Thread: What evidence do you need?

There's too many missing links in the theory of Evolution (for humans). It's just what it is, a theory, nothing more.

Besides, evolution is linked to survival of the fittest right? If that's the case, and ppl think we evolved from monkeys. Why are there still monkeys living till this day? And I doubt they're gonna die out anytime soon.

Having said that, I do not believe in the Bible and whatever God is said to be scripted in such Bible.

EDIT: I know we're very similar to monkeys, hence why ppl think we evolved from them by the theory of Evolution. But I have my own theory as to why that's the case. But I won't say it cause I'd probably be deemed a nutcase and it'll start a huge ass debate lol.

It's just what it is, a theory

Germ theory of disease
Theory of gravity
Cell theory
Theory of evolution
Theory of relativity

These are theories and have massive amounts of evidence for them. Some theories are scientific facts (e.g. germ theory of disease, cell theory, evolutionary theory).

In science "theory" is the highest status something can get, and denotes the power to explain phenomenon. It is not what it means in laymens terms where something has no real backing "just a theory, not proven".

Please educate yourself before walking in to a serious thread. Thanks.

Why are there still monkeys living till this day?

*sigh* that is not what people are saying. Sharing a (now-extinct) common ancestor with other members of the ape family does not equate to "humans evolving from monkeys which are also still around for some reason".

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Germ theory of disease
Theory of gravity
Cell theory
Theory of evolution
Theory of relativity

These are theories and have massive amounts of evidence for them. Some theories are scientific facts (e.g. germ theory of disease, cell theory, evolutionary theory).

In science "theory" is the highest status something can get, and denotes the power to explain phenomenon. It is not what it means in laymens terms where something has no real backing "just a theory, not proven".

Please educate yourself before walking in to a serious thread. Thanks.



*sigh* that is not what people are saying. Sharing a (now-extinct) common ancestor with other members of the ape family does not equate to "humans evolving from monkeys which are also still around for some reason".

You can throw all these facts and what have you at ppl like me. But I still won't believe in the theory of Evolution. It does have many missing links. And it would go against my own lil theory lol. That might sound arrogant, but ahh... I like my crazy theory. xD;

Originally Posted by TamiDoll

You can throw all these facts and what have you at ppl like me. But I still won't believe in the theory of Evolution. It does have many missing links. And it would go against my own lil theory lol. That might sound arrogant, but ahh... I like my crazy theory. xD;

There are no missing links. What are you talking about?

You have clearly demonstrated that you would rather believe your personal ideal rather than the truth.

This is why I asked; what evidence do you need to be shown evolution is true. I can easily provide, as I have, any evidence you need.

~

Hi O'nus, thanks for that long post on the first page, I bookmarked it for further reference

Noogah, you should really read O'nus' post, it answers any question you could possibly have left.

Originally Posted by O'nus

There are no missing links. What are you talking about?

You have clearly demonstrated that you would rather believe your personal ideal rather than the truth.

This is why I asked; what evidence do you need to be shown evolution is true. I can easily provide, as I have, any evidence you need.

~

Yes, I would rather go along with what's cooking up in my head until more facts are given to me. But I'm not forcing anybody to believe what I think (I know ppl would disagree with my views anyway, hence why I didn't explain it).

@ Xei: I'm all for science. But this theory as you say is 'well established explanatory framework'. That means we haven't uncovered everything there is to know about it. And that is why I've drifted off into a different tangent and tried to string them all together with my own theories instead of just accepting that one Theory of Human Evolution as it is.

There's too many missing links in the theory of Evolution (for humans)

Care to give examples?

It's just what it is, a theory, nothing more.

This statement has been corrected so many times now that it's not even funny anymore... when talking science, a theory is the highest achieveable status that can be achieved. Just like the theory of gravitation. The fact that it's a theory goes to show that it is so because there's a likely reason to believe it's true due to piles of evidence and observations that point in direction of the general idea.

Besides, evolution is linked to survival of the fittest right? If that's the case, and ppl think we evolved from monkeys. Why are there still monkeys living till this day? And I doubt they're gonna die out anytime soon.

