This is so some of you guys can learn a bit more about evolution. Most people don't really know what it is about and that is absolutely does not have anything to do with god or religion. I guess I could include genetics with this too.

So if you guys have any questions or would like anything explained post it here. I have nothing to study for a while so I am bored and would like to keep my mind going. If not, ignore this and play some Halo.

This is great topic... Hopefully people wil make good use of it. It always bothers me when people say science is wrong, basing arguements solely in religion, when it can be prooven in the world around us. Genetic mutation is a fact. It neither prooves, nor disprooves god. If the creature with the mutation, whatever it is, survives to reproduce, it is more likely to have the change continue on to the next generation. And that is evolution at a glance.

God and religion will not be mentioned. Nor proved or discredited. The only time I will use it is if I say god I am bored. . . like I am now.

So where's the proof?

What proof do we have Darwin is right? All he submitted was a list of creatures and habitats they exist in, saying they evolved form this to that with no proof. And his only explanation is time.

How covenient for him that evolution takes place over thousands of years, luckily for him he won't be proven wrong until the sun goes out.

Everything is evidence for evolution. What he proposed was natural selection. How it works is individuals with better characteristics reproduce more than ones with not as good characteristics.

Species do not evolve in a linear fashion. That t-shirt I know you are wearing right now with the monkey walking up to a man is not evolution. Evolution is a bush not a line. There are many paths. 99% of the species that have existed have gone extinct. There are lots of species that were ideal for a portion of time and then went extinct from competition or ecological changes of millions of years, not thousands.

Darwin did not include time in his study. His studies led other to a long time wich was commonly thought even before him. He himself did not have those opinions until he confered with others.

Darwin wrote many books, many of the categorial as you said but they were to show the changes in species as they were isolated from eachother for different reasons. How genetic change (thanks to Mendel) was expressed in species visually. Take two species isolate them for a million years and just to chance they will change into two species that cannot breed successfully.

The proof has come mainly with genetic analysis, fossil analysis, and morphological analysis. Broad topics. Try to be a bit more specific you D.A.

But where is the proof? He wrote books right? Should I take in faith just like the bible?

Evolution has been considered a fact by scientists all over the world, but what experiments or proof have validated this fact? Or is it that it is just the most fitting theory, meaning it just makes sense to them so it must be true?

- There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

- Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

No. Nothing in science is taken on faith. That is the definition of science. It is -*test*-('")able AND falsefiable. Everything we look at supports this theory. Now for the individual points.

1. Transitional Species or "missing links". First off missing links is totally off kilt. Never think of evolution as linear or a chain of being. That was the realm of thought in the middle ages. Long forgotten and proven wrong. As for transitional species there are millions of them Both shown genetically, in fossils, and alive today. Take a python, cut it open and loot a the end. There are legs, hips and everything else needed to walk like its ancestors. Whales today have legs, not their flipper, but actual legs. They did not come from cows like people like to say but they both had a common ancestor. These are two common examples of animals. There are litterally millions both in fossils, and alive still that show examples of tranistions. Genetically we can look at the hemoglobin gene. It is identical in other species. It is almost identical to plant chlroplast genes and phemoglobin (sp) the iron fixating compound. Tranistional species don't always have to look like a combination of two animals, most of the change is genetically, it is our environment that makes us look the way we do.

2. Great point. Not true but didn't expect it from you 1st off genetic expression is dependent on millions of characteristics. Predictable, measuarable, and we are defining more of it every day. The genetic code is far more complicated than we are. If a chance mutation or change in this system occurs and it gives that individual and advantage that genetic change will be passed on to its offspring. And so on. If you want me to go on further into the diversity of genetic expression I will. But the bottom line is it isn't like oh it would be nice to have a wing so an individual mutates to have a wing. It is very small changes at the genetic level and a long period of time. I can go through the entire evolution of the human eye, wich is identical genetically to a fly's eye. Only homeobox genes give it different forms.

