The Evolution Faith

Yo I heard you got 17% of the same genes as bananas.

oh boo, i thought this thread was about evo branching out into a religion. you could have wiz wearing a SF4 snuggie and giving sermons from the book of sirlin. then a choir would sing indestructible while baskets were passed around to collect premium membership fees and to finish it off wiz would cut a McRib into pieces and we would go up for communion. I’d convert for sure.

I’ll never understand why the evolutionist side always seems to have the burden of proof. We have the established scientific theory, not creationists. If someone wanted to prove the earth was flat, it would be incumbent on them to prove it, and not the other way around.

At any rate here is a list of observed instances of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And here is a large list of fossil Hominids that prove the evolution of Homo Sapiens.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Are we done?

Post of the year.

It’s fine to speak out against human evolution. The evolution of humans is only about 50% known in a factual sense. The rest is pieced together to form a fairly complete and robust theory based on ancestral fossil links, which most notably include the starting and current points of human evolution.

It isnt that outrageous to dispute the entirety of human evolution. However, what you are doing is disputing evolution as a whole; the entire backbone of modern biology. Disputing biology is liken to denying the natural process of gravity or any other force of nature.

For the past 10 years, even the catholic church has relented, accepting evolution as a tool used by God to create life. There is nothing wrong with a theory like this, as it conforms to all known scientific facts.
Not even the looniest religion, creationism, denies evolution as a whole. They specifically have issues with human evolution and the time line of the earth, along with several other bible related contradictions, but not even creationists deny evolution as a biological process.

If you are going to try and topple science, you should probably put some effort into understanding your own religious beliefs before doing it. :rofl:

Wrong.

trolls do too depending on the situation

As a catholic I can believe in evolution since Pope John Paul said its okay.

You’re referring to Ralism I take it? The people who believe life on earth was engineered by extraterrestrials?

Technically you’re right, they’re not theists. They don’t believe in a personal god and yet they deny evolution. However, they’re still a crack pot cult that’s based off a horrible fan fic of the Abrahamic faiths. I guess he should rephrase that into “only religions that are severely detached from reality are against evolution.”

Um, did you read the first post?

I think he’s referring to individuals like hubcapsignstop.

What pisses me off about threads like this is that the OP is essentially asking for someone to teach them biology.

Just go to the fucking library. Seriously.

In the meantime, here’s a link to the famous dialog between evolutionary biologist Professor Lenski and the creationist morons at conservapedia:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog

^ That’s how these conversations always turn out when creationists are forced to talk with an actual scientist. Here’s a preview for anyone who is interested:

‘Transitional forms’ aren’t transitional forms. Evolution is a constant and slow moving process. You can’t find a fossil of a smaller species of horse, for example, and say it’s the bridge between an even smaller species and a larger one. It’s more credible to say a fossil which provides minimal change over another is a transitional form, as the changes brought on according to evolutionary theory are just that- minor.

These kinds of extremely minor shifts should have millions of examples in the form of fossils, as there have been billions of years for life to produce these, but to date I haven’t seen examples.

Catholics believe in evolution? I guess they arent so bad afterall. haha last thing i thought was going to happen when clicking this thread was that i would learn something

Major changes are all over the place. Birds, fish and manatees are the most common examples.
http://www.wildscreen.tv/videos/4320052/Evolution-Best-Example-of-Macroevolution-Manatees

uh there is an amazing fossil record, in fact it’s quite extraordinary we have as many fossils as we do considering how very rarely it occurs. to expect a complete fossil record documenting every nuanced change over a long period of time is preposterous. we probably have something like 0.01% of all life documented in the fossil record.

DNA and RNA sequencing have also done an extremely large part in helping to confirm and strengthen the theory of evolution, showing how various branches of the tree are related and how they have changed over time in their basic genetic structure.

look at how much dogs have changed from wolves in only a few thousand years of selective breeding. from wolves to chihuahas in such an incredibly brief period of time. imagine how much a species could change, then over MILLIONS of years.

