Question for people that believe in evolution

[ftv1975]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

 

[Zephyr]

The need to cycle antibiotics, and of course the many, MANY experiments that have been done through which one could directly observe evolution (for instance, there were quite a few studies on fruit flies back at school).

You'd have to be either blind or an idiot to not notice it all around you. Observing bacteria or insects is just easy mode.

 

[ftv1975]

The need to cycle antibiotics, and of course the many, MANY experiments that have been done through which one could directly observe evolution (for instance, there were quite a few studies on fruit flies back at school).

You'd have to be either blind or an idiot to not notice it all around you. Observing bacteria or insects is just easy mode.

Okay i am a blind idiot so show me or atleast explain to me how it works then? how has observing fruit flies shown you that a flie will one day turn into a dog? i don't want to argue creation versus evolution. just looking for facts.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Evidence? I don't believe in evolution because of evidence. I believe in evolution because I hate god and want to live a life of selfish hedonistic pleasure. Who cares about evidence? Bananas come with their own packaging. Now that's evidence!

 

[Tristesse]

Okay i am a blind idiot so show me or atleast explain to me how it works then? how has observing fruit flies shown you that a flie will one day turn into a dog? i don't want to argue creation versus evolution. just looking for facts.

Evolution doesn't say that a fruit fly will one day turn into a dog, or that any modern animal will turn into any other modern animal. Evolution is the theory of genetic material within a population of organisms that change from one generation to the next.

 

[Magic Man]

First, people don't "believe in" evolution. We accept it, and others reject it. There's nothing to believe in. It's as much fact as gravity.

Second, a good place for you to start would be to read the Wiki entry on Evolution.

Third, just a quick summing up. Evolution is basically the change in genes in each generation of living thing. These changes occur through mutations. Changes that help the living organism adapt well to its environment stay around in the species because they help the organism survive longer and reproduce more. That's natural selection. One generation of organisms isn't much different from the last generally. However, over the course of many generations these changes can add up enough to cause there to be two different species where before there was only one. Over many generations you can get things like humans from a more ape-like creature.

 

[Luminous]

i think evolution is a better hypothesis than magic because it requires the least number of asumptions. as far as evidence goes, the fossils and the experiments on mutation and species differentiation kinda help.

 

[Venatoris]

Fruit fly turn into a dog? Where do people get this crap? Explaining evolution to a creationist is like explaining string theory to a 12 year old with ADHD. Just watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk

 

[ftv1975]

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

this statement to me suggests that it is possible but there is not real evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

this statement to me suggests that it is possible but there is not real evidence.

There is real evidence. You just have to be willing to see it. You can check out this Wiki page on "Evidence of Common Descent" for starters.

This isn't something you can just have someone explain to you in a paragraph. You are asking for a lot of detail. For that, you will have to actually do a bit of reading. you can start with that page, if you like, but there are many, many, many other sites and books that you can read to see the evidence. Again, though, you have to be willing to see it and not just reject it because that's what you've been told your whole life.

 

[ftv1975]

There is real evidence. You just have to be willing to see it. You can check out this Wiki page on "Evidence of Common Descent" for starters.

This isn't something you can just have someone explain to you in a paragraph. You are asking for a lot of detail. For that, you will have to actually do a bit of reading. you can start with that page, if you like, but there are many, many, many other sites and books that you can read to see the evidence. Again, though, you have to be willing to see it and not just reject it because that's what you've been told your whole life.

thank you i am currently reading.

 

[MSizer]

OK, I know this is really long, and a long post is easy to skip over, but I have made a sincere effort to answer your question in detail as you have asked.

OK, now admittedly, I'm using hypothetical examples, so please don't go looking at a tree of life and say "but mudskippers aren't supposed to be ancestors to whales". I'm demonstrating the process, and using common animals to illustrate, so while the particular species I use as examples are actually ancestors of one another is not important, I'm only explaining how the process works using hypothetical analogies.

1. Fish are swimming around happily in a pond.
2. The raind doesn't come for a long time and the pond nearly dries up, to the point where the fish are lying in mud for a day.
3. The fish with low oxygen fitness die because they can't breathe.
4. The fish with hi oxygen fitness suffer, but manage to pull through until it rains that evening.
5. There are no more low-oxygen fit fish in that group because they died, only hi-oxygen fit fish, so most fish babies going forward will inherit the hi efficiency oxygen fitness of their parents rather than the low efficient oxygen fitness of their dead uncles and aunts.
6. This happens many many many times over many tens of thousands of years, and the fish get so oxygen fit that they can live without breathing water for up to a couple of days.
7. Some of the fish have slightly longer pec fins than others, which makes them able to flop around more in the mud during drought.
8. Those long finned ones accidentally but luckily flop over to bigger puddles which havent dried up, while short finned fish can't get to new water sources, and die in long multi-day droughts.
9. This continues to happen many many many times over many tens of thousands of years, until thier fins are so long they begin to resemble limbs as much as fins.
10. They start spending so much time out of the water that it's gills slowly become less efficient at extracting oxygen from the water, but more efficient at extracting it from the air. Now the fish can really hang out on land for days at a time. Voila, it's no longer a fish - it's a mudskipper! With half lungs, half gills.
Stay with me.
10. The mudskippers walk around on land, but really still likes the water too, so they spend much time in both places.
11. The ones that spend more time in on land start getting eaten up by the local terrestial wildlife, so there are fewer of them to reproduce. The ones that are safe in the water reproduce, and voila! Aquatic mammals!