This statement seems to imply that you know very little about how evolution works. That is not to be taken as an offence Besides that point "survival of the fittest" is commonly a missused term when it comes to evolution. It was originally a term used for natural selection, but in the modern idea, and darwins own, it have nothing to do with best physical shape, rather its about adapting to environments. A very rough explanation I'd say.

The fact that there's still monkeys today have nothing to do with us, we just share a common ancestor. It's not like there's only one direct route that goes from ape --> human and that's it, there's many types of apes, and we're just a branch of that.

Missing links do not disprove evolution either, as you have to realise that fossils can be lost due to various reasons when we're talking this huge amount of time and changes that happens to the earth.

@ SomeDreamer: From monkey/ape to cavemen to ancient civilizations and finally to us. It basically leap frogs from point A to point B to point C.

I'm not dissing Evolution believers, since there was a point in time I believed in it too. That was after I was brain washed into believing in the bible. Basically there's not enough evidence for me to believe in either.

SomeDreamer: From monkey/ape to cavemen to ancient civilizations and finally to us. It basically leap frogs from point A to point B to point C.

But you have to consider that there IS documented change for this process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

It might not deliver the entire single step of the process, but alltogether it gives a good idea of how it all happened, and can't see how it would be unreasonable to stick with this idea as it is, as far as I know, the best way to explain how it all happened with observation.

I'm not dissing Evolution believers, since there was a point in time I believed in it too. That was after I was brain washed into believing in the bible. Basically there's not enough evidence for me to believe in either.

I hope you didn't think I was saying that ^^ It's okay to question and disagree of course, no problems there. I would just hope that you have a valid reason as to why you do not think enough evidence is present. All I'm doing here is provide some material that you atleast could consider I respect your own opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by SomeDreamer

But you have to consider that there IS documented change for this process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

It might not deliver the entire single step of the process, but alltogether it gives a good idea of how it all happened, and can't see how it would be unreasonable to stick with this idea as it is, as far as I know, the best way to explain how it all happened with observation.



I hope you didn't think I was saying that ^^ It's okay to question and disagree of course, no problems there. I would just hope that you have a valid reason as to why you do not think enough evidence is present. All I'm doing here is provide some material that you atleast could consider I respect your own opinion on the subject.

Well, you could say I believe in Evolution... but not how you believe in it lol. It's just my way of filling in the gaps. When scientists uncover more evidence to back up their theory, I'd gladly add it to my ball of data and try to make sense of it all.

Just to expand on what SD said, monkeys can best be thought of as a close cousin, rather than a grandfather or uncle. Long ago, there was a species that split into the simian and the human races. From there, both races have evolved separately and independently of each other.

As for the many "holes" in evolution, are you referring to the fossil record, or just the general trend of flaws? If it is the former, see one of the above posts. If it is the latter, I would greatly appreciate examples.

While I do not agree with your opinion, I do respect it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Just to expand on what SD said, monkeys can best be thought of as a close cousin, rather than a grandfather or uncle. Long ago, there was a species that split into the simian and the human races. From there, both races have evolved separately and independently of each other.

As for the many "holes" in evolution, are you referring to the fossil record, or just the general trend of flaws? If it is the former, see one of the above posts. If it is the latter, I would greatly appreciate examples.

While I do not agree with your opinion, I do respect it.

The prob with me is I find there's too many things on this planet that doesn't make sense and doesn't have answers. If I believe in Evolution, even more things would be left screwing with my mind.

I know I don't make much sense now, and I'm not providing any solid proof whatsoever to go against this thread. But what I think makes a whole lot of sense to me (which like I said, I shall not share lol). The theory of Evolution is just a mere sub topic for everything that makes sense in my head.

Originally Posted by TamiDoll

The prob with me is I find there's too many things on this planet that doesn't make sense and doesn't have answers. If I believe in Evolution, even more things would be left screwing with my mind.

