Evolutionary Confusion

Off Topic
221

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I meant exactly what I wrote. I didn’t use any difficult words and wrote it clearly. What do the words say?

Okay. I will now do my “You’re Wrong” dance. Just thought I’d give you a chance to retract, that’s all.

Just curious: How can someone of your educational stature not understand the concept of heritance? That’s really basic stuff, man. There is no other way for us to carry a common genetic code with other species other than to introduce the concept of heritance between species.[/quote]

Interspecies evolution is a fact?

222

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I meant exactly what I wrote. I didn’t use any difficult words and wrote it clearly. What do the words say?

Okay. I will now do my “You’re Wrong” dance. Just thought I’d give you a chance to retract, that’s all.

Just curious: How can someone of your educational stature not understand the concept of heritance? That’s really basic stuff, man. There is no other way for us to carry a common genetic code with other species other than to introduce the concept of heritance between species.

Interspecies evolution is a fact? [/quote]

Depends on how you define species?

Let?s try it this way:

When Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” he didn?t know about genes, or Mendel?s laws, or DNA.

He just “invented” a theory.

But Mendel?s laws seemed to fit that theory. DNA, genes and the fact that we share a lot of DNA information with other species seem to fit that theory. All these these buried bones we unearthed seem to fit the theory. Even psychological traits seem to fit that theory.

?s it not strange that 100+ years ago someone invented a theory and one discovery after the other fits neatly in the basic concept of the theory?

What other rivaling theory has that much evidence to support it? In what other theory could I reasonably “believe” in?

223

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
There is no other way for us to carry a common genetic code with other species other than to introduce the “concept” of heritance between species.

[/quote]

Concept - An abstract or symbolic tag that attempts to capture the essence of reality.

224

IS our dna code getting more complex or less complex? Can anyone answer that?

225

[quote]orion wrote:

What other rivaling theory has that much evidence to support it? In what other theory could I reasonably “believe” in? [/quote]

Interspecies evolution is a fact?

226

[quote]Gregus wrote:
IS our dna code getting more complex or less complex? Can anyone answer that? [/quote]

who is our? Humans? All animals?

227

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:

What other rivaling theory has that much evidence to support it? In what other theory could I reasonably “believe” in?

Interspecies evolution is a fact?
[/quote]

If you mean that one species evolves into another species (if the term species is actually applicable, which in the majority of cases it isn?t, even though that would also depend on how you look at it,… phew) I?d say, with the caveat “as far as we know”, yes.

Because, you know, the term “species” pretty much means “living things that can reproduce sexually with each other”. But most “animals” are bacteria. Allmost all of them. Unfortunately they don?t reproduce sexually, even though they swap DNA on occasion.

So, if you use the term species like creationists falsely do, all bacteria are one species. Of course they are dead wrong, even if using their own definitions, because as soon as sexual reproduction is a requirement, bacteria are not even on the map.

Now they say something like that: Yes, bacteria can adapt, but they cannot EVOLVE, because after all the changes they might go through they are still bacteria. Nevermind that some survive around underwater volcanoes and others thrive on antibiotics, which pretty much looks like different species to me, if the term “species” was applicable to bacteria in the first place.

To put it short: I don?t know what you think a “species” is, which makes it hard to answer. I can work with anything , just give me a definition.

edit: I changed my working theory of what a species is several times, because the first ones were BS

228

[quote]orion wrote:
Yes, bacteria can adapt, but they cannot EVOLVE, because after all the changes they might go through they are still bacteria.
[/quote]

This sentence makes no sense to.

Evolution is the proliferation of an adaptation. Unless you are specifically implying that the adaptation is a conscious move by the bacteria, this would in fact be a type of “evolution” of the bacteria. Much of our studies come from the proliferation of bacteria because you can see the evolution happen very rapidly (in a matter of days) compared to humans which take thousands of years.

Why do you think that certain drugs in the penicillin family are slowly becoming worthless?

229

As a side note:

I always wondered why creationists never worry about mules and ligers. There are species that are close enough to reproduce together, even though their offspring is sterile.

If god made all species and intended a strict separation between species, why can they have offspring? It should be no more likely than between a dog and a bear.

Now, the ET answer would be, because the common ancestor they share does not go THAT far back to make breeding impossible BUT far enough to make that offspring sterile.

Damn ET. Always coming up with answers for questions most people never even ask.

230

[quote]TriGWU wrote:
orion wrote:
Yes, bacteria can adapt, but they cannot EVOLVE, because after all the changes they might go through they are still bacteria.

This sentence makes no sense to.

