Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

talloulou said:

They've already pretty much tossed Darwin's simple Tree of Life. I'm sure there's tons more ways in which the theory of evolution will be tweaked before all is said and done.

Again the problem is discussing evolution and the theory of evolution as the same thing.

Click to expand...

Don't know where you're coming from. The "tree of life" has sorta morphed into a "bush of life", since trees are defined as plants with woody stems three inches or more in diameter four feet above groung, but that's not significant.

Tree of Life

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" is the theory that explains the observed fact that natural selection coupled with the inherent variance present in all species produces new species and it also explains the observed facts in the fossil record.

That's just the way it is.

It's call a fact because it's a fact. I know it upsets the little apple carts of many who want to cling to some other idea, but it's still a fact, and those other ideas are still wrong.

If it wasn't an observed process, I might hesitate to call it a fact. But it's observed, and it's a fact.

Click to expand...

Um no. Evolution is an observable fact. The premise that all species originate from a single ancestor - the theory of evolution is theory. I don't "cling" to any ideas; including the theory of evolution. Observing evolution, finding evidence to support the observations in genetics and fossils still leaves you many miles short of proving all living organisms stem from a single original organism.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

talloulou said:

You need to get the notion that guess, interpretation, expectation, etc are bad words when it comes to scientific theory.

When you interpret data and then CONSTRUCT a theory based on the facts and observations you are absolutely making an educated guess and asserting an expectation to be put forth as an explanation.

Click to expand...

In one sentence you say that 'guess' is a bad word when it comes to theory. In the very next you use the word 'guess' to describe the process of constructing theory. I hope you can see the very obvious contradiction there. There's a reason scientists don't normally use the word 'guess' in the description of their work. 'Guess' is a rather casual word that we often use interchangeably with words like 'hunch,' or 'notion,' or 'feeling.'

I think scientists would normally ditch 'educated guess' for 'hypothesis,' which is more neatly defined.

A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural word. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, a study designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, “This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety.” Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research.

While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in general practice, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is important when studying experimental design. Some important distinctions to note include:

* A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.

* A theory is has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

Click to expand...

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Don't know where you're coming from. The "tree of life" has sorta morphed into a "bush of life", since trees are defined as plants with woody stems three inches or more in diameter four feet above groung, but that's not significant.

Tree of Life

Click to expand...

Looks very scientific. :roll: Personally I think they should give up the whole tree of life nonsense, which many have, and just quit trying for juvenile images to explain a complex and multifaceted process.

I don't understand why most religious folk refuse to believe that God might've created Apes, that eventually evolved into us.

That's my view.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Grateful Heart said:

In one sentence you say that 'guess' is a bad word when it comes to theory. In the very next you use the word 'guess' to describe the process of constructing theory. I hope you can see the very obvious contradiction there. There's a reason scientists don't use the word 'guess' in the description of their work. 'Guess' is a rather casual word that we often use interchangeably with words like 'hunch,' or 'notion,' or 'feeling.'

Click to expand...

There's a "not" missing from my sentence. Guess is not a bad word. There are educated guesses and then there's flips of the coin guesses and something in between.

I think scientists would normally ditch 'educated guess' for 'hypothesis,' which is more neatly defined.

Click to expand...

Explain how combining observations and facts to construct the theory of evolution which explains that life all originates from one source doesn't involve guess work. They took a puzzle with tons of pieces missing and put forth an explanation to explain the bits that they do know. We know evolution happens. Do we know everything about why, how, when, at what pace, origins??? No we do not. The explanation is a best guess on how to explain what we have observed thus it is a THEORY.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

talloulou said:

Explain how combining observations and facts to construct the theory of evolution which explains that life all originates from one source doesn't involve guess work. They took a puzzle with tons of pieces missing and put forth an explanation to explain the bits that they do know. We know evolution happens. Do we know everything about why, how, when, at what pace, origins??? No we do not. The explanation is a best guess on how to explain what we have observed thus it is a THEORY.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that you have admitted that evolution is a fact by saying, "evolution happens." But because we don't know all the details of how it happens, of how it happens exactly, it remains a "theory."

