How can you not believe in evolution?

[johncmcleod]

You cannot deny that mutations happen. We see them all the time. When a creature has a mutation that helps them, they survive and pass it on. When it's a b mutation, they die and don't get a chance to pass it on. Given the amount of time between the first organisms and now, it is definitely possible to have a product as complex as humans. You can't deny that evolution is possible. And then by looking at the fossil record it is proven. I'll tell you a true story.

A certain type of crab in Japan gets a mutation that makes the shell on its back look like the face of a samurai. The fisherman there think that the crab are ghosts, and they throw those ones back in the water. So the crabs with the samurai backs survive and pass on their offspring. The ones without that trait are more heavily fished.

Also, tell me again about all the hominids and the dinosaurs? I forgot your explanation of those.

[Urban Ranger]

It's pointless debating CyberShy on evolution. My impression is he has never gone through the trouble of finding out what evolution is, instead he relies on the caricature found in Creationist books and on Creationist websites. So he really is just attacking a strawman - one that he doesn't understand.

If you want evidence, examine some of the older evolution threads. CyberShy keeps saying the same thing over and over again, regardless how many times his "arguments" have been refuted.

[Jack the Bodiless]

FNBrown:

For all you random probablility fanatics out there, do some research on Biblical prophecy and tell me what you think. Biblical record of God's creation is evidence enough.

I have. The Bible has a very poor record on prophecies. All the failed prophecies indicate that the Bible is useless for this purpose. The "successful prophecies" are mostly either written AFTER the events they "predict" (e.g. Daniel), or are non-prophecies ripped out of context by later authors (e.g. Matthew).

The phenomenon of gravitational attraction can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Name one scientific experiment that reproduces an evolutionary event.

The Ames Test. Look it up.

The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. There has been no scientific recording of one species evolving into another. Until then, it remains a theory - consult the scientific method if you disagree.

False. Speciation has been observed. TalkOrigins has details.

Name one contradiction.

Here are 962 contradictions. Have fun.

Antibiotic resistance isn't evolution.

Yes it is.

So, you're saying that over a process of millions (billions?) of years, said bacterium, given the proper environmental stimulus, will eventually evolve into an intelligent bipedal life form?

Yes.

Can you show that this will NOT happen?

No.

So why haven't years of scientific laboratory experiments produced anything but stronger bacteria? I'm not over-simplifying anything - I'm just asking a straightforward question.

They've produced new species of fruit flies also.

[MikeH]

Won't you feel a bit silly if there is no god when you die and you've spent your life trying to work him out?

Might as well spend your life having as much fun as possible and repent on your death bed if you really feel it necessary.

[Drogue]

I think there is another idea that both sides have missed. It has been shown (although not 'proved' yet IIRC) that mutations are not random. While they are chaotic, and unpredictable, there seem to be 'attractors', certain patterns of molecules that create something, that are far more prevalent than randomness would provide. Eyes for instance, have evolved separately and independently many times. If this is true, it takes apart the Creationist:

It makes no sence. All this beauty on this earth appeared by random change?... Nah.

I believe we evolved by Complexity Theory, in that we have attracts, and mutations are not completely random, and that natural selection chooses what we keep, by what is useful. It is almost like Smith's 'Invisible Hand' in economics. If you want to believe in a God, then you could argue that he created the attractors, and put them in specific places, however I believe there is enough beauty in Chaos, and in randomness, that to me, the idea of a God in evolution seems superfluous.

[Robert]

Won't you feel a bit silly if there is no god when you die and you've spent your life trying to work him out?

Might as well spend your life having as much fun as possible

I'm a happy person who has much fun, and much serious things in it's life. I don't want another life. thanks for caring though.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider
Fez, you have a long way to come. You must learn to give yourself in willing service to others. That is your greatest fault.

Oh it is a fault that I am a right-wing and that means I don't give me self in service to others? You are almost a southern baptist... geez... give it a break. I do not believe god exists because it doesn't make any sense for him to be there. But this thread is about evolution, nothing else.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
You cannot deny that mutations happen. We see them all the time. When a creature has a mutation that helps them, they survive and pass it on. When it's a b mutation, they die and don't get a chance to pass it on.

That only happens if there is selective pressure

And then by looking at the fossil record it is proven.

Unfortunately, the fossil record is so full of holes and dispersed by time that it 'proves' nothing.

A certain type of crab in Japan gets a mutation that makes the shell on its back look like the face of a samurai. The fisherman there think that the crab are ghosts, and they throw those ones back in the water. So the crabs with the samurai backs survive and pass on their offspring. The ones without that trait are more heavily fished.

An example of adaptation and selection, not evolution. The crab is still the same organism, it just looks different. If the crab had grown a new appendage (for example) that gave it a selective advantage, that would be evolution.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Unfortunately, the fossil record is so full of holes and dispersed by time that it 'proves' nothing.

Nope, the sequence of the fossils we DO have proves common descent. Fossils are never found in the "wrong order". There aren't any mammoths or cavemen down among the dinosaurs.