I know I don't make much sense now, and I'm not providing any solid proof whatsoever to go against this thread. But what I think makes a whole lot of sense to me (which like I said, I shall not share lol). The theory of Evolution is just a mere sub topic for everything that makes sense in my head.

Hey, whatever makes you happy. You're not hurting anyone, so I have no problem! Thank you for at least stating what you believe, why, and why you will not change your opinion...

Originally Posted by O'nus

This keeps coming up so I made a thread for it.

What evidence do you need to see to see that evolution is factual?

~

I would need to see some kind of breeding program that resulted in all kinds of dogs, like chihuahuas, Saint bernards, Pit Bulls, German Shepards, all from a common ancestor, like a wolf. I would need to see a breeding program for plants that would result in greater quantities of food for humans like corn, wheat, from normal grass.

If I am going to be convinced of evolution, I would need to know why some things, like many single celled organisms don't evolve at all, or stopped evolving. And things like crocodiles and sharks.

If I am going to be convinced of evolution, I would need to know why some things, like many single celled organisms don't evolve at all, or stopped evolving. And things like crocodiles and sharks.

Hahahaha.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I would need to see some kind of breeding program that resulted in all kinds of dogs, like chihuahuas, Saint bernards, Pit Bulls, German Shepards, all from a common ancestor, like a wolf.

First of all, I can show you the genetic relation of all living things.

Genetic Relations


+ "This tree is from an analysis of small subunit rRNA sequences sampled
from about 3,000 species from throughout the Tree of Life. The species were chosen based
on their availability, but we attempted to include most of the major groups, sampled
very roughly in proportion to the number of known species in each group (although many
groups remain over- or under-represented). The number of species
represented is approximately the square-root of the number of species thought to exist on Earth
(i.e., three thousand out of an estimated nine million species), or about 0.18% of the 1.7 million
species that have been formally described and named. "
+ http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/ant...dfilesToL.html

Dogs Genetic Relation

"We used molecular markers to study genetic relationships in a diverse collection of 85 domestic dog breeds. Differences among breeds accounted for 30% of genetic variation. Microsatellite genotypes were used to correctly assign 99% of individual dogs to breeds. Phylogenetic analysis separated several breeds with ancient origins from the remaining breeds with modern European origins. We identified four genetic clusters, which predominantly contained breeds with similar geographic origin, morphology, or role in human activities. These results provide a genetic classification of dog breeds and will aid studies of the genetics of phenotypic breed differences."
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../304/5674/1160

"Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were analyzed from 162 wolves at 27 localities worldwide and from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds. Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of dogs."
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...;276/5319/1687

Genetic routes producing miniature breeds that retain the proportion of the original
+ http://www.fredlanting.org/2008/07/p...rd-dog-part-1/

Evolution of Grass

I would need to see a breeding program for plants that would result in greater quantities of food for humans like corn, wheat, from normal grass.

This is misleading. There is no such thing as wild corn as it has been biologically created by man.

"The genetic structure of 35 populations of wild relatives of cultivated wheats, all collected in Syria and Lebanon, was assessed using ten isozymes. The populations consisted of diploid goat grass, Aegilops speltoides, diploid wild wheats, Triticum monococcum spp. aegilopoides and T. urartu, and tetraploid wild wheat, T. turgidum ssp. dicoccoides. The majority of the populations were polymorphic (P=0–70%) having low within-population mean genetic diversity (Hep=0.05–0.10) and relatively high within-species genetic diversity (Hes=0.14–0.31). The linkage between loci did not seem to be one of the causes for the observed polymorphism. All four species showed significant inbreeding at both the population (0.31–0.64) and species (0.77–0.96) levels, and the extent of inbreeding did not correlate with mating systems. Despite their apparent common ecological and evolutionary history, between-population or between-species level genetic identity was low (I=0.43–0.86). Among the diploid species, populations of Ae. speltoides clustered distinctly from those overlapping clusters of T. monococcum ssp. aegilopoides and T. urartu. The tetraploid species T. turgidum ssp. dicoccoides had relatively less genetic diversity (Hes=0.14) and was highly homozygous (F=0.96). The results suggest that these wild progenitors of cultivated wheats have undergone extensive local differentiation and inbreeding. We discuss the implications of our results on the management of wild wheat and goat grass populations."
+ http://www.springerlink.com/content/q9grr1chey9bgvy1/

I will have to look further into this one as I do not often read about the evolution of... grass.