Evolution is the proliferation of an adaptation. Unless you are specifically implying that the adaptation is a conscious move by the bacteria, this would in fact be a type of “evolution” of the bacteria. Much of our studies come from the proliferation of bacteria because you can see the evolution happen very rapidly (in a matter of days) compared to humans which take thousands of years.

Why do you think that certain drugs in the penicillin family are slowly becoming worthless?

[/quote]

You are aware that I was more or less citing a popular creationist argument?

231

No… Just that it is early in the morning on Saturday.

College football starts today, I can hardly sleep.

Anyway… back under my rock I go.

232

You need as much “faith” to believe in evolution as you need to believe in creation…

233

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Interspecies evolution is a fact? [/quote]

Yes.

Unless we go with the invisible alien fabrication theory, there is no other possible explanation for the origin of differing species. Species arises from other species.

If we go with the creationist idea, then all we would have to do to debunk ourselves is show that at some point, all species was NOT cohabiting. This has been done so many different ways to the point where arguing against it is very similar to banging your head against a wall.

There is nothing left to explain it.

Interspecies evolution is a fact. Sorry.

234

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
You need as much “faith” to believe in evolution as you need to believe in creation…[/quote]

Actually, this statement is completely false.

Creation has no evidence to support it.
Evolution has mountains of it.

Any questions? Or are you just going to post more silliness?

235

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Interspecies evolution is a fact?

Yes.

Unless we go with the invisible alien fabrication theory, there is no other possible explanation for the origin of differing species. [/quote]

Wait a second, unless you go with another theory? Doesn’t that imply that, while it may be a good one or the best one, it is still a theory?

236

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait a second, unless you go with another theory? Doesn’t that imply that, while it may be a good one or the best one, it is still a theory?[/quote]

Okay ProX, you got me. We are most likely built of piecemeal DNA by highly advanced invisible aliens.

And that means that Ally McBeal is a real person, too.

GIVE ME A BREAK! If this is the best that you can do to refute the obviousness that is evolutionary theory then I truly, truly pity you. It is akin to saying that the earth isn’t a round sphere, it is a flat disc that spins around to just look like it’s a sphere whenever we look down from satellites from space. HEY! It could be true! You can’t disprove it!

237

Maybe it helps to make a distinction between evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed (yes, inter-species evolution also has been observed, even in vertebrates). Remember that “species” in the end is simply whatever the taxonomists say it is on the basis of morphology; lots of species can interbreed.

The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, says that all the species we observe, including our own, are the result of evolution. It’s too late to observe this directly, but the theory is well supported by the available evidence. As time passes, we collect more and more supporting evidence and the theory becomes harder and harder to resist - those interested in practical outcomes have long since stopped resisting - although at every stage it is possible to shout (rather meaninglessly) that the theory is not proven. Meaninglessly, because at this point the theory has no credible competition from any other theory, including Intelligent Design, which has not yet been stated in a form that allows it to be tested like any other scientific theory.

238

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Evolution is a fact, it is observed (yes, inter-species evolution also has been observed, even in vertebrates). Remember that “species” in the end is simply whatever the taxonomists say it is on the basis of morphology; lots of species can interbreed.[/quote]

Thank you for clarifying. This passage above is particularly relevant, as it looks like some of us are confused about what the definition of “species” is.

239

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Maybe it helps to make a distinction between evolution and the Theory of Evolution.[/quote]

This was my point. The “theory of Evolution” being taught in schools isn’t the problem. It is the teaching of it as if we have the facts to back it up that we all came from one celled organisms. That extra leap takes it out of fact. We don’t know this to be fact. It is “belief” by some in science when the truth is, we don’t know if aliens dropped us off here a few billion years ago already differentiated into different species from vertebrates to invertebrates. Why does it seem to be painful to admit that in science, we don’t know yet? Many seem to want to claim some scientific victory as if they have trumped all with their insight. That has not occurred.

240

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is “belief” by some in science when the truth is, we don’t know if aliens dropped us off here a few billion years ago already differentiated into different species from vertebrates to invertebrates.[/quote]

Again with the alien thing.

http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/lectures/lecture9.html

The link above shows the origin of the vertebrates from the invertebrates in a “cladogram”. This way, you can see over the span of time, how differing body structures originated at different times.

The alien thingy is cute, but the aliens would also have had to alter the carbon-dating of the different fossils, bury the skeletons and other fossils in different rock strata, etc. Do you see what I’m getting at here? The Chariots of the Gods fantasy is REALLY reaching, especially when we have already figured out something else (Evolutionary Theory) which makes sense, and doesn’t rely on wild conjecture.