That's not what "theory" means. You can infer a fact, without having to know all the facts. Wouldn't you agree?

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Lightdemon said:

It seems to me that you have admitted that evolution is a fact by saying, "evolution happens." But because we don't know all the details of how it happens, of how it happens exactly, it remains a "theory."

That's not what "theory" means. You can infer a fact, without having to know all the facts. Wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

No. Evolution happens. It is an observable fact. However Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not one in the same and shouldn't really be used interchangeably as so many do.

Look at this way: Is it possible for evolution to occur, observable evolution backed up by fossil records & DNA, without every single life form stemming from a single shared ancestor?

Absolutely which is why THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a theory. They've looked at all the observable evolution and decided to expand on that and theorize that all life is ultimately derived from 1 single source.

But, it could also easily be that the explanation given in the theory of evolution is rot. That evolution happens but not in a tree or bush like fashion all going back to one single point.

Evolution = fact. Theory of Evolution = theory.

You can look at all the evidence and guess or infer if you prefer the explanation for a single source of all life. But it's not known. It's not an observable fact. Evolution however is an observable factual occurrence.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

talloulou said:

No. Evolution happens. It is an observable fact. However Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not one in the same and shouldn't really be used interchangeably as so many do.

Look at this way: Is it possible for evolution to occur, observable evolution backed up by fossil records & DNA, without every single life form stemming from a single shared ancestor?

Absolutely which is why THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a theory. They've looked at all the observable evolution and decided to expand on that and theorize that all life is ultimately derived from 1 single source.

But, it could also easily be that the explanation given in the theory of evolution is rot. That evolution happens but not in a tree or bush like fashion all going back to one single point.

Evolution = fact. Theory of Evolution = theory.

You can look at all the evidence and guess or infer if you prefer the explanation for a single source of all life. But it's not known. It's not an observable fact. Evolution however is an observable factual occurrence.

Click to expand...

I see. I think I know where you're coming from. I kind of encountered this while I was still getting my Psych BA.

While we know that evolution has happened, is happening, there are different theories where people disagree on exactly how it happens, or happened. In psychology, there are competing theorists that argue different ways of how humans have evolved, which explains certain psychological phenomena. There are those who emphasize bipedalism and argue that it contributed sexual dimorphism, and then they "theorize" about how that translate into modern behavior of caretaker and protector. The specifics seem more disputable and open for debate (which makes it feel more like "theory" than "fact"), while evolution itself is not.

Is this what you're trying to get at?

Here's an example. Let's say that you believe in evolution so far as you accept the premise that all dog breeds stem from a single canine source before they branched off into different dog breeds. That's observable and there is plenty to back up that assertion. If you accept that you accept evolution. However take it a step further and claim that you share a common ancestor with your dog. Now even someone who accepts that evolution occurs may not accept that they share a common ancestor with their dog. That would be believing in evolution but not buying the theory of evolution in its entirety.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

talloulou said:

Where can I go to see the specific and accurate tree drawing? .

Click to expand...

You want the tree? Here we go:



http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/geek_tech_1a.jpg

AND THAT MUST BE THE COMMON ANSESTOR:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yDV7sDnXCA8/SJiRu1V2wWI/AAAAAAAAAFI/rWVjfdIwYV4/s320/1896_telephone.jpg


That is so simple. No complicated twists are needed to demonstrate how dubious is the mental state of evolutionists. Would anybody who have a healthy mentality be able to suggest that my Blackberry is the result of natural evolution of the Rikstelefone, that Rikstelefone eventually turned into Blackberry BY ITSELF? The only difference between mentally impaired suggestions of evolutionists looking at fossils of apes and an imbecile making exactly the same suggestion about the LOOK of the phones is that the phones do really exist while fossils don’t even exist.

http://www.tofslie.com/files/evolution_apple.jpg


It is not like I expect any reasonable dialog with people who have menatlity of evolutionists, I rather expect to demonstrate their mentality again.

talloulou said:

I believe that evolution occurs. As far as I'm concerned if someone denies evolution they're a tard. .

