Evolution - Is It Just A Theory? Is There Any Proof?

[makotos13]

Originally Posted by razz

Your ridiculousnly busy schedule? Please, spare me, you make nearly 7 posts per day...

its actually way more than that counting every other forum i'm on daily.

And perhaps the reason you'd like to end this discussion is because you've found it apparent that your knowledge in evolution is severely lacking. Not knowing about evolution isn't a problem with me or anyone else, it's your stubbornness and complete lack of knowledge that is annoying.

or because you're unwilling to admit that while i completely understand everything you're saying i still disagree with you.

[Skateyasha]

Originally Posted by makotos13

or because you're unwilling to admit that while i completely understand everything you're saying i still disagree with you.

The problem is that you've demonstrated a lack of understanding. It's not that you disagree, it's that you've shown us you don't quite understand a scenario. For example, denying "macroevolution" on the basis that abiogenesis isn't at theory level yet, it's only an educated hypothesis. Evolution isn't explained by abiogenesis, abiogenesis doesn't matter towards proof of "macroevolution."

And other such examples, though it certainly is hard to pick through the trash you post, and you yourself have acknowledged it's too vague for use in a discussion by agreeing with Noj when he remarked about it.

[makotos13]

no, i've demonstrated a lack of effort which you've interpreted as a lack of understanding.

[Skateyasha]

Originally Posted by makotos13

no, i've demonstrated a lack of effort which you've interpreted as a lack of understanding.

No you've admitted and demonstrated a lack of effort resulting in a lack of understanding. You think you have an understanding of the subject at hand, but you don't.

[razz]

Originally Posted by makotos13

no, i've demonstrated a lack of effort which you've interpreted as a lack of understanding.

Correction: You've put in a lot of effort (you come here and post every day)...you've just failed in your educational studies (primarily biology, theology, and English)

If only this thread was about PhysEd, you may have appeared average :s

[Paul J]

Best evidence of evolution is in the DNA of animals in the same species. For example, the gentic code of DNA in different types of pigeons are more similar to each other than the genetic codes of other species of bird. I can't believe 23 people don't believe in it. They are either very ignorant, or have an IQ less than 10.

I learnt something cool today in biology. Some women working in the sex trade in africa are immune to HIV. Which means women who aren't immune to it will eventually die of AIDs. Natural selection comes into play here and eventually more and more people in africa will be immune to HIV because they will survive. It's gonna take a long time though.

[Skateyasha]

Originally Posted by Paul J

Best evidence of evolution is in the DNA of animals in the same species. For example, the gentic code of DNA in different types of pigeons are more similar to each other than the genetic codes of other species of bird. I can't believe 23 people don't believe in it. They are either very ignorant, or have an IQ less than 10.

I learnt something cool today in biology. Some women working in the sex trade in africa are immune to HIV. Which means women who aren't immune to it will eventually die of AIDs. Natural selection comes into play here and eventually more and more people in africa will be immune to HIV because they will survive. It's gonna take a long time though.

About 10% of the central european population is immune to HIV as well. But that's completely unrelated to HIV

The antigen markers for the Bubonic Plague "The Black Death" that ran rampant over Europe centuries ago, are almost identical to those of HIV. The two virus don't have similar effects, but the antigen markers that the cell reads on them are the same. And the reason so many people are immune to HIV in Europe is because they're descendents of the survivors of the Bubonic Plague. Hooray for gene transfer!

Btw, the reason they're immune to HIV isn't because they attack the virus or something (I assume the same is true of the African women) but rather because their cells simply don't have the glycoprotein receptors for the virus. They can still be infected with HIV, they just don't suffer any consequences from it.

There's actually a very interesting study on FIV (Feline Immunodefficiency Virus) which shows practically all wild cats today share the lack of receptor protein for FIV, but domesticated house cats still have it.

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by razz

Rather, think of it like this:

So, where today are any half human anythings? I'm not talking about a cross breed or imbread freek, if million and billions of things evolved into us then where are they? Where are the halves or all this?

Personally if you look at the bible...the timeline for the bible, the world, it makes more since to me anyway. Was their a great flood as the bible described??? I think so, but many don't...the interesting thing is to look at the planet, the canyons, the planes, the geography and then again at the time line....

While the grand canyon is cool look at Africa and the middle east from above...looks like a huge wave washed most of it away....

[Skateyasha]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

So, where today are any half human anythings? I'm not talking about a cross breed or imbread freek, if million and billions of things evolved into us then where are they? Where are the halves or all this?

Personally if you look at the bible...the timeline for the bible, the world, it makes more since to me anyway. Was their a great flood as the bible described??? I think so, but many don't...the interesting thing is to look at the planet, the canyons, the planes, the geography and then again at the time line....

While the grand canyon is cool look at Africa and the middle east from above...looks like a huge wave washed most of it away....

 click to show

Originally Posted by Skateyasha

I have a great page for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)

I'll ask you a question, which ones are homosapien (the clade humans fall under) skulls, and which ones aren't?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

A huge wave washed it all away?

