"There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live." - Though ever since Chuck came out as a creationist, it's been hard to keep the faith in his mighty powers. ...How can he acknowledge the existence of a force greater than Chuck Norris?
Yeah, "evolution" meaning "universal common descent" is a fact and "evolution" meaning "evolution by natural selection" is the theory which explains the facts. But the phrase "just a theory" is silly. Theories don't get promoted and they can't actually be "proven". They can only be demonstrated to be false. The reason evolution deniers use the phrase "just a theory" is because in common usage the word theory basically amounts to guess. And they like to phrase it as though evolution and creationism are two competing theories. In fact, creationism doesn't qualify as theory at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Defining_science Creationism doesn't really meet any of those requirements. It's not science. It's just an argument from ignorance. Its proponents' strategy is basically to say "evolution can't explain X, therefore, we win".
Thanks. Sorry I misused the "Just a theory" phrase. IMO evolution and everything it encompasses I fully agree with. Just be careful about discussing religion here. This discussion is very interesting and I'd hate for it to get locked
No reason to be sorry. It's just terminology I see a lot and I know the source and the original intent, so I like to correct it. Hope I didn't sound hostile.
Nah not at all, I just realized I used that term improperly and thankyou for pointing it out. No harm done
Thank you, fezool, for clarifying so the rest of us didn't have to. I been busy this week. Evolution is, indeed, an observable fact. Indeed, the development of totally new traits or "new information" as creationists like to say, has also definitively been observed. Viola! E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What Lenski did there is really quite incredible in terms of offering evidence. Basically, E. coli can't transport citrate across their cell membrane to the interior in the presence of oxygen. "The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella." Around generation generation 33,127 in one population, they found that was no longer the case. In short, they had developed a “citrate permease” which can transfer citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior to then be digested. That had never existed in these populations before. So something totally new, that was counter to a defining characteristic of the species had evolved and been observed doing so. Oh yeah, Lenski froze samples every 500 generations so he could go back and see when changes occurred. Only the original population re-evolved Cit+ and only when he started from generation 20,000 or greater. So something happened around generation 20,000 that "set the stage" for the later Cit+ mutation. That's about as incontrovertible as it gets. DNA transcription errors can lead to the generation of new species. Observed. Verified. Results reproduced. That's science. Speciation occurs in response to environmental factors and traits not present in any instance of the former species can manifest in the new one. Also, the discussion of abiogenesis should be off limits for this particular topic. That's still up in the air, evolution and speciation are not. Those are as verified as gravity. And just because I like to needle, even if it were possible to disprove evolution via natural selection, that would in no way prove ID. It's like saying 2+2=5. Just because 1+2 doesn't equal 5, doesn't make you right, either. - Coeloptera
It must be exhausting bringing the light of knowledge to the darkness of GD. But you bear the burden of your responsibility with grace and dignity.
You mean spontaneous generation? I remember learning that last year. I find it kinda funny how primitive our thinking was did people forget about reproduction?Obviously SG was disproven due to Redi's experiment with flies. EDIT: My bad I just read what it was now, how life actually first began on Earth. That is also an interesting discussion no doubt
Thanks for the article on e coli. I had read about another experiment with H pylori. The results were the same. But I do not consider this proof for evolution. Since this did not create a new creature, it just adjusted one for its surroundings. Which means it fits in with natural selection although the selection was not natural. I know natural selection is part of evolution. But natural selection has been proven to only make changes with in a kind (not quite species). When you have proof that this that changed one e coli into something different. Then I will believe in ape to man evolution. If you want to throw out abiogenesis you also will want to throw out the laws of thermodynamics. They also cause problems for evolution.
From TalkOrigins: Just pointing out the innacuracy in your argument. That's all Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, it discusses how the first life came to be. There are two types of scientists when it comes to evolution. Scientists who "Lump" multiple species together (Based on similar features), and scientists who take a group of multiple species and "split" them. (Based on similar features and anatomical differences, focusing on very specific details etc. ) For example, there are few species of dinosaurs who live in different locations but both have very similar features. Tarbosaurus bataar was originally "Tyrannosaurus bataar" because both animals were nearly one and the same, only thing seperating them was their location. Of course now it's Tarbosaurus because of several different skull-related features that placed Tarbosaurus more closely with Alioraimus, another Tyrannosaurid that lived long before in Asia. Why baatar and rex are still very similar? is simply the result of both animals evolving due to similar environmental conditions. Not too sure if this counts as "parallel Evolution" though seeing as it applies to species of different clades. What about the evolution of other dinosaurs? The evolution of birds? Reptiles? Amphibians? Mammals? Fish? Insects? Arachnids? It's all written in rock, my friend.
I do not understand this statement. Abiogenesis is removed from the discussion as evolution via natural selection makes no assertion as to the origins of life. That's a separate problem. By "laws of thermodynamics", I'm assuming that you're referring to the common, unfounded claim that entropy is a problem for evolution. Of course, that conflates a general statement on disorder with entropy and ignores the fact that, simply, the Earth is not a closed system. In other words, the amount that this planet's local entropy is decreased by the processes of evolution is miniscule compared to the overall entropy increase in space as a consequence of the energy that is absorbed from the Sun by this planet and then re-radiated back as heat. Evolution has no issue with the second law of thermodynamics. That said, you're not alone. It's a classification system used for animals when you find yourself in need of moving them onto a boat as quickly and efficiently as possible.