Click to expand...

The key word is “believe”. So those who have different beliefs must be tards? So Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley is a tard?


Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy had this to say: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."
“The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. ‘’



Richard Smalley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner in physics who would say something like : After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution have occurred."


Dr. Robert Gange is a research scientist (cryophisics), engineer, and adjunct professor the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton. He just so happened to write a pro-creation book entitled, "Origins and Destiny". Aside from the book itself, the back cover has this interesting endorsement from the late mathematician, physicist, and Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics):

"I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange's refusal of the idea of materialism, and the convincing arguments supporting that refusal. In fact, the book will be a welcome response to materialism. Good luck, for a good book!"

(Origins and Destiny - A Scientist Examines God's Handiwork - by Dr. Robert Gange)

Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner in physics who has endorsed one justone pro-evolution book.


Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following interesting argument:

"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real.”

Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner who finds evolution real from a scientific point of view?


In a short search I have found the 3 who has expressed their personal beliefs and the base of their beliefs publicly.

How many Nobel Prize winners have expressed their personal beliefs in the same way as the 3 physicists above?

How many Nobel Prize winners in Physics have made a pro-evolution statement? How many Nobel Prize winners have made a pro-evolution statement? How many Nobel Prize winners in Physics have made a pro-evolution statement?



Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner, Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics are tards in your view?

How anybody in the right mind can argue to an evolutionist after that? Sure they are tards and I am a tard, I wonder what do you base your personal belief on, we do on our background in chemistry and physics, - what is your base? Explain to me where do your beliefs stem from? Step by step – what have made a fanatic of evolution?

talloulou said:

Theory of Evolution = theory. .

Click to expand...

Theory of evolution does not exist. These are theories:


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Machines-Mechanisms-John-Uicker/dp/019515598X"]Amazon.com: Theory of Machines and Mechanisms: John J. Uicker, Gordon R. Pennock, the late Joseph E. Shigley: Books[/ame]

Presents the basic mathematical theory of machines.
"The theory of machines and mechanisms is an applied science that is used to understand the relationships between the geometry and motions of the parts..."

Basic Electric Circuit Theory

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Wing-Sections-Including-Summary/dp/0486605868/ref=pd_sim_b_1]Amazon.com: Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data (Dover Books on Physics): Ira H. Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Hydrodynamics-L-M-Milne-Thomson/dp/0486689700/ref=pd_sim_b_5]Amazon.com: Theoretical Hydrodynamics: L. M. Milne-Thomson: Books[/ame]



Schaums Outline of Theory and Problems of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics specs
SpringerLink - Journal Article

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-Thermodynamics-Erwin-Schrodinger/dp/0486661016"]Amazon.com: Statistical Thermodynamics: Erwin Schrodinger: Books[/ame]

Theory is an apparatus of a certain part of science, where all physical laws and results of experiments related to a certain group of observed phenomena are generalized and unified AND SIMPLYFIED by means of mathematics and geometry.

When Evolution completely lacks mathematics, when evolutionists do not even understand the simplest question related to mathematics, when Evolution was founded by an individual who couldn’t pass an entrance exam to a basic mathematics class, - evolutionists still dare to call millions of pages of total delirium a theory ????? - evolution should be banned in schools for degrading science and ruining lives.

The key word is always, - do you believe, BELIVE. Evolution, like intelligent design are systems of personal beliefs based on empirical evidence and logic, they have nothing to do to science. Science is an empirical experimental activity. The key word of science is experiment. Not evidence, but experiment.

talloulou said:

Evolution however is an observable factual occurrence.

Click to expand...

Observed Instances of Speciation
by Joseph Boxhorn
Copyright © 1993-2004
[Last Update: September 1, 1995]


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation]Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.[1]


Can you link me to one justone peer reviewed publication which demonstrates one justone observable factual occurrence of a NEW biological species arisal? One justone reference in the whole history of thousands experiments and observations? Not 2 not 3 not many, but one justone? One justone Observed example of speciation of whatever kind?