If I am going to be convinced of evolution, I would need to know why some things, like many single celled organisms don't evolve at all, or stopped evolving. And things like crocodiles and sharks.

Nothing has "stopped evolving". What are you talking about? What about crocodiles and sharks..?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is misleading. There is no such thing as wild corn as it has been biologically created by man.

Nothing has "stopped evolving". What are you talking about? What about crocodiles and sharks..?

~

You didn't get it. i was being facetious. Corn was evolved by man from grass. Breeding is just sped up evolution where man has chosen the desired traits instead of chance mutations surviving by natural selection. I mean, corn was not genetically engineered, it was bred.


Well, there are simple organisms that have remained unchanged for billions of years, like diatoms, algae, sponges, amoebae, bacterias, yeasts, etc. And other things have evolved and then seemed to stop evolving like great white sharks and crocodiles which both existed before dinosaurs.

I am not arguing against evolution, I thoroughly believe in it. It is just these things are curious to me.
Can you tell me what insects and arachnids, and earthworms and milipedes etc. evolved from? In school they just said that a fish came out of the water and became an amphibian, which became reptiles, which became birds and mammals, but they left out the whole part about bugs. My feeling is that bugs came out of the water before fish did. Maybe it was a shrimp that came out of the water?
Cool information though.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

You didn't get it. i was being facetious. Corn was evolved by man from grass. Breeding is just sped up evolution where man has chosen the desired traits instead of chance mutations surviving by natural selection. I mean, corn was not genetically engineered, it was bred.


Well, there are simple organisms that have remained unchanged for billions of years, like diatoms, algae, sponges, amoebae, bacterias, yeasts, etc. And other things have evolved and then seemed to stop evolving like great white sharks and crocodiles which both existed before dinosaurs.

I am not arguing against evolution, I thoroughly believe in it. It is just these things are curious to me.
Can you tell me what insects and arachnids, and earthworms and milipedes etc. evolved from? In school they just said that a fish came out of the water and became an amphibian, which became reptiles, which became birds and mammals, but they left out the whole part about bugs. My feeling is that bugs came out of the water before fish did. Maybe it was a shrimp that came out of the water?
Cool information though.

In answer to your question about why it seems that some organisms "stop" evolving is that technically, it is a possibility. There are a set of 5 conditions that all must be true for a population to be considered static, or not evolving, called the hardy-weinberg principle. Some organisms fit the bill a lot better than others, and so don't appear to be evolving. The occasional new gene may arise, but the population is so vast or so efficient, that the new gene is snuffed out.
Also keep in mind that an organism can retain the same appearance through millions of years, but it will still be "evolving." Modern humans are evolving at the fastest rate in known history, and overall, we really haven't changed all too much in physical appearance over the Millenia.

Well, there are simple organisms that have remained unchanged for billions of years, like diatoms, algae, sponges, amoebae, bacterias, yeasts, etc. And other things have evolved and then seemed to stop evolving like great white sharks and crocodiles which both existed before dinosaurs.

The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that organisms become better adapted to their environments over time. Natural selection therefore only takes place when an organisms environment changes so that it is not optimally adapted. Those organisms you listed are extremely well adapted to their environments already, and their environments do not change; although some members of those species may have moved to other locations where they were not very well adapted, and hence evolved; in other words some yeasts have evolved - but then obviously they aren't yeasts any more.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I would need to see some kind of breeding program that resulted in all kinds of dogs, like chihuahuas, Saint bernards, Pit Bulls, German Shepards, all from a common ancestor, like a wolf. I would need to see a breeding program for plants that would result in greater quantities of food for humans like corn, wheat, from normal grass.