3. First off for the second part of this, we are just as "advanced" as a yeast species or your family dog. As for the first part, evolution does not deal with the origin of the world or the initial "spark" of life. Experiments have been done in lava conditions where inorganic matter has been changed to more organized inorganic matter. But once again that doesn't have anything to do with Evolution or Natural Selection.

4. There are not species inbetween us and apes. Once again that suggests linear associations. Those species that have been found to be human-like are not us. We can trace our origin genetically to one woman in africa that was a live 200,000 years ago. Nowhere near most of the finds that have been found of other species of hominids. Just try to picture a bush, not a tree. A bush can grow just as much horizontally as it can vertically.

Now tell me where you want me to expand on.

when did "it" start. life and all the order around us. i mean what happened. how did everything start?

Evolution does not deal with that. It deals with the history of life, not the origin of life. That is a whole nother thread Mr. Duff.

And everything that I have said is recorded and reviewed for you to look up if you want. It is nothing you need to "trust" me on, or believe. It is all stuff you can see for your self.

1. Too many gaps. There exists to many gaps in the fossil records. Bush or linear tha gaps exist. In other words there exists no branch where human life could have sprouted from.

2. It can only be proven in a micro-evolutionary level. But you do bring up a good point; if our genetic material is so complex do you think it catually derived from a single celled organism?

3. You are not understanding my point. If us humans evolved from a single celled organism, then where did the single cell organism originate from? Evolution doesn't explain where life started just how it evolved, that's a big leap, from no life to life.

4. Again with you Bush explanation. So if it was a bush what species was the root? What branch did human life sprout from? Where is that fossil or proof?


You see evolution is said to occur in a micro (genetic) and macro level (us humans) but we can only prove the micro part of it, because we must take it into faith about the macro stuff.

I am not familiar with this you are talking about. I would question your sources. Evolution is a process. Are you talking of genetic evolution and phenotypical evolution (what you see)?

Ok talked to E-dog. His question was that we cannot reproduce macro-evolution or the transition of one species into another in a lab because it happens over such a long period of time.

First off we are not out to prove it. Only explain what happens in nature over time.

Second. The observation of characteristics from one species to another is easily observed. But it is done through analysis of species living today and in the past. Genetically, morphologically, and physical evidence of these transitions are everywhere. But to reproduce them in the lab would take some sort of time machine and that hasn't been invented yet. So observation of every second of a million year process is not going to happen nor do I want to undertake it. But analyzing the past seems like a much more efficient way to spend my time. And this analysis has shown that macro-evolution happens and is in essense not distinguishable from evolution. This micro/macro debate from people trying to tear apart evolution is not something that is even used. The terminology is dated and has been discarded. Evolution is a process that aplies to time obervable and fossil analysis.

You are not going to take a thousand fruit flies in a jar and come back and see they have all turned into monkey-elephants.

Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

The only proof of macro-evolution scientists can come up with are fossils, which is not enough or not even conclusive enough, too many gaps.

But I will take Darwin's word for it in faith. NOT!

Were talking about Darwin people, the same guy who married his causin. They should have studied his kids for evolutionary purposes.

Example of macro-evolution.

Development of wings in bees. At first they were small and developed as a method of thermoregulation. Then as selection for larger bees came larger wings. As the wings became large enough for flight, that is what they were used for

http://www.ulg.ac.be/morfonct/mem/rui/abstract018.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.dino.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO4...po&Mode.2.HTML
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macr.html

So here are some examples for you. The only people that say there is not evidence for macro-evolution are just out to tear down evolution and not looking at the evidence itself.

Seriously who has told you that there is no evidence for macro-evolution? Those theories have been DEVELOPED from observations in science. Not created and hunted for evidence supporting it. That is not how it works. Someone is filling your head with nonsense.

going by darwin's natural selection theories wouldn't that mean that all people that had an "advantage" over others would reproduce and the others wouldn't yes? if natural selection was more evident now in the human race wouldnt that mean that ugly people wouldn't reproduce...?