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

justone said:

You want the tree? Here we go:



http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/geek_tech_1a.jpg

AND THAT MUST BE THE COMMON ANSESTOR:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yDV7sDnXCA8/SJiRu1V2wWI/AAAAAAAAAFI/rWVjfdIwYV4/s320/1896_telephone.jpg


That is so simple. No complicated twists are needed to demonstrate how dubious is the mental state of evolutionists. Would anybody who have a healthy mentality be able to suggest that my Blackberry is the result of natural evolution of the Rikstelefone, that Rikstelefone eventually turned into Blackberry BY ITSELF? The only difference between mentally impaired suggestions of evolutionists looking at fossils of apes and an imbecile making exactly the same suggestion about the LOOK of the phones is that the phones do really exist while fossils don’t even exist.

http://www.tofslie.com/files/evolution_apple.jpg


It is not like I expect any reasonable dialog with people who have menatlity of evolutionists, I rather expect to demonstrate their mentality again.

Click to expand...

Your English has improved since the last time I encountered you in a thread. Your ignorance of how evolution works hasn't improved however.

One thing at a time, I s'pose. :2wave:

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Lightdemon said:

Your English has improved since the last time I encountered you in a thread.

Click to expand...

It is a lie.

Lightdemon said:

Your ignorance of how evolution works hasn't improved however.

One thing at a time, I s'pose. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Thank you for the demonstration of the fact that evolutionists are capable only of personal attacks and attempts to insults. For me it is like pulling a trigger and counting the birds falling. With one pull of the trigger - Lightdemon, - one...

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

justone said:

It is a lie.

Click to expand...

Don't discount yourself now...Even a ridiculously small improvement is an improvement.

Thank you for the demonstration of the fact that evolutionists are capable only of personal attacks and attempts to insults. For me it is like pulling a trigger and counting the birds falling. With one pull of the trigger - Lightdemon, - one...

Click to expand...

Silly boy, no one is taking you serious because you still haven't figure out how science works.

I don't think there are any scientists who dispute micro evolution.

justone said:

The key word is “believe”. So those who have different beliefs must be tards? So Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley is a tard?


Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy had this to say: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."
“The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. ‘’



Richard Smalley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner in physics who would say something like : After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution have occurred."


Dr. Robert Gange is a research scientist (cryophisics), engineer, and adjunct professor the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton. He just so happened to write a pro-creation book entitled, "Origins and Destiny". Aside from the book itself, the back cover has this interesting endorsement from the late mathematician, physicist, and Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics):

"I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange's refusal of the idea of materialism, and the convincing arguments supporting that refusal. In fact, the book will be a welcome response to materialism. Good luck, for a good book!"

(Origins and Destiny - A Scientist Examines God's Handiwork - by Dr. Robert Gange)

Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner in physics who has endorsed one justone pro-evolution book.


Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following interesting argument:

"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real.”

Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

Please link me to one justone Nobel Prize winner who finds evolution real from a scientific point of view?


In a short search I have found the 3 who has expressed their personal beliefs and the base of their beliefs publicly.

How many Nobel Prize winners have expressed their personal beliefs in the same way as the 3 physicists above?

How many Nobel Prize winners in Physics have made a pro-evolution statement? How many Nobel Prize winners have made a pro-evolution statement? How many Nobel Prize winners in Physics have made a pro-evolution statement?



Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner, Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics are tards in your view?

How anybody in the right mind can argue to an evolutionist after that? Sure they are tards and I am a tard, I wonder what do you base your personal belief on, we do on our background in chemistry and physics, - what is your base? Explain to me where do your beliefs stem from? Step by step – what have made a fanatic of evolution?


Theory of evolution does not exist. These are theories:


Amazon.com: Theory of Machines and Mechanisms: John J. Uicker, Gordon R. Pennock, the late Joseph E. Shigley: Books

Presents the basic mathematical theory of machines.
"The theory of machines and mechanisms is an applied science that is used to understand the relationships between the geometry and motions of the parts..."

