you took an ethics class in university as well, but apparantly you skimmed that course as much as you did my previous post, because the exact thing you are supposed to do in an argument is point out "invalid points in their (opponents') arguments".  You'll notice how while you may have found that I did in fact attack you, I did it in such a way that all my points were completely valid.  Shockingly your post did essentially say

"There are problems with your theory, I won't use concrete examples that can't easily be shot down to disprove your theory, or suggest a plausible theory of my own, in fact this post is utterly useless and hasn't contributed anything"

And honestly, if you don't have anything but that to say, don't say it. because it's not contributing to the conversation.

And finally, you apparantly don't understand the concept of a "task" as used synonymously with "topic", because the title of this thread is "Evolution - dispelling the myths", and you even said in your post

I’m not sure if your referring to my gravity post

Now, I'm not sure if you're all that good with english, given all your posts I've read, but gravity isn't the same as evolution. So yes, you've gone off topic, and now so have I, which I have to appologize for.

In conclusion, bullhorn, that was yet another post in which you essentially said nothing, your previous point is invalid, not because I don't like it, or have something against you, but because it was, by it's very nature a flawed point that didn't contribute to the conversation, which you did indeed deviate from.  And finally, I'm sorry you found my previous post offensive bullhorn, but the fact remains that the point I made about the invalidity of your post is still valid, regardless of wether you think it's a personal attack or not, because that alone doesn't invalidate it.

Again, I'm sorrry to have taken such a wild tangent from the topic at hand, and could we please get back to the topic at hand? (By which I mean the one in the title of the thread, bullhorn, in case you're just skimming this post)

What 6strings said.

Honestly, I don't think I could do better than that, so there's no point adding anything. Good job (as usual).

Bullhorn, I do feel sorry for you: it's one thing to be just wrong, but to be outclassed like that must be hard. Do try, though!

Jupiter, along with Uranus and Neptune have rings.


http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html

Quote from: "Goethe"

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

Show me proof. in fact it doesn't even have to be proof, show me any evidence what so ever that this is the case.

It was just a quick response due to me being busy at the time. I might look into it and respond in depth later.

Ok maybe I should take back the "show me any evidence at all" because you could show me a picture of a waffle and say it's proof of evolution.

PROOF of evolution

http://www.cereformusa.com/images/CereLite%20products/retouched%20photos/cereLite/HOME-regular-waffle-8.jpg

Umm... That's a waffle...

EVOLUTION? thats blasphemy. the bible- the worlds only reliable source, states, as requested by  god how we came to be from the unlawful acts of adam and eve. FOOLS! DO YOUR RESEARCH!

Where do I start with this? Oh yeah! How about that the Bible is not a reliable source. It is a religious book based on the beliefs of the christian society. The entire thing is metaphorical/allegorical and there are very few of its stories which are actual fact. I'm fairly certain Jesus was proven archealogicaly to have lived, but there is no proof except for the word of the Bible to say that he is the son of God.

Also, in this case you are referring to the story of Adam and Eve. Here's the thing about people; when someone can't explain something, they will often try to find an explanation. 2000+ years ago, no one knew what evolution was or that it could possibly exist. Someone asked "Where did people come from?" and they tried to answer as best they could.  Actually , it was not all too different from a modern scientific theory in that people took what they knew and brought up the best, most logical explanation. The thing about theories though, is that once another, better, more explainable one comes along, the other is pretty much gone.So anyways,  God created the first man and woman and we are all decended from them. That doesn't make it true. Also, the story of Adam and Eve is fictional, and odds are the theory didn't go past "God made 'em". Unfortunately, that's not interesting and wouldn't fit in with the point of the Bible, which is to teach people a better way of life for themselves and those around them When Jesus came along the lessons started to be taught more obviously so that people actually got the point. Up until then, it just seems like a bunch of stories. So, names were made, a story was written and a moral was slapped right on it. It is now suitable for the Bible.

Long story short, the Bible is not reference. Partly because it's not really all true. It teaches valuable life lessons, but very little of it has been proven to have actually occured. Also, because not everyone in the world is Christian, the Bible's views do not necessarily apply to their beliefs, and odds are they think you're as daffy as you think they are.