Jump to content

Theory of evolution


Mr H
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

We don't, this is why it's called the THEORY of evolution. ūü§≠

It's not strictly speaking commonly called the THEORYof evolution. Apart from people who are throwing doubt on it, who also seem to completly miss the scientific definition of a theory.  Ie it's some what more concrete than a wild guess. 

 

It was called the theory of evolution 150 years ago. Now it's just called Evolution( at least by people who understand it ). In the intervening period the body of evidence to support has grown exponentially to the point that there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that evolution happens and the mechanisms that drive it. Some of the fine details are still lacking.

 

But that's just a matter of time. Its finding the dam fossils that slows it down. For some reason they are all covered with earth. Evolution research its self is in constant transition, ie its evolving. 

 

 

Edited by Pinkiebee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pinkiebee said:

In the intervening period the body of evidence to support has grown exponentially to the point that there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that evolution happens and the mechanisms that drive it

Can you let me know what evidence has grown exponentially

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, peter said:

Can you let me know what evidence has grown exponentially

All the evidence has grown exponentially. 

 

150 years ago there was very little evidence in total now there is so much its incontrovertible 

 

Along that journey it stopped being a theory and just became.

 

There are any number of books and videos where experts, (Which I'm not, just a guy with an intrest in understanding things,)   will take you through what we know, what we think we know, what's still a theory , whats a hypothesis and what's wild conjecture. 

 

I'm not in a postion a few 100 character at a time to take you on that journey. I can only guide you. 

 

Its takes a certain intellectual honesty from yourself, if you have doubts and you clearly do. To actually research the topic and if you still disagree, to present an alternatively hypothesis which explains all the evidence.

 

Just arguing from a position of personal incredulity isnt really an honest attempt to debunk evolution 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It might be sensible to arrive at a definition for the concept of "God" and the scope of that definition.

I mention this because it appears to be the contentious polemic opposing "evolution" and seems sensible to address the balance.

 

The egyptian word for god was neter, and is purported as the etymological origin of the the word nature by some.

 

as per @ink post on the 1st page.  If Entropy - is the general trend of the universe toward disorder then how would life "evolve" when this ideation defies a purported physical law?

 

Mutation is degradation of function from what I can tell so why is this included in explanations for "evolution"?

 

 

What proportion [%] of matter ends up as life?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, zarkov said:

 

It might be sensible to arrive at a definition for the concept of "God" and the scope of that definition.

I mention this because it appears to be the contentious polemic opposing "evolution" and seems sensible to address the balance.

 

The egyptian word for god was neter, and is purported as the etymological origin of the the word nature by some.

 

as per @ink post on the 1st page.  If Entropy - is the general trend of the universe toward disorder then how would life "evolve" when this ideation defies a purported physical law?

 

Mutation is degradation of function from what I can tell so why is this included in explanations for "evolution"?

 

 

What proportion [%] of matter ends up as life?

 

 

 

I'm glad you asked that, I knew eventually the book I read on how life fits in with entropy would come in handy. It's been a long time 

 

In short with out reproducing the book

 

Life exists in an energy gradient' were energy is transforming from one form into another.  That's the fairly organised photons from the sun changing to a less organised heat glow from the planet . 5hats entropy in action

 

Life doesnt slow that process in fact it speeds it up by converting it quicker than just the planet could on its own, admittedly by a marginal amount. But the fact we are warming the planet up by our byproducts and action is all helping the cause

 

We are infact entropy machines.  If the defining purpose of the universe is to reach a state of equilibrium.  Then life becomes inevitable.

our organisation is only very temporary.  Before we too convert in to a less organised form of energy 

Edited by Pinkiebee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pinkiebee said:

Just arguing from a position of personal incredulity isnt really an honest attempt to debunk evolution 

First off I'm not trying to debunk anything with regards to this topic, I have read some papers on the subject but that was quite a while ago and the conclusion I came to was in my first post

 

1 hour ago, Pinkiebee said:

 will take you through what we know, what we think we know, what's still a theory , whats a hypothesis and what's wild conjecture. 