Basic Electric Circuit Theory

Amazon.com: Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data (Dover Books on Physics): Ira H. Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff: Books
Amazon.com: Theoretical Hydrodynamics: L. M. Milne-Thomson: Books



Schaums Outline of Theory and Problems of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics specs
SpringerLink - Journal Article

Amazon.com: Statistical Thermodynamics: Erwin Schrodinger: Books

Theory is an apparatus of a certain part of science, where all physical laws and results of experiments related to a certain group of observed phenomena are generalized and unified AND SIMPLYFIED by means of mathematics and geometry.

When Evolution completely lacks mathematics, when evolutionists do not even understand the simplest question related to mathematics, when Evolution was founded by an individual who couldn’t pass an entrance exam to a basic mathematics class, - evolutionists still dare to call millions of pages of total delirium a theory ????? - evolution should be banned in schools for degrading science and ruining lives.

The key word is always, - do you believe, BELIVE. Evolution, like intelligent design are systems of personal beliefs based on empirical evidence and logic, they have nothing to do to science. Science is an empirical experimental activity. The key word of science is experiment. Not evidence, but experiment.






Observed Instances of Speciation
by Joseph Boxhorn
Copyright © 1993-2004
[Last Update: September 1, 1995]


Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.[1]


Can you link me to one justone peer reviewed publication which demonstrates one justone observable factual occurrence of a NEW biological species arisal? One justone reference in the whole history of thousands experiments and observations? Not 2 not 3 not many, but one justone? One justone Observed example of speciation of whatever kind?

Click to expand...

Seriously I don't think even 1 of those people you mentioned would seriously argue that wolves, coyotes, & domesticated dogs don't all share a common ancestor. In other words they most likely all believe in some forms of evolution.

Disputing the primordial soup theory or the notion that ALL Species share a single common ancestor is a whole other story.

Here I looked up the first person you mentioned and here's what I found:

I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Click to expand...

Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

Now on the one hand he is saying he believes in intelligent design HOWEVER - and this is important- he is also saying it's a mistake to think this means there is no evolution.

He's a perfect example of someone like me. He knows evolution happens though he rejects the explanation that we all come from one single solitary source or soup.

Re: Read the article, a theory is not a guess

Lightdemon said:

Don't discount yourself now...Even a ridiculously small improvement is an improvement. .

Click to expand...

Now it is a ridiculously small improvement. I accept you concession.

Lightdemon said:

Silly boy, no one is taking you serious because you still haven't figure out how science works.

Click to expand...

Lightdemon, - two...

talloulou said:

Here I looked up the first person you mentioned and here's what I found:


Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

Now on the one hand he is saying he believes in intelligent design HOWEVER - and this is important- he is also saying it's a mistake to think this means there is no evolution.

He's a perfect example of someone like me. He knows evolution happens though he rejects the explanation that we all come from one single solitary source or soup.

Click to expand...

I guess that you are saying that you believe in "intelligent design"???OK. Or it is not OK??? It is a variant of a personal beleif.

What is about the rest of the Nobel prize winners - are they tards? and the rest of the questions to your beLiefs. For instance I can expalin step by step why I used to have the same beliefs as you and Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes ( provided that you believe in ID). Since you believe in ID like Charles Townes "He's a perfect example of someone like me" - then should they teach ID like evolution in schools? .

talloulou said:

Seriously I don't think even 1 of those people you mentioned would seriously argue that wolves, coyotes, & domesticated dogs don't all share a common ancestor. In other words they most likely all believe in some forms of evolution.

.

Click to expand...

.................................Try again,

justone said:

Nobel prize-winner Dr. Richard Smalley Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy had this to say: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."“The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. ‘’ .

Click to expand...

talloulou said:

I don't think there are any scientists who dispute micro evolution.

Click to expand...

Do you think or do you believe? Where it comes from. Scientists do science, they don't dispute evolution, micro or macro, mini or bikini. Can you link me to one justone peer reviewed article which....micro evolution.... please read my questions... my posts ... my links...

justone said:

I guess that you are saying that you believe in "intelligent design"???OK. Or it is not OK??? It is a variant of a personal beleif.

