Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

Intresting point. So i belive that you are saying that they formed the wing stubs while in that tree. I would like to make the point that the creatures in the tree would be very small and they would reach a terminal velocity before they hit the ground. this is where the force from the air resistance will equal the force from the weight of the object. This would make the wing stubs complelty irrevlevant unless the creture was able to put enough force into using these wing stubs to lessen the reached terminal velocity.

I know what terminal velocity is, thanks.

Wings evolved several different times and the structures that became wings had different purposes in the various ancestral species.

For example, birds evolved from dinosaurs, which evolved feathers long before flight as insulation. They evolved from animals that chased their prey, and would have found advantage from the extra push feather-covered arms gave them as they ran and leaped. You can see how this could have evolved into longer and longer leaps and eventually flight itself.

Bats evolved from rodent-like creatures which lived in trees. Like flying squirrels, wings would have been useful for jumping and gliding from branch to branch before full flight capabilities developed. In fact the animals grouped together as bats probably arose from at least two different ancesotors--the ones that use echo-location are one line, and the sighted bats another.

Insects evolved wings in several different lines. Sometimes a body part that was originally used for one purpose becomes used for something else, such as how mammal's inner-ear bones correlate to the jawbones of reptiles. Some insects use their wings to gather heat, and it may be that in some species this was their original purpose, but as they became larger they adapted to another use. There are many examples of this type of adaptation in evolution.

What you are talking about is called irreducible complexity, and is often used by creationists to try and disprove evolution. Nothing yet has been shown to be irreducibly complex when the details are analyzed. If there were something found that was, it would disprove evolution, of course--but it hasn't been found yet.

Recommended reading, if you actually are interested: Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. There is a chapter about the evolution of wings in there, and enough proof against irreducibile complexity for any logical person.

P.S. We already did the "adding of information" thing in another thread.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Our ancestors grew leg like fins in order to leave the ponds they lived in once they dried up, to move to another pond.

I don't want to nitpick, and I'm sure it was just a slip, but this statement demonstrates a major misconception of evolution that only feeds some of the more misbegot arguments against it. Our ancestors didn't grow anything in order to do anything. No one and nothing chooses what mutations or variations occur or how they'll aid survival. To suggest otherwise is anthropomorphisis, and a small step removed from invoking God as explanation.

Originally Posted by L

What a primitive response.... how about you fix your piano and re read it again?

I'm sorry, I tried again and also read O'nus's response, and he only touched upon 1/10 of the irregularities in any given "argument." It still strikes me as a stack of disjointed ideas founded upon ill informed misunderstandings of science and history, in a logicky, not logical, arrangement. Where could "debating" it possibly lead?

But you're right, my response was unproductive--it didn't arise from malice, just incredulity.

All you have to do is google or go to the Library. And plenty of information, modern science, quantum physics, etc. It will show you that evolution is an older model that doesn't hold up to the present known results of the latest work anyway. There will always be dinosaurs, but progress cannot be ignored. The double slit experiment is just one revelation that does not conform to an evolution theory at all. If those who bark at me for not responding correctly were more interested in the truth and less interested in making me look bad. Maybe they would realize their fragile ego has already being shattered by someone more qualified that they havn't even being bothered to read about yet.

Why should I go out of my way to point out to insecure rude lazy bias argumentative bitter zealots, what is already out there and written for all to read? It's no secret. It's on bookshelves ready. I have nothing to prove. Expecially to someone with a closed mind. If you want to prove evolution write a book. Posting on dreamviews to prove anything is ridiculious.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

All you have to do is google or go to the Library.

Yes, all you have to do is Google Creationist talking points or look up their sciencey books in the library to be exposed to baseless misinformation they've disseminated with the good intentions of saving souls and the unfortunate effects of clouding scientific discourse, retarding progress, and as determined by the U.S. Government when the USSR beat us into space in the '50s, endangering national security.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Posting on dreamviews to prove anything is ridiculious.

Up to this point i've agreed with you Mystic. I don't believe Evolution either, but I have nowhere near the amount of scientific knowledge i'd need to start arguing with the people here, so I haven't posted. But what's wrong with posting stuff on DV to prove something? I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

ok

Taosaur is that the way you research? It's best to concerntrate on what your looking for. Rather than, what your not looking for.

mark, change the channel.

CrimsonWolf, go to the library, then you will. I see something wrong with trying to prove to humanity evolution is the ultimate theory of truth using dreamviews is not the most effective thing you would do in your life. I didn't say it was "wrong" so to speak. I said it was ridiculious. Maybe I should quote a book just to shut him up.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

. Posting on dreamviews to prove anything is ridiculious.

You consistently try to prove reptilian people are coming to keep us in a false reality of the government on a regular basis. On this forum, if you didn't pick up on that.