See, from an aquatic creature, to a hybrid creature, to a different aquatic creature, with no plan, no design, and no personal intervention on the part of the creature itself, or any other source. Now of course, some of the mud skippers did stay on land and were not eaten, and those ones became salamanders. See, fish to salamander, no design involved. Only random mutations which work. Those that don't work die off. So simple, yet so powerful. The key is that the creature itself has no knowledge of it's own adaptations, and nobody is necessary to plan them out, becuase they just happen automatically.

 

[MSizer]

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

this statement to me suggests that it is possible but there is not real evidence.

You're interpreting the word "can" as "could". They can and do. I can open my eyes. That doesn't mean "it might be possible I could open my eyes" it means I am able to open my eyes.

 

[Draka]

ftv1975, if you are really interested in evolution and the evidence behind it, the I suggest you look at these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Q2Db17v5U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=related

and perhaps the most evidential video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&feature=related


If you really really are interested in learning then sit down and watch these videos entirely through and resist any urge you may have to "debate" with them...just learn.

 

[Tristesse]

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

this statement to me suggests that it is possible but there is not real evidence.

As any scientist will tell you, you have to be intellectually honest. Scientists will often say words like, "can" or "I believe that..." this in no way means that the scientist is unsure or that he doesn't have the evidence to back up his claim. Don't get hung up on the lingo. They use these words to show a little modesty on there behalf. Unlike most creationists who go in with utter certainty.

 

[Luminous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0 there are more vidoes in the related videos tab.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0 this is were your last argument that scientists only believe in evolution cuz wikipedia say it "can" and other such truthfull words. it can and it doesn't have to. that doesnt mean that it is equal to a believe in creationism. just because such words are used doesn't mean that blatant lies about how creation is true are true just because some people say there is no way they can be wrong. science is about the best explanation, not about being unable to be wrong. evolution is the best explanation for the species that exist today. and also evolution has little to do with liberal creationism whos true oppisite is abiogenesis. it does contratict fundamental creatiosim which says that god made all species out of magical nothing and that there is no way humans evolved from other animals. it is as a writer and philosopher once said: "dought is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

 

[Quiddity]

Although I accept evolution as valid, I find the epistemology behind it as problematic. The scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. That the evidence that exists can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist.

These are the same people who write in such a faculty that they argue against approaches that emphasize a priori or insist on a theory of knowledge that is independent of science. Yet they do the very same thing by putting on there philosophical hat and saying “at least we are using science”. As if them attaching meaning to evidence was any different then attaching meaning outside of evidence.

What a joke...

Here is one example:

"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us."

<snip>

"The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue."

The Godless Universe

Watch the anti-theist throw tomatoes at me....:run:

 

[Magic Man]

Although I accept evolution as valid, I find the epistemology behind it as problematic. The scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. That the evidence that exists can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist.

These are the same people who write in such a faculty that they argue against approaches that emphasize a priori or insist on a theory of knowledge that is independent of science. Yet they do the very same thing by putting on there philosophical hat and saying “at least we are using science”. As if them attaching meaning to evidence was any different then attaching meaning outside of evidence.

What a joke...

Here is one example:

"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us."

<snip>

"The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue."

The Godless Universe

Watch the anti-theist throw tomatoes at me....:run:

Um...what? Were you trying to be relevant and make sense here?

 

[Jose Fly]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

That I saw it take place with my own eyes.

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

As an undergrad, I conducted an experiment that produced something like this:

Nucleotide sequence of the ampicillin resistance gene of Escherichia coli plasmid pBR322

 

[Jose Fly]

Although I accept evolution as valid, I find the epistemology behind it as problematic. The scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. That the evidence that exists can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist.

These are the same people who write in such a faculty that they argue against approaches that emphasize a priori or insist on a theory of knowledge that is independent of science. Yet they do the very same thing by putting on there philosophical hat and saying “at least we are using science”. As if them attaching meaning to evidence was any different then attaching meaning outside of evidence.

What a joke...

Here is one example:

"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us."

<snip>

"The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue."

The Godless Universe

Watch the anti-theist throw tomatoes at me....:run:

You're confusing "science" with "arguments made by scientists".