Major ‘changes’ aren’t evidence of evolution. What you need are a consistent set of minor changes ( each fossil like another frame in an animation of gradual evolution) to prove natural selection. If you have only 0.01% of all life documented in the fossil record, then it is equally as preposterous to claim it as definitive evidence of transitional phases between species.

This is so fantastically wrong I’m not sure how to even address it.

There is in fact overwhelming evidence of minor changes in species; some of those changes are observable in the present day. Examples like birds that have slightly larger beaks in different parts of an island to cope with varying amounts of available food, even changing by seasons. Evolution does not require the fossil record as proof; DNA and RNA sequencing have assured evolution’s place as the basic theory behind which all biology is rooted. It is literally like a blueprint of gradual changes that have taken place in species.

The funny thing is, there’s no possible way to satisfy someone with a fossil record or intermediates. Apes and men have a common ancestor; in fact we have several common ancestors, all the way back to primitive archae or possibly even virus-like organisms. Which one are we supposed to call the missing link? If we find a ‘missing link’, people will simply say (as you’re implying) that there are now TWO gaps we have to fill - the gap between the link and the mutual ancestor, and the gap between the link and us. You’re literally calling for a cinematic frame by frame advancement of gradual changes in the fossil record to document the slow process of evolution via natural selection, which is absurd and unrealistic. It’s similar to asking for a movie reel showing the effects. Fossils don’t work that way; geology doesn’t work that way; science doesn’t work that way.

Would it be great? Absolutely, it would, but it’s almost statistically impossible for something like that to happen. Fossilization is so rare, especially for large species that are not extremely ubuquitous. How many dog fossils do we have outlining the steps from wild wolf to bull terrier? Yet it happened. Life could evolve for millions of years with no member of the species ever having the opportunity to be permanently preserved.

No offense, but have you looked at anything posted in this thread, like the manatee link posted earlier or the link of the E.Coli baterium? Next to getting a time machine and witnessing the processes of millions of years in time lapse this is the closest you’re going to get. Thse aren’t some A-Z comparisons we’re making, there are DNA catalogs of hundreds of animal species’s ancestors who share the same genetics and, unsurprisingly, look alike as well. I don’t know how a logical person could cite these many events as coincidental.

Because the conditions required for fossils to end up protected are so ridiculously slim it’s amazing we have what we do. Rapid burials of anaerobic environments are about the only possible way hard parts are going to survive, as well as protection from diagensis and metamorphic/igneous/high pressure and temperatures conditions. Let us recall that the fossil record, for how small it is, is still is more extensive then anything we could have predicted. The debate will usually bring up our ignorance in being able to picture what even a 100,000 years is like in respect to time, let a lone millions of years. Specifically when we are witnessing radiations occur in just a few generations in species. Be it the geological and atmospheric conditions of the recent and past series, stages, and systems playing an enormous role in the development/extinctions of life, that it’s hard to encompass evolutions past in a debate. It requires years of study and knowledge in a number of principles of study to really get the picture. Sure biology and geology books will help us get a close picture of how it worked and just empirical observations of present biota. But, the more I see these debates it’s not worth the time if one is willing to stay ignorant to the present information when they can easily find it in a couple of tabs on there browser.

Or if you really just can’t see what is going on take an intro to evolution course at your local community college or university.

Don’t bring up DNA and RNA sequencing in a debate about evolution, it won’t help you. It’s been consistently proven that DNA sequencing does not allow for addition of nucleotides within the code as those that differ from the original code are eliminated during replication.

I say again: Major differenced between two sets of fossils are NOT evidence of evolution, and I am talking BETWEEN SPECIES. The only kind of ‘evolution’ we see today is within a species, that is ‘adaptation’, which is fully possible WITHIN A SPECIES. The very nature of DNA sequencing does not allow for one species to ‘become’ another.