I still want to know how the leap from eggs to live birth was made....not saying it cant be done, I just havnt seen the facts on it. I mean, live birth in mammals requires an umbilical chord, placenta, other things all to happen at the same time...how did all of these go from an egg to this in steps?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I still want to know how the leap from eggs to live birth was made....not saying it cant be done, I just havnt seen the facts on it. I mean, live birth in mammals requires an umbilical chord, placenta, other things all to happen at the same time...how did all of these go from an egg to this in steps?

It doesn't seem that big a leap to me--those are all modified egg structures. You're really just going from laying the egg to not laying the egg, and improving on the place where you keep it.

even if it is all a modification of an egg. you still have to get to the point of how it all changed to being connected to the mother...by step by step mutations and how it changed from generally mass birth to generally single. I want to see a study on that...it would probably take forever

Originally Posted by Mystic7

All you have to do is google or go to the Library. And plenty of information, modern science, quantum physics, etc. It will show you that evolution is an older model that doesn't hold up to the present known results of the latest work anyway. There will always be dinosaurs, but progress cannot be ignored. The double slit experiment is just one revelation that does not conform to an evolution theory at all. If those who bark at me for not responding correctly were more interested in the truth and less interested in making me look bad. Maybe they would realize their fragile ego has already being shattered by someone more qualified that they havn't even being bothered to read about yet.

What are you talking about? Quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Take it from someone who's actually studied the double-slit experiment; the results from it are interesting on a quantum scale but have no real effect on the macroscopic world, including evolution.

Why should I go out of my way to point out to insecure rude lazy bias argumentative bitter zealots,

The only zealot here is you, ranting about how evolution is proven false without posting anything substantive.

what is already out there and written for all to read? It's no secret. It's on bookshelves ready. I have nothing to prove. Expecially to someone with a closed mind. If you want to prove evolution write a book. Posting on dreamviews to prove anything is ridiculious.

Care to provide titles and author? I wonder how many of those books aren't religious or filled with quantum nonsense.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Posting on dreamviews to prove anything is ridiculious.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=45074

Not another butchered understanding of science. First the laws of thermodynamics, now this. Dear me!

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

The main scientific objection to Evolution is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change. The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity’) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.

None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for Evolution

Let's discuss some ways in which the amount of genetic code can be increased:

The transcription of DNA goes wrong somewhere along the line and a base pair is duplicated. This is obviously a small scale example

Cellular division goes wrong and more chromosomes (or plasmids if this is a bacteria) end up in the new cell/gamete. This is known as polyploidy.

Cellular division goes wrong, and some chromosomes splice to give Gene duplication

There are many ways in which DNA/RNA transcription and cell division can go wrong.


These changes may be good, they may be bad, or they may have no effect.

If it's good - the wheat plant is an example of a plant that has become tougher and a better crop plant by polyploidy and cross fertilization with a similar wheat species - then the organism will propagate

If it has no effect, the organism will propagate based on other factors. The extra DNA can also mutate with less risk of harmful effects.

If it's bad - and mutations usually are - then the mutation will be weeded out.


Let me give you an example of functional information being added:

There is a gene, Z, which is duplicated to give Z1 and Z2. This particular gene has no effect, good or bad, when duplicated. It is redundant genetically.

Z1 or Z2 then undergoes a mutation, giving rise to a completely new gene, and therefore protein. This has increased the information content.

Yes, this is an unlikely process. However, if you understood the sheer scale of the numbers we are dealing with here, it becomes apparent.

As an analogy, say the chance of winning the lottery is 1 in a billion. If you're exceptionally lucky, you might win with one ticket. Most however won't win even if they play every week, for their entire lives with multiple tickets.

However, let's say someone buys a thousand tickets a week and plays for millions of years. They would almost certainly win several times! What seems extremely improbable becomes almost certain given enough time.

Or as another example, imagine 1 person playing the lottery as above. It's very unlikely they would win. But if trillions of people play, it becomes almost certain that at least someone will win.

In genetics, the odds of mutations like this, and ones that are beneficial are low, but the number of players is exceptionally high, and they buy a lot of tickets!

And the natraul selction, Why would an animal grow wing stubs if it was really survival of the fittest. The wing stubs would slow them down and make them less mobile and easier for a predator to attack.

No, you assume that a wing stub would slow it down. That may or may not be the case, but they key point is that you make a blind assumption. Furthermore, even if this stub were to slow a creature down, it could well have some use in survival, in which case it will propagate. This is what evolution is about!

Let's give some examples where a wing stub might be useful:

A creature that lives in the trees and moves around a lot. A stub can allow them to survive longer falls than no stub, and glide for longer distances/make larger jumps. It can also allow them to expend less energy in doing so.