What is about the rest of the Nobel prize winners - are they tards? and the rest of the questions to your beLiefs. For instance I can expalin step by step why I used to have the same beliefs as you and Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes ( provided that you believe in ID). Since you believe in ID like Charles Townes "He's a perfect example of someone like me" - then should they teach ID like evolution in schools? .

Click to expand...

I don't believe intelligent design is off the table.

I'm absolutely certain none of the folks you mention believe there is NO evolution. That would be tardy. Again, one of the folks you mentioned basically makes the same tard accusation.

It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one

Click to expand...

Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

Townes is saying evolution and intelligent design are NOT mutually exclusive. It is stupid to say "evolution" does not exist. It does. We know it does. You really have to put on blinders to say it negate it entirely on every single level.

I didn't look up your other folks but I'd bet money they say similar things. There really aren't any legitimate scientists disputing that evolution happens.
However that said you can believe in evolution without believing the theory of evolution which states we all share a single common source. That all living organisms ultimately all trace back to one single first organism. Questioning that claim, being skeptical of that assertion, etc is not stupid. Saying there is NO evolution is entirely stupid.

See the difference?

talloulou said:

Now even someone who accepts that evolution occurs may not accept that they share a common ancestor with their dog. That would be believing in evolution but not buying the theory of evolution in its entirety.

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing terms and concepts here. First, there's not a 'theory of evolution'. There's a theory of natural selection which explains the observed phenomenon of evolution.

Second, whether or not we can identify the common ancestors along the various branches of evolution does not alter the theory of natural selection. It only means that the historical record of evolution is not yet fully complete. In much the same way that the fact that there are gaps in your family genealogy has no bearing whatsoever on the 'theory' of sexual reproduction. You may never be able to identify who your great-great-great-great-grandmother was, or where she lived. There may be no record of her existence left. But you know for certainty that she existed.

..

talloulou said:

Um no. Evolution is an observable fact. The premise that all species originate from a single ancestor - the theory of evolution is theory. I don't "cling" to any ideas; including the theory of evolution. Observing evolution, finding evidence to support the observations in genetics and fossils still leaves you many miles short of proving all living organisms stem from a single original organism.

Click to expand...

Ummm...evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION is observed fact. Also observed is the fossil record. For example, look up the story of tiktaalik there. It was found because at a certain point in the fossil record there were fish and no other vertebrates. Then forty million years later, there were land verterbrates also. The theory of evolution, which relies on "intermediate forms" to progress, said that logically somewhere in the that forty million year gap there's a very fish like air-breathing animal that spent some time on land, and not only that, it's bones are going to be found near an ancient beach. With a little map hunting and a little luck, a researcher's team went to an island and found that fossil. (Read [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240199868&sr=1-1]"Your Inner Fish"[/ame])

The important thing about this fossil, and others, is that it points to a continuous line of evolution from the simplest live forms to today's monstrously complicated biosphere. ALL tetrapods, for example, have the same limb construction, that of a single upper bone, two lower bones, a bunch of wrist/ankle bones and digits. We ALL evolved from the same parent animal way back in time. That's an observed fact.

Also, DNA studies show that the rate of change of DNA is a fairly constant process, and they can date the divergence of species by looking at the genome markers.

Someone wants to claim that "fine, it works for vertebrates, but we don't have fossils from enough soft-bodied animals to make those claims", okay.

Explain the value of the logic in that? Sexual reproduction is so bizarre it probably didn't evolve more than once. The difference between eukaryotic life and prokaryotic life didn't happen more than once. Is a nuclear wall going to evolve simultaneously among different species of bacteria? That statement would have to be justified with some evidence.

And what are the chances of the basic form of a bacterium going to evolve more than once?

There comes a point when it's far far simpler to accept the obvious, that of a single life-bush and wait for falsifying evidence to be uncovered than it is to postulate the convergence of competing incompatible life structures into the unified whole observed today.

All life uses DNA.
All life uses RNA.
All life uses an outer cell membrane.
All multicellular life is eukaryotic.
All life can be shown to evolve from simpler common ancestors, and where possible, those ancestors can also be shown to evolve from even earlier common parent species.