Evolution

[Carl the Llama]

Al that graph looks fairly consistent tbh, certainly doesn't look like some sort of concrete evidence that we have caused the increase.

Interestingly there's a massive drop around about the time the US would have been unleashing nuclear holocaust on Japan... I think it's obvious what we need to do.

[Captain...]

There is no why that we know of. Doesn't mean there is no why.

The why that I think you are looking for is one that doesn't exist, unless you believe in a creator or guiding influence.

Evolution happens because that is the order of things, it is not a specific or deliberate action, it is just the name we have given to what we have observed happening.

Like gravity, supernovas or quarks, there is not a why just an explanation of how it happens. You can keep on asking why and eventually you will get to an unanswerable why, because not everything has a reason.

[Guest MattP]

Aye, as I said it's evidence global warming is happening, but there's nothing significant either way to suggest we've caused it.

[Carl the Llama]

The why that I think you are looking for is one that doesn't exist, unless you believe in a creator or guiding influence.

Evolution happens because that is the order of things, it is not a specific or deliberate action, it is just the name we have given to what we have observed happening.

Like gravity, supernovas or quarks, there is not a why just an explanation of how it happens. You can keep on asking why and eventually you will get to an unanswerable why, because not everything has a reason.

Why not?

[Captain...]

Your average man on the street would no more be able to explain his belief in gravity than some explaining his belief in creation. Or her for that matter .

Doesn't make it any less true.

But it is not a belief in gravity it is an acceptance of the explanation of something you can observe. You don't need to have a degree in physics to accept that there is a force acting on us pushing things towards the earth, you can see it. It is not a belief or even a fact, it is just the name we have given to something we have observed, like evolution.

[Guest MattP]

One more thing, is global warming is 'so obvious', they really shouldn't be fiddling with the evidence to try and prove it. (Can't remember who it was, think it was East Anglia Uni)

It really doesn't help the cause.

[MooseBreath]

The why that I think you are looking for is one that doesn't exist, unless you believe in a creator or guiding influence.

Evolution happens because that is the order of things, it is not a specific or deliberate action, it is just the name we have given to what we have observed happening.

Like gravity, supernovas or quarks, there is not a why just an explanation of how it happens. You can keep on asking why and eventually you will get to an unanswerable why, because not everything has a reason.

Just because we don't know why, doesn't mean there is no reason. Everything has a reason. There will be an explanation as to why evolution exists, we just don't know it yet. Whether the explanation involves some kind of higher power, who knows.

[Captain...]

Just because we don't know why, doesn't mean there is no reason. Everything has a reason. There will be an explanation as to why evolution exists, we just don't know it yet. Whether the explanation involves some kind of higher power, who knows.

The why you are looking for can only be found with the big bang, everything else is a random progression from that point (or guided by a higher power) the scientific explanation is that it was all random and we are the result of billions of coincidences, chance happenings, that followed this event.

From a scientific point of view we are here, and all we are doing is tracing that line of events back to the Big Bang, now if you also believe that the big bang happened by chance, then it ultimately leaves the fact that there is no reason why we are here, we just are. Somewhere somehow intelligent life, self aware of itself was going to happen in this universe, it just so happens it was us, like an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters, one will hit the exact keystrokes required to write the whole works of Shakespeare.

I am not saying that we are the whole works of Shakespeare, we may be the blurst of times version, but my point is given an infinite number of possibilities over an infinite amount of time and space, and given that intelligent life as we know it is able to exist (we are proof of that), then at some point it will.

[ozleicester]

But why have i got pubes?

[FoxyPV]

But why have i got pubes?

So you can give your genitals funky hair styles whenever the notion takes you.

[Captain...]

But why have i got pubes?

Well it all started with the big bang...

...but the reason why we have not evolved hairless pubic regions is because they trap pheromones which are secreted in sweat and urine, hence hairy pits as well, and make you more attractive to the opposite sex, that is why from an evolutionary point of view they are desirable traits.

[ozleicester]

Well it all started with the big bang...

...but the reason why we have not evolved hairless pubic regions is because they trap pheromones which are secreted in sweat and urine, hence hairy pits as well, and make you more attractive to the opposite sex, that is why from an evolutionary point of view they are desirable traits.

Its not working... yet another evolutionary failure

[BoneDog]

Evolution doesn't explain how life came from dead matter.

Evolution has only ever been concerned with explaining variation in life we see, it has never troubled itself with the origins of life.

It never troubles itself with the origins of life you say?

When I see somebody quote some Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, or another one of the group, it's usually something along the lines of 'no Creator, or Agent exists', and that is where the debate always starts. So to say that 'evolutionists' don't concern themselves with origins is not true. The people who keep starting this arguement off are adamant that everything we observe just randomly bunged itself together, totally by accident, yet with the help of a few trillion miracles. That is concerning origins and is also very unscientific.