Or... it's really hot and dry there? So of course it's not a lush green environment in which things thrive, they dehydrate too easily.

And I'm sorry, but if you're going to try and say Africa and the middle east are the way they are because a huge wave washed it away, then why didn't this huge wave wash away South America? Why isn't South America like Africa? I mean, this is a massive wave we're talking about, something capable of leveling a continent. You think it just dissipated before it ran through the entire world?

I'm sorry, but your opinion essentially rejects almost everything we know to be true that refers to the dating of our planet.

"look at the planet, the canyons, the planes, the geography and then again at the time line..."

I suggest you do just that. Because when you do, you'll see sedimentary layers, layed down over time in a consistent pattern. Something you wouldn't find if a great flood occurred.

You can also look to simple tree rings, to go back 10,000 years in time. Ice core analysis to go back hundreds of thousands of years. Sedimentary layers to go back millions upon millions upon BILLIONS of years.

You're going to have to do a lot better than "a big wave" to refute everything we've learned over the last couple millenia and flip our understanding of the world upside down.

[Dog Town]

Any guess as to what washed away all the trees and made it so sandy??

You are basing your faith on human science and technology...I don't. Carbon dating has been your best friend but it's proven not to be fact at all. Your going to have to do a lot better than tree rings and the science that "dates" then to prove a damn thing with me. As I have stated before, I have worked in medicine for 22 years, every doctor and scientist several years ago said giving calcium chloride and sodium bicarb would save people...it was a proven fact. Yet today in 2008 (even 2005) we now know it will kill you if given in situations like back then. Science is not exact at all...neither is carbon dating.

[McCrank]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

Any guess as to what washed away all the trees and made it so sandy??

You are basing your faith on human science and technology...I don't. Carbon dating has been your best friend but it's proven not to be fact at all. Your going to have to do a lot better than tree rings and the science that "dates" then to prove a damn thing with me. As I have stated before, I have worked in medicine for 22 years, every doctor and scientist several years ago said giving calcium chloride and sodium bicarb would save people...it was a proven fact. Yet today in 2008 (even 2005) we now know it will kill you if given in situations like back then. Science is not exact at all...neither is carbon dating.

So what exactly do you want? Science keeps improving and is making your life today a dream compared to people's lives 500 years ago. And it isn't stopping any time soon.

[Skateyasha]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

Any guess as to what washed away all the trees and made it so sandy??

You are basing your faith on human science and technology...I don't. Carbon dating has been your best friend but it's proven not to be fact at all. Your going to have to do a lot better than tree rings and the science that "dates" then to prove a damn thing with me. As I have stated before, I have worked in medicine for 22 years, every doctor and scientist several years ago said giving calcium chloride and sodium bicarb would save people...it was a proven fact. Yet today in 2008 (even 2005) we now know it will kill you if given in situations like back then. Science is not exact at all...neither is carbon dating.

Yes, it's called extreme heat and arid conditions.

And again, why not South America. This is one massive wave you're proposing here.

And I used tree rings cause it's very obvious as to the fact that tree rings give the accurate date of a tree. And dendrochronology takes us back 10,000 years. Long before the world is said to have existed via the bible. Unless for some reason, there was on average around 2 summer and 2 winters every year, resulting in abnormal growth of the tree.

You can also look to ice core dating. Every year the planet goes through it's own winter and summer. Analyzing the ice cores in the antarctic, we can see that during the summer months the ice melts, and in the winter it freezes. As a result, we see banding patterns on the ice from repeated melting and freezing. 1 for every year. And that takes us back hundreds of thousands of years.

And then you say nothing in regards to sedimentary deposits. The flood wouldn't be responsible for that at all.

And finally...

Not the whole carbon dating thing again.

Carbon dating does jack all. Carbon 14 has a half life of 5000 years. That's why you don't get dates reading past 60,000 years back, because generally, there's no carbon left in them. The remnants have been completely mineralized. But carbon dating works great to determine general ages within those 60,000 years.

Except in marine animals.

This is due to a phenomenon known as the reservoir effect, which in brief, occurs because marine animals get their carbon from ingestion of carbon that's been filtered down. We don't see this in land mammals because of the food chain, with the base being at plants, which get their carbon almost entirely from the atmosphere. Which is why carbon dating works in particular extremely well on plants, and very poorly on marine life.

I'm going to give you a very good video. It's 9:32 minutes. This isn't complicated.


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

You keep bringing up this medical crap.

K we got it wrong. But why do you think that is? It's not as if everyone just said "Here, take this, you'll get better" and they were giving them a placebo they had no reason to believe was helpful. I obviously don't know much about the administration of CaCl or NaCOO3- but I do know that there's a reason it was being administered. Do you honestly think that science is just a bunch of random guessing? Where do you think almost ANYTHING used today was derived from? Scientific testing and discovery. Either go be amish or stop rejecting basic knowledge.

