Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ohhhh, I get it. Just because some things are kinda tough to explain using science right now... that must imply that God exists! I feel sorry for those of you who cannot reason so logically.

I think M7 is going more for alien interference.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I think M7 is going more for alien interference.

They forgot to put the alien skull in Skysaw's picture.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They forgot to put the alien skull in Skysaw's picture.

That one's largely regarded as a fake. A real Meddler skull would have eleven occiputs. Of course, it would only raise the question of how they acquired so many "perfect" quadri-dimensional eyes.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That one's largely regarded as a fake. A real Meddler skull would have eleven occiputs. Of course, it would only raise the question of how they acquired so many "perfect" quadri-dimensional eyes.

Gawd.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ohhhh, I get it. Just because some things are kinda tough to explain using science right now... that must imply that God exists! I feel sorry for those of you who cannot reason so logically.

Talk about an axe to grind. I never mentioned god in this discussion, I feel sorry for your logic.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Talk about an axe to grind. I never mentioned god in this discussion, I feel sorry for your logic.

You + dis.. cu.. ssion?

Does.Not.Compile.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

mm, yeah, Im not always great at getting my point across. I think this is best fit in a question. Where do we start saying, in skeletons seeing as they are our main proof of evolution "ah that is evolution at work" or "ah that is just natural variation within the species"?

Oh, I see what you are saying. As we go thru time, there is gradual variation in the skeletal morphology, but how do we know if and when that variation is enough to call it a new species?

I think usually there is the opposite problem--because good and complete fossils are usually rare, large jumps in morphology are more common than a collection of skeletons that represent a smooth spectrum of change over time. This is the favorite false problem of the creationsists--the supposed lack of the "missing links", which is just due to gaps in the fossil record. You are really talking about the opposite problem.

I guess if we could find enough skeletons thru time to follow the generations, it might be hard to know where to draw the line and say, "OK, right here is where it becomes a new species". But I don't thinke that the skeletal record is that complete in most cases for it to be a problem. It is similar to the problem we have now sometimes with the variation of a species across a range. It's not really a "problem", other than that people like to classify things, and it's hard sometimes. I don't know much about plants, but I know that they are even harder to classify, because of hybridization, etc.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I know that variation is part of evolution, but lets say we have a smaller Labrador that is not shaped very similar to a bigger Labrador. We know these are the same because we can look at them and test DNA and such things, but thousands of years from now, scientists pick up the bones and think these were different dogs produced from a common ancestor? I think that is plausible if the bones are too old to test DNA and things. How do we make sure those kinds of things dont happen so that people who criticize evolution cant point this out as a flaw with the fossil record?

There are other ways to date fossils; if they are all in one area--the layer of rock that they are found in can tell at least their relative age, if not their exact age, for example. Paleontologists have different ways of dating rocks and the fossils found with them.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think there are probably several definitions for species. I definitely learned in GCSE that two different species cannot produce fertile offspring, and according to Wikipedia, 'a species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring'.

Taxonomy is a really vague discipline anyway.

It is more complicated than a single sentence. For that reason, those commonly used simple definitions don't always work.