I tend to join in the arguements because when you say 'evolution' it seems that you are implying that monkeys turned into human beings. I still say that when you say 'evolution' you are talking about variation and mutation.

1. Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer time period. It's like saying "hours exist, but years don't".

2. ERV's and DNA.....

1. Apes don't turn into, and also never have turned into human beings. And human beings aren't going to turn into anything else either. That's what is really meant by macro-evolution. The fossil record would be overflowing with evidence if it was a brute fact. The amount of time apparently needed, according to evolutionists, for the 'change' to happen would have been enormous, which would logically result in huge amounts of fossil evidence. There is none.

2. DNA is not a product of 'evolution'.

Probably getting a bit wound up over El Empty's WUMing/complete ignorance.

Besides, people are wont to believe what they like blindly, plenty do and rarely will they change even with arguments and facts presented to them.

I'm neither a WUM nor an ignorant.

I'd like to know what it is that I blindly believe, and which facts against that belief have been presented.

[Uncle Phil]

1. Apes don't turn into, and also never have turned into human beings. And human beings aren't going to turn into anything else either. That's what is really meant by macro-evolution. The fossil record would be overflowing with evidence if it was a brute fact. The amount of time apparently needed, according to evolutionists, for the 'change' to happen would have been enormous, which would logically result in huge amounts of fossil evidence. There is none.

The fossil record is largely incomplete, add to this the fact that the common ancestor of Chimps and Humans was most likely a forest dweller where fossils very rarely, if ever, form means we may never have fossil evidence of this creature.

And just because some evolutionary biologists concern themselves origins, doesn't mean the theory of evolution itself does. .

[Zingari]

But why have i got pubes?

Crabs needed somewhere to evolve,

[The Doctor]

It never troubles itself with the origins of life you say?

When I see somebody quote some Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, or another one of the group, it's usually something along the lines of 'no Creator, or Agent exists', and that is where the debate always starts. So to say that 'evolutionists' don't concern themselves with origins is not true. The people who keep starting this arguement off are adamant that everything we observe just randomly bunged itself together, totally by accident, yet with the help of a few trillion miracles. That is concerning origins and is also very unscientific.

It doesn't. "Evolutionists" are concerned about the origins but the theory of evolution says precisely **** all about the origins of life.

I tend to join in the arguements because when you say 'evolution' it seems that you are implying that monkeys turned into human beings. I still say that when you say 'evolution' you are talking about variation and mutation.

Only the ignorant think that way - monkeys did not turn into human beings, we share a common ancestor with them. Yes - variation and mutation are the basis for evolution - and want to know what? That eventually leads to speciation.

1. Apes don't turn into, and also never have turned into human beings. And human beings aren't going to turn into anything else either. That's what is really meant by macro-evolution. The fossil record would be overflowing with evidence if it was a brute fact. The amount of time apparently needed, according to evolutionists, for the 'change' to happen would have been enormous, which would logically result in huge amounts of fossil evidence. There is none.

No, you're right there - because it was a common ancestor that branched off into us and into other great apes (and further back the old/new world monkeys). You're completely ignorant of evolutionary theory to think that's what we accept.

Ooooh, no fossil evidence you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU

Look at all those early hominid skulls. Don't tell me there's nothing in the fossil record. The fossil record is largely incomplete, and given the sensitivities of fossilisation (and that our ancestors were inconsiderate enough to not have an exoskeleton) it's unlikely we'll find everything, but we've got a great deal of fossils showing our descent.

2. DNA is not a product of 'evolution'.

Never said it was - said that DNA contains evidence of common ancestry, which it does, which is evidence of evolution.

[AdamN]

Just because we don't know why, doesn't mean there is no reason. Everything has a reason. There will be an explanation as to why evolution exists, we just don't know it yet. Whether the explanation involves some kind of higher power, who knows.

'Evolution' itself isn't some great entity that 'exists' - it's just a process that happens, as a result of the very nature of biology. If there was a 'reason' of sorts, then it's because nature competes with itself to survive. Plants compete for sunlight, therefore taller trees in a jungle will get more of it and stand a better chance of passing on their desirable genes to future generations. Birds of prey compete for food, so the ones with better eyesight are far more likely to spot a rabbit in the thick grass, therefore finding food, surviving, and being able to breed, passing on the genes that are responsible for their good eyesight. Similarly, those rabbits with better camouflage will stand a greater chance of evading those predators, so a brown rabbit is far more likely to survive in the UK than a white one - hence why we only see brown rabbits in the wild here, barring any unwanted mutations in the rabbit's DNA (albinism, for example).

You can't really dumb it down much more than that, so that's about as basic a 'reason' as you're going to get. The only way a conscious decision was made to 'create' evolution is if there was some almighty creator than one day thought that all his creatures were getting a bit boring so he'd decide to spice them up a little bit for shits and giggles.