[Noj]

Hahahaha, Dog Town is a creationist too. That's awesome.

I'd love to read a creationist explanation for plate tectonics detailing the development of the Atlantic Ocean in less than 6000 years, without the massive, continent-shifting earthquakes it would require to make up time.

[dollarpwncenter]

I think it is very possible, it has been proven in many other species. It's hard to really beleive anything these days. Everyone is always trying to tell you other wise

[Skateyasha]

Originally Posted by dollarpwncenter

I think it is very possible, it has been proven in many other species. It's hard to really beleive anything these days. Everyone is always trying to tell you other wise

Is it that hard though?

It's not about just believing what someone says, it's about looking at the basis behind that (be it logic defined by evidence, or simply logic) and determining which you feel is more plausible.

Young earth vs. old earth.

There's young earth, supported by a 17th century calculation according to the chronology of the bible. And the reason it says it's right, is because it says the bible is right. It's circular logic. But that's not the point. The point is it's basis lies in the bible accurately depicting our world, because it says it does.

Then there's old earth, supported by numerous counts of dating methods shown to be consistent in their findings. The reason it says it's right is because it's gone through many different methods and come to the same conclusions. It's a process of logic determined through analysis and comparison. And it's basis is that because it's findings are consistent, they're right.

Now here's the choice you have to make.

Which is better?

The bible says it's right, or consistency shows that scientists have the age of our world right.

I'm not trying to say science is absolutely better, it's a matter of personal opinion. You can certainly be of the personal opinion that scientific experiments are consistent, but their consistency is constantly wrong. But if you're of this opinion (like Dog Town apparently is), then you have to provide a reason as to why it's consistently wrong. You can't just say that the bible is right, you have to show why the opposition is wrong.

[Windan]

Evolution will most likely remain as a theory. There’s still so much to learn about Evolution, and there will be ‘facts’ that science will never discover, if ever really. A converted to C, but B is the missing piece that explains why, when, and how A converted into C in the first place. It’s known A and C have a connection, yet the connection can't be explained between the two. More theories will just try to explain the connection. Evolution can’t be a fact if pieces of the puzzles are missing.

Anyways, I believe that Creationism and Evolution could coexist with each other.

[Paul J]

Originally Posted by Windan

Anyways, I believe that Creationism and Evolution could coexist with each other.

Yes, but it would have to be a whole new religion, which we know nothing about. As it contradicts what other religions have said.

We can't fully prove evolution, you have to look at it like a court case. Evidence is given to help prove that a certain somebody did something when there are no witnesses, if you have a good amount of evidence, which we have, you can come to a conclusion about what happened easily.

[Windan]

Originally Posted by Paul J

Yes, but it would have to be a whole new religion, which we know nothing about. As it contradicts what other religions have said.

We can't fully prove evolution, you have to look at it like a court case. Evidence is given to help prove that a certain somebody did something when there are no witnesses, if you have a good amount of evidence, which we have, you can come to a conclusion about what happened easily.

There would be no need to form a new religion at all. I was referring to bring God into picture without the need of religion. I believe in a divine power, but I don’t believe in religious practices, since it’s man’s idea of what they think God would want people to do. Creationism and Evolution coexisting is just a hypothetical notion that doesn’t involve Religion to have any sort of influence. Evolution gives a much better understanding and insights to our knowledge of how life spawned. There’s pieces to puzzle that we aren’t going to find out, but if we already have the basic general idea, then we know we’re on the right path, regardless of the missing evidence.

[Paul J]

fair enough dude, I just assumed you were a practicing a certain religion my bad.

[Skateyasha]

Originally Posted by Windan

Evolution will most likely remain as a theory. There’s still so much to learn about Evolution, and there will be ‘facts’ that science will never discover, if ever really. A converted to C, but B is the missing piece that explains why, when, and how A converted into C in the first place. It’s known A and C have a connection, yet the connection can't be explained between the two. More theories will just try to explain the connection. Evolution can’t be a fact if pieces of the puzzles are missing.

Anyways, I believe that Creationism and Evolution could coexist with each other.

Evolution will most likely remain a theory, and there's still a bunch to learn. I don't like to think that there are this great amount of facts we'll "never" discover, but time is infinite, so I suppose so.

But reason I'm writing, you've got the wrong impression of what a theory is.

A scientific theory is one of the highest forms of proof in science, backed up by loads of evidence and understanding. A hypothesis can also be back up by loads of evidence and understanding, but there's a difference in how much, it can range from just an educated guess to multitudinous studies yielding the same results, but those darned pesky few that don't quite fit. Once the hypothesis accounts for all factors, (including those pesky few) it would be elevated to theory level.

The theory you're talking about, is an opinion, a guess, what we mean when we say "Theory of Evolution" or "Theory of Radioactivity" or even "Theory of Uniformitarianism." We're talking about things that are understood to be true to the highest degree we can be, below mathematical proof.