I do know the difference

 

1 hour ago, Pinkiebee said:

Along that journey it stopped being a theory and just became.

Well you are obviously more up to date with this topic than me, so what would you say is the most prominent new evidence in your opinion to support the theory of evolution its entirety, because I'm interested 

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Morpheus said:

We don't, this is why it's called the THEORY of evolution. ūü§≠

 

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

 

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

 

https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion#sl-three-columns-ccdcf856-47f7-4c08-97e8-12d377deb791

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, peter said:

First off I'm not trying to debunk anything with regards to this topic, I have read some papers on the subject but that was quite a while ago and the conclusion I came to was in my first post

 

I do know the difference

 

Well you are obviously more up to date with this topic than me, so what would you say is the most prominent new evidence in your opinion to support the theory of evolution its entirety, because I'm interested 

I spent all that ink and you are still calling it the theory of evolution. And if you do indeed know what a theory is you know that is its self pretty concrete 

 

As I said above. It's not on thing that's conclusive . ONE thing could never be conclusive. It's the sheer volume of evidence over a 150 years thats conclusive.

 

And I've nether the ability or the time to cycle through that for you. Just to save you the bother of putting you tube on.

 

why not just tell me what you find unbelievable and il do my best to guide you.

 

The process of continued diversification  through adaptation over 4 billion years is straight forward enough for a child to grasp. So it cant be that.

Edited by Pinkiebee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pinkiebee said:

tell me what you find unbelievable

 

Not actually unbelievable but I would like your 'proof' of ....

 

4 minutes ago, Pinkiebee said:

4 billion years

 

ta :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, peter said:

Maybe the proof is in the DNA , I watched a show on where you come from few years back now ,they had four famous people and tested their genetics to see where they originated from,which was neither here nor there I couldn't care,what I did find interesting was everyone had neanderthal DNA in them which this so called geneticist(they said he was on the show ) said that all humans have it in small amounts ,however Ian Thorpe the swimmer,had unusually high amounts of neanderthal DNA.

So I guess what I'm asking are modern humans the mutated offspring of neanderthals or did modern humans bread neanderthals out of existence,the one thing they didn't show was a person with RH negative blood,that would have been interesting .

PS the show and its findings could have been all bullshit for all I know

No I think that's correct. As neanderthals are a form of human like denisovans etc it stands to reason we could breed successfully with them. I think the standard thinking is that neanderthals were bred out of existence by the ' superior' tool wielding modern humans.  I read some interesting stuff on beaker people too, but might be going off topic. 

 

I know and understand genetic manipulation can cause ' evolution ' changes . I guess the big question for me is whether this can happen by accident or only ( as I currently  believe) by design.

 

Nice to chat to you again Peter xx ( I know it's me that's been AWOL !!)

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

 

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

 

https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion#sl-three-columns-ccdcf856-47f7-4c08-97e8-12d377deb791

A theory, you're welcome. This is not and never will be absolute. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pinkiebee said:

Every fossil we find is a transitional species. They were all transitioning from something else into some thing else

 

It's a really arbitrary man made classification of how much it has to change before you call it a new species.  Ie if an animal in is the process of loosing its legs. An example with shorter legs is a transition .  is it a new species? Depends how short they are I suppose 

No. It just has shorter legs. There is plenty of fossil evidence for changes within a species and absolutely zero fossil evidence of species evolving into new species.  The classic archeoptryx example was roundly lauded as a lizard bird transitional fossil. Until they realised it wasn't. But rarely are theory of evolution documents corrected until you do a bit of digging. Even the natural history museum still has 'Lucy' in it's human evolution change pictorial in the main hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

A theory, you're welcome. This is not and never will be absolute. 

 

It doesn't have to be absolute, unlike religion. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. However, the vast body of evidence supports it, and this fact is beyond credible dispute. Explained well below:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kj35 said:

No. It just has shorter legs. There is plenty of fossil evidence for changes within a species and absolutely zero fossil evidence of species evolving into new species.  The classic archeoptryx example was roundly lauded as a lizard bird transitional fossil. Until they realised it wasn't. But rarely are theory of evolution documents corrected until you do a bit of digging. Even the natural history museum still has 'Lucy' in it's human evolution change pictorial in the main hall.