It can allow creatures to harness the wind. A sailing boat with no sail isn't going far. A small sail is better than none. A bigger sail is better than a small sail.

Those are just a handful of examples of the top of my head. But if such a stub is useless, it will eventually be weeded out by evolution.

How come it took us million years to evolve from apes to Homo sapiens who used basic natural instruments for survival, when in only 50 years we could produce a machine unique of its kind such as computer that can perform incredible functions? One hundred years ago, people used candles instead of lights, used carriages instead of cars and suddenly cars were introduced as the new vehicle in 1900.
I understand we evolve intellectually and move forward but who can explain the sudden huge advancement in only few years?

Because we have the advantage of our predecessors' knowledge.

We don't have to spent time inventing the wheel; it's been done. We can spend more time putting it to good use. If every time we advanced a generation all our technology was lost, we would still be in the stone ages.

A possible explanation for the massive increase in technology in the past few hundred years:

There have been some major new technologies that have dramatically changed the way we live and each one makes us more productive. For instance, the internal combustion engine, the internet, electric power

The population of the world has increased in size by an insanely large amount; there is a lot more manpower to do research, invent, etc.

Increases in communication have meant people can work together much more easily from all around the world, bounce ideas off each other, and find out what other people are doing. This is important because almost all of the key inventions are the works of many people. One person might come up with a new idea, but many people refine the idea. It also means less time is wasted reinventing stuff and technolgy is shared more quickly and more widely.

Technological advances have made us more and more productive, fueling the fire for further and quicker advancement. It's a chain reaction. Advances also allow many new things. It's like a tree branching out. New technology in addition to being able to advance in it's own right also allows previously inaccessable technologies to be developed further.

The double slit experiment is just one revelation that does not conform to an evolution theory at all.

It doesn't even have anything to DO with evolution! Yet another person misusing or misunderstanding science. A shame ignorant people are won over by crap like this.

Last time I checked, the interference patterns from photons passing through narrow slits in an object has nothing to do with evolution.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I don't want to nitpick, and I'm sure it was just a slip, but this statement demonstrates a major misconception of evolution that only feeds some of the more misbegot arguments against it. Our ancestors didn't grow anything in order to do anything. No one and nothing chooses what mutations or variations occur or how they'll aid survival. To suggest otherwise is anthropomorphisis, and a small step removed from invoking God as explanation.

You will find Carl Sagan saying the very samething in the videos that I posted. I merely copied what he was saying. Obviously you do not spontaneously grow it, please do not nit-pick my rhetoric to the point of inventing an entirely new point.

Something with debating evolution and people throwing the "you do not know what you are talking about" thing way too often.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm sorry, I tried again and also read O'nus's response, and he only touched upon 1/10 of the irregularities in any given "argument." It still strikes me as a stack of disjointed ideas founded upon ill informed misunderstandings of science and history, in a logicky, not logical, arrangement. Where could "debating" it possibly lead?
But you're right, my response was unproductive--it didn't arise from malice, just incredulity.

Again, if I missed irregularities - then point them out instead of just saying that.

Furthermore, do you really expect me to exhaustively explore every single possible argument for and against evolution here? I was merely focusing on the problem of saying "it's just a theory".

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It will show you that evolution is an older model that doesn't hold up to the present known results of the latest work anyway.

Perhaps you could indulge us with these present known results?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Maybe they would realize their fragile ego has already being shattered by someone more qualified that they havn't even being bothered to read about yet.

You have not given a reason to believe otherwise other than vapid criticism

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Why should I go out of my way to point out to insecure rude lazy bias argumentative bitter zealots, what is already out there and written for all to read?

Then why did you post at all in the first place?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It's no secret. It's on bookshelves ready. I have nothing to prove. Expecially to someone with a closed mind. If you want to prove evolution write a book. Posting on dreamviews to prove anything is ridiculious.

I was saying that the phrase "it's just a theory" is not sufficient enough to refute anything. Nothing more than that was I arguing. Please read posts thoroughly and formulate your oppositions thoughts before jumping to conclusions.

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

Up to this point i've agreed with you Mystic. I don't believe Evolution either, but I have nowhere near the amount of scientific knowledge i'd need to start arguing with the people here

In other words; you have no reason to disbelieve in evolution. Deliberate ignorance.

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

But what's wrong with posting stuff on DV to prove something? I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I was saying that the phrase "it's just a theory" is not a sufficient rebuttal - to anything, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I said it was ridiculious. Maybe I should quote a book just to shut him up

Yes, perhaps you should give justification for what you are saying other than conjecture and bleak scrutiny.

~

@ Photosyphilis.

First let's examine if a macroevoltion could have even begun

This is from a book called Evolution from space.

They estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power.” Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. this has a likely hood of a tornado ripping apart a junk yard and creating a boeing 747


@Moonshine, Wing stubs to me means more body weight. More body weight would be a huge disadvantage Ie, slower,couldn't hide as easy.

The double slit experiment is just one revelation that does not conform to an evolution theory at all.

Hahaha. Epic fail.

Congratulations on proving decisively to all of us that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

They estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power.” Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. this has a likely hood of a tornado ripping apart a junk yard and creating a boeing 747

The analogy is completely flawed because Evolution does not start with nothing and try to go to the top. It uses small changes to 'home in' on something better. This is what many people do not seem to understand about evolution.

Here is a very good analogy for how evolution works:

Someone is trying to guess the code for a keypad. However each time they get a key right they are told. This would allow them to quickly home in on the answer.

And that's what happens. Relatively small chances in step by step process. It's like making changes to a computer, and if they don't work you revert to the last good configuration. You don't simply wipe it all and start from scratch.



Imagine a 6 digit code on a 10 digit panel. There are 1 million combinations, and it would take up to 1 million guesses by blind chance.

With the 'evolution' method however, you could guess the entire thing in at most 60 attempts (10 max per digit).

You need to fully understand this analogy. It is essential to understanding the probabilities of evolution, and why so many religious people get it completely wrong.

It is possible for complex proteins to form in a single mutation but anyone rational would agree that this is so unlikely that we can simply say it doesn't happen. No supporter of evolution has ever claimed this has happened, and in all chances, it never will; it's that improbable.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hahaha. Epic fail.

Congratulations on proving decisively to all of us that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I agree. I do not see the relevance of that experiment. It is as relevant as mentioning how to make popsicles.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You will find Carl Sagan saying the very samething in the videos that I posted. I merely copied what he was saying. Obviously you do not spontaneously grow it, please do not nit-pick my rhetoric to the point of inventing an entirely new point.

Something with debating evolution and people throwing the "you do not know what you are talking about" thing way too often.

I'm pointing out the personification because it crops up in every evolution discussion; as you point out, even Carl Sagan has been known to do it. It generally goes unnoticed and unexamined, and I think it distorts a lot of people's understanding of evolution, painting it as a force behind the development of life, i.e. an alternative to God, rather than a powerful explanatory device uniting the varied discoveries of biology and natural history. I'm not nit-picking your rhetoric or even criticizing you specifically, just taking the opportunity to point out a common error that inhibits the widespread understanding of evolution and fuels the "What about Gawd?" debate.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Again, if I missed irregularities - then point them out instead of just saying that.

Furthermore, do you really expect me to exhaustively explore every single possible argument for and against evolution here? I was merely focusing on the problem of saying "it's just a theory".

Again, not a dig at you, but I'm just going to let this rest. If you all insist that the post in question made sufficient sense to warrant debate, you're welcome to debate it.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

@Moonshine, Wing stubs to me means more body weight. More body weight would be a huge disadvantage Ie, slower,couldn't hide as easy.

This notion of "wing stubs" is where you're tripping up. Are you visualizing some kind of two-limbed animal gradually developing two new limbs? Like most of us, winged creatures developed from four-limbed creatures--wings are specialized arms, which are specialized legs, which are specialized fins, and on and on and on. Barring a serious accident, wing stubs never come into it.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

Wing stubs to me means more body weight. More body weight would be a huge disadvantage Ie, slower,couldn't hide as easy.

Don't feel bad, lots of people don't understand complex things.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm pointing out the personification because it crops up in every evolution discussion; as you point out, even Carl Sagan has been known to do it. It generally goes unnoticed and unexamined, and I think it distorts a lot of people's understanding of evolution, painting it as a force behind the development of life, i.e. an alternative to God, rather than a powerful explanatory device uniting the varied discoveries of biology and natural history. I'm not nit-picking your rhetoric or even criticizing you specifically, just taking the opportunity to point out a common error that inhibits the widespread understanding of evolution and fuels the "What about Gawd?" debate.

Again, not a dig at you, but I'm just going to let this rest. If you all insist that the post in question made sufficient sense to warrant debate, you're welcome to debate it.

Ohh, I see what you are saying. It made sense when I saw the word "anthropromorphsis". I did not realize that you were simply trying to re-iterate what was said in order for clarity. Sorry about that, and thank you. I think I may jump to conclusions and I humbly blame text, lol. (MoonBeam can attest to this as well :p)

~

Originally Posted by grod

You consistently try to prove reptilian people are coming to keep us in a false reality of the government on a regular basis. On this forum, if you didn't pick up on that

Look at this blatant dishonesty. Suggesting things that are fantasy doesn't make what I said go away. I've never even mentioned reptilian theories before on this forum at all. Maybe it's the most silly thing you could think of. That is low and desperate to try and pin that on me.