[Uncle Phil]

Only the ignorant think that way - monkeys did not turn into human beings, we share a common ancestor with them. Yes - variation and mutation are the basis for evolution - and want to know what? That eventually leads to speciation.

Exactly, there are pretty much 4 speciation methods. Sympatry, allopatry, peripatry and parapatry, and variation and mutation play an important role.

If a species becomes split into two distinct geographic ranges, see Ithmus of Panama sister taxa examples, these now separated populations become subjected to different selective pressures, different variations and/or mutations may be favoured in each population and they may become reproductively isolated and no longer able to exchange genes. Which under the biological species concept would render them different species.

But technically where you draw the line between species is a contentious issue in itself. Many species concepts have been proposed and so far there are exceptions to each. An Chimp never gave birth to a Human, or a Bonobo, and never will. Populations get split, for example one part of our common ancesters population stayed in the forest and another part ventured out into open grasslands (which in itself is not an instant change but a gradual one, perhaps a learned exploitation of a new food source). These two different habitats obviously have different selective pressures, different predators, ability to swing in trees no longer needed for example and over time these populations changed independently until they no longer recognised the other as potential mates and interbreeding between the populations ceased and speciation occured, resulting with modern day Chimps and Humans.

[Raw Dykes]

Funny how people who don't accept evolution to be true never seem to know anything about it.

Whether you like it or not, evolution is a fact. It is observed, and there are mountains of evidence in support of it.

Look up retroviruses, ring species or the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

99% of species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. If there is some higher power designing these critters, what does this stat tell us about the creator? Is he/she/it incompetent, capricious or both?

If you can disprove evolution, you can look forward to a Nobel prize, world fame, wealth and getting your face on the back of a banknote. You'll be up there with Einstein, Darwin, Hawking and Sagan.

[Rincewind]

(quote)

And you are here through UTTER chance.

There are 7 billion people on earth. 3.5 billion men. Each produces 5 to 7 ml of sperm per ejaculate containing 150 Million sperm cells to 200 million sperm cells EACH. You have come from just ONE of those. A RANDOM chance made you. You are 1 in at least 150,000,000. If we took that on a global scale you are a 1 in 525000000000.

So, if man is nothing more than a creature that has won the “evolutionary lottery,†why does he need hope? More precisely, how does one convey hope to a being that has come into existence purely by evolutionary chance?

See this is why Creationists shouldn’t teach Science.

Evolutionary Lottery doesn’t mean anything. Evolution is survival and despite what you think there are more bacteria inside you than there are HUMAN cells in your body. To bacteria you are nothing more than a giant bag of moving food. Evolutionary Lottery My Arse… They won it a long time ago. You merely rent their planet.(/quote)

I meant to quote Raw Dykes last sentence. I copied the above a couple of days ago but still a good quote.

I gree with Raw Dykes. I have always said if evolution is a lie as some claim all they have to do is go along to a science convention and present the evidence for the alternative. For over 150 years more has been found out about the evonlutionary process than in the previous 2000. Millions of £££ $$$ have been spent in research and labatories museums etc. Thousands have studied at universities and as far as I know none have said 'Hey up, all the previous findings are wrong, here is my paper on it and how I came to that conclusion, can I have my Nobel prize now?'

[Rincewind]

Just looking on On Demand, there is a programme on PBS America called Cracking Your Genetic Code. Could be interesting. Won't understand much of it though.

[Jaspa]

Just looking on On Demand, there is a programme on PBS America called Cracking Your Genetic Code. Could be interesting. Won't understand much of it though.

If its on PBS the programme shouldve been designed for American school-children

I'd be worried if you cant understand it

[Jaspa]

The thing thats always boggled me about evolution is how animals/genes have developed something like a claw, or a scorpians tail stinger, these things couldnt have just suddenly appeared out of an egg and has a very specific usage that an early scorpians reproducing would pick mates with a bobble coming off their arse because it might turn into a fully opperational stinger in 1million years.

I think it was mentioned as macro-genetics earlier in the thread and I might have missed the lead up in the previous thead/threads

[Webbo]

The thing thats always boggled me about evolution is how animals/genes have developed something like a claw, or a scorpians tail stinger, these things couldnt have just suddenly appeared out of an egg and has a very specific usage that an early scorpians reproducing would pick mates with a bobble goming off their arse because it might turn into a fully opperational stinger in 1million years.

I think it was mentioned as macro-genetics earlier in the thread and I might have missed the lead up in the previous thead/threads

The mutant scorpion would have an advantage over the scorpions without a stinger so that they would thrive whilst the non developed scorpion would eventually die out.

[Jaspa]

The mutant scorpion would have an advantage over the scorpions without a stinger so that they would thrive whilst the non developed scorpion would eventually die out.

You surely kinda know what I mean though

Some things are just so specific