Well thats an arbitrary decision on what constitutes a different species.  Made entirely by you

 

Snakes it seem used to have legs. The legs got shorter and shorter over time. The remnants are still there.

 

It's difficult to say exactly at what point it became a snake rather than a quadrupled.

 

For a while it had 4 legs it didnt use

 

So it did snake things but with useless legs 

 

That's a different species than either a snake or what ever it used to be. 

 

This specization thing is tricky 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pinkiebee said:

Well thats an arbitrary decision on what constitutes a different species.  Made entirely by you

 

 

Err no. It's scientific classification. Now, I've a very dumpy legged dog to walk. I'll leave you to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I think the evolutionists need to start fronting the proof for intermediary species. Where's the half reptile half birds, half mammalian half fish etc?

 

A common creationist misconception, answered here by Donald Prothero:

 

Quote

"A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another. It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another. They don’t even have to be fossils: many living lineages have transitional features." ( https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451-700-evolution-what-missing-link/ )

 

Also see:

 

Creationism Debunked: "Transitional Fossils Don't Exist!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Not actually unbelievable but I would like your 'proof' of ....

 

 

ta :)

I cant prove 4 billion years. But that just about the time the late heavy bombardment stopped and life got going.

I didnt offer proof by the way. I offered guidance to help you out of the maze you've wander into

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DarianF said:

 

A common creationist misconception, answered here by Donald Prothero:

 

 

Also see:

 

Creationism Debunked: "Transitional Fossils Don't Exist!"

 

 

I'm surprised not to see a Wikipedia or Knob head Dawkins link. By the way, why am I a creationist? Why do so many fuckin people get so presumptive. I like you Darian, but you need to stop presuming what I think bud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kj35 said:

Err no. It's scientific classification. Now, I've a very dumpy legged dog to walk. I'll leave you to it.

Well theirs is an an arbitrary decision as well and your doubting evolutionary science and then quoting it when it suits you 

Edited by Pinkiebee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pinkiebee said:

I'm glad you asked that, I knew eventually the book I read on how life fits in with entropy would come in handy. It's been a long time 

 

In short with out reproducing the book

 

Life exists in an energy gradient' were energy is transforming from one form into another.  That's the fairly organised photons from the sun changing to a less organised heat glow from the planet . 5hats entropy in action

 

Life doesnt slow that process in fact it speeds it up by converting it quicker than just the planet could on its own, admittedly by a marginal amount. But the fact we are warming the planet up by our byproducts and action is all helping the cause

 

We are infact entropy machines.  If the defining purpose of the universe is to reach a state of equilibrium.  Then life becomes inevitable.

our organisation is only very temporary.  Before we too convert in to a less organised form of energy 

 

Wouldnt the formation of planets & stars be classed as going from a state of disorder to a state of order!

Much like the existence of bacteria.

Seems counterintuitive in terms of entropy!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I'm surprised not to see a Wikipedia or Knob head Dawkins link. By the way, why am I a creationist? Why do so many fuckin people get so presumptive. I like you Darian, but you need to stop presuming what I think bud. 

 

Because you're repeating a common creationist misconception, and you've now ignored the explanations that debunk it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I think the evolutionists need to start fronting the proof for intermediary species. Where's the half reptile half birds, half mammalian half fish etc?

The process didnt go from fish directly to mammals so that's an unlikely find

 

And your unlikely to ever find a 50/ 50 split between two species coz that's not generaly how it works and if there was such there would only be one generation of them out of a few hundred million years of generation. So a bit hard to track down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DarianF said:

It doesn't have to be absolute, unlike religion. Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

How convenient. There's also no such thing as scientific proof either, because there are no proofs in science, only in maths and logic are there proofs. They're self contained systems of propositions, whereas science deals with the empirical. 

 

So to be clear, we have two types of science, empirical and pseudo science. We know which one many people here deal with that's for sure. 

Edited by Morpheus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...