This is sufficient to prove "evolution" in the broadest sense: gradual development of new organisms from existing ones. No modern organism simply "appears from nowhere": they all have ancestors in the fossil record.

An example of adaptation and selection, not evolution. The crab is still the same organism, it just looks different. If the crab had grown a new appendage (for example) that gave it a selective advantage, that would be evolution.

Nope, this IS evolution. The shell gives the crab an advantage. Any advantage that helps survival involves evolution.

Another example: a certain percentage of elephants are born without tusks due to mutations. Such elephants have difficulty attracting mates (tusks are a form of display) and the trait does not become widespread.

...Until now. Ivory poachers don't kill tuskless elephants. This single factor has caused a rapid increase in the prevalence of the tuskless mutation (now about 50% in some African reserves). Pretty soon, unless measures are taken to oppose this trend, elephants with tusks face extinction.

This is evolution.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Nope, the sequence of the fossils we DO have proves common descent. Fossils are never found in the "wrong order". There aren't any mammoths or cavemen down among the dinosaurs.

This is sufficient to prove "evolution" in the broadest sense: gradual development of new organisms from existing ones. No modern organism simply "appears from nowhere": they all have ancestors in the fossil record.

The fossil record 'proves' nothing. It is evidence that is not inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Thats all.

Nope, this IS evolution. The shell gives the crab an advantage. Any advantage that helps survival involves evolution.

Another example: a certain percentage of elephants are born without tusks due to mutations. Such elephants have difficulty attracting mates (tusks are a form of display) and the trait does not become widespread.

...Until now. Ivory poachers don't kill tuskless elephants. This single factor has caused a rapid increase in the prevalence of the tuskless mutation (now about 50% in some African reserves). Pretty soon, unless measures are taken to oppose this trend, elephants with tusks face extinction.

This is evolution.

In the simplist sense, even single gene mutations (that are passed on to progeny) can be considered evolution if they give a selective advantage. But by this definition, though, people with the sickle cell mutation have evolved relative to those without the mutation. Evolution within the context of this thread involves speciation (and there is no evidence that I'm aware of for that involving eukaryotic organisms).

[Jack the Bodiless]

This is sufficient to prove "evolution" in the broadest sense: gradual development of new organisms from existing ones. No modern organism simply "appears from nowhere": they all have ancestors in the fossil record.

The fossil record 'proves' nothing. It is evidence that is not inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Thats all.

Scientists are reluctant to use words like "proof". No scientist has ever proved that the Earth is round, for instance.

But the fossil record is so perfectly consistent with common decent that it "proves" this beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a fact that modern complex organisms have developed from simpler precursosrs in a step-by-step process spanning millions of years. While biologists mean something more specific when they use the word "evolution", this is consistent with the common English usage of the word: gradual development.

As the mechanisms of biological evolution (random mutation and natural selection) have also been observed, it is simply incorrect to imply that evolution is "just theoretical" as creationists do.

In the simplist sense, even single gene mutations (that are passed on to progeny) can be considered evolution if they give a selective advantage. But by this definition, though, people with the sickle cell mutation have evolved relative to those without the mutation. Evolution within the context of this thread involves speciation (and there is no evidence that I'm aware of for that involving eukaryotic organisms).

There are numerous examples of speciation that have been observed in eukaryotic organisms. TalkOrigins has examples.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drogue
I believe we evolved by Complexity Theory, in that we have attracts, and mutations are not completely random, and that natural selection chooses what we keep, by what is useful.

That certainly is possible, and it is a very intriguing idea.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
That only happens if there is selective pressure

Only half true. Harmful mutations do not necessarily need selective prressure to be selected against.

Originally posted by SpencerH
Unfortunately, the fossil record is so full of holes and dispersed by time that it 'proves' nothing.

Full of holes in what sense? It is extraordinary that we were able to recover as many fossils as we did. Ssome of the fossils are tremendous discoveries - the one found in China recently is a clear transitional form between birds and dinosaurs.

Originally posted by SpencerH
An example of adaptation and selection, not evolution. The crab is still the same organism, it just looks different. If the crab had grown a new appendage (for example) that gave it a selective advantage, that would be
evolution.

Adaptation and selection is evolution. In fact, the scientific definition of evolution is "change in the frequencies of alleles." Alleles are different forms of the same gene. If you say the frequencies of alleles haven't changed, there is no selective pressure (on those genes).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The fossil record 'proves' nothing. It is evidence that is not inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Thats all.

No, nothing in science is ever proved like in math.

However, the fossil record strongly supports evolution. For example, scientists could prefict what sort of characteristics could be expected to be found in certain transitional forms, and these predictions fit with the actual specimens quite well.

You also need to realise that the fossil record is only part of the evidence. There is also evidence from genetics, paleotology, etc., etc. A famous biologist whose name escapes me right now once said, "Modern biology does not make sense without evolution."

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
"Modern biology does not make sense without evolution."

Modern creationism doesn't make sense without the Bible.