If I am going to be convinced of evolution, I would need to know why some things, like many single celled organisms don't evolve at all, or stopped evolving. And things like crocodiles and sharks.

You know how long it took for dogs to get to where they are from their common ancestor? Mills of years. Even with our technology today, I don't think you'll see it. And you do know that ANY dog/ wolf you can think of are all the same species? Due to humans, there are different breeds, but they can all mate with each other and produce viable offspring

When the Nat. Amer. harvested corn, corn was only about 2" long. Through selective harvesting, corn has become what we know of today. However, if left on it's own, who know's what it could've turned out to become

Bacteria, as I've said, is always evolving. Humans are evolving. Have you ever seen funature from the 1800s? The beds are only about 5'6". The average person wasn't that tall. Why do you think people though Abe Lincoln was a "giant" at 6'4". Today if you see someone that height I'm sure you'd only think, "That's a tall person." Being 6' myself, 6'4" isn't that much taller than me

Crocs and sharks... don't know what you mean by that, so here're some Wikis

Ancient croc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus

Shark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon

As you can see, some species have lived for many millions of years before the species dies out (and a new species is discovered which leads to the theory of evolution. One species dies out but a similar one takes it's place)

It takes millions of years to evolve. Generations of scientists would have to work to "watch" a species evolve. Humans have only been of the Genus Homo for 2.5mill yrs. As a whole, we split occured about 5mill yrs ago, so it's thought

The problem I have is because it's so slow at which point is it one or the other?

Take this gradiant as an example of evolution. Red is on the left, yellow on the right. At one point is it a different color?

......v--red.............................................ye llow--v

.........................red---^.............^--yellow

What's the middle though? Red? Yellow? Or should we just call the middle ground orange? But again, at what point is the red ACTUALLY orange? Some people may see it differently. I think that there may be something out there that isn't quite one or the other, so it become classified as something else. Maybe is just for the ease of science. If it looks more like one than the other, then put it with the one

I hope that makes sense

Originally Posted by O'nus

This keeps coming up so I made a thread for it.

What evidence do you need to see to see that evolution is factual?

~

Now, I've only read the first page... just a warning

Honestly, I believe that through natural selection we have evolved. THis is based off of "survival of the fittest". Evolution is not based off Lemark (which seems like an idiodic hypothosis now a days, lol).

Anyways, I believe that there is a lot of evidence in support of evolution. How else can you explain hominid creatures?

We know more from science than we do from religion. Hell, the bible says that the Earth is 6,000yo, plus minus 1,000yrs. Wow... that's a 33% error whereas science has determined Earth is 4.54bill yo with a 1% error

But I digress. However, science has proven many things that can be repeated many times. How many times has God been proven? Yes, there are miricles, but they have yet to be duplicated the same way. Yes, there are very strange phenomina that happen that science can't explain somehow and so it get's put on religion

However, staying on topic, there's way too much evidence on the subject for someone to be ignorant and stubborn and say it's a load of rubbish. You obviously need to do some reading, or something

Chimpanzees are 98% related to humans. There is also another animal that isn't even a mammal (I can't remember what it was), but it was 95% related to humans by DNA standards... so tell me how that's possible

As I think was said, evolution has been proven in bacteria. Due to bacteria's life span being so short, it evolves very quickly. Read up on the Russian Prison TB virus. Prisoners were treated for TB. However, their treatment was never carried out fully and some some of the virus that hadn't been killed by the treatment was resistant and thus became a new strain of TB. So it multiplies and it infects more prisoners. A new vaccine had to be found and then administered. Treatment was not carried out fully and thus a new strain of TB formed. This happened a few times over the course of a few decades and is now a multi-drug resistant strain of TB that is still rampant in Russian prisons (1 in 10 inmates have this strain of TB)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ison+tu&aqi=g1

So if evolution doens't exist... then how have they gone from regular, treatable TB, to a MDR TB? I don't think God jsut said, "I'm going to make a MDR strain of TB today."

I believe in God, so don't get me wrong, but science has proven a lot more than God has