Could you explain what you mean? What evidence do you speak of? Are you going by evidence, or that people say we evolved from ape?
They are things called bones and fossils. We have them. they show us our evolution. there are several fossil remains of homanids that show our evolution.

There are thousands and thousands of species of spiders. Not all can cross breed either. And yet they are still all spiders. A fly that is a fly isn't proof of a life form evolvng into a higher life form.
Yes, but how many of those were created in a lab from one species? By man?

Could you explain this once more? A loss of information is evidence of a theory that states things evolved from lower life forms?

We don't have evidence of it, and then the next line says we do? I agree with you lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened. However, I am stating you said it was based on evidence of it that we have the theory.

Why can't that argument be said to be just as valid for a common design, and designer?

Common design features is not evidence for one or the other.

So your evidence is that people say there is, so it must be true? Could you show me some evidence?

Obviously none of them. So your evidence is that we copied something that already happens? That still doesn't prove a lower life form evolving into a higher life form.

So your evidence is that people say there is, so it must be true? Could you show me some evidence?

I don't have any fossils at my disposal, nor do I have the ability to show them to you if I did. But they do exsist. That is why they are used as evidence in university text books discussing biology. Perhaps you should find yourself a text book that discusses these things.

 Obviously none of them. So your evidence is that we copied something that already happens? That still doesn't prove a lower life form evolving into a higher life form.

Yes, that is my point. By using a lab to create a controlled eco system, scientists have used breeding to create two seperate species of fruit flies out one species, that can not breed together. This is a controlled situation in which we( I mean man kind) had been able to emmulate evolution.

I think for you to understand what is being discussed here you should take it apon yourself to find the evidence you are looking for. Or rather, the lack of evidence as you think it is. By this I mean, look at some biology text books. Entry level university or colloege texts will give you a whole lot of evidence that supports evolution. Granted, until you see it and touch it with your own eyes and hands, I'm quite certain you won't be willing to accept it as truth, but that again will have to be your own journey for truth.

There are thousands and thousands of species of spiders. Not all can cross breed either. And yet they are still all spiders. A fly that is a fly isn't proof of a life form evolvng into a higher life form.

Tell me, what exactly qualifies you to make that statement about what does and doesn't constitute scientific proof of evolution? It's proof enough to the rest of the scientific community, what makes your standards better than theirs?
This message was last edited by the player at 14:35, Fri 05 May 2006.

Falkus, I previously provided you with evidence of scientists who dispute the theory of evolution, some of the Nobel Prize laureates.  What makes you more qualified than they are?  Why do you insist on saying this is something that is conclusively proven when it is not, even in the scientific community?  You keep assuming a premise that has not been proven conclusively and then rejecting any possibility that there may be flaws in it despite the many experts in the field and scientists that have pointed out flaws.

I understand that you believe in evolution.  Frankly, so do I.  But I feel like you are trying to tell people they're wrong by sweeping aside their statements instead of allowing for the possibility that evolution is not as conclusive as you may think.  Parts of it have certainly been proven, but not the entire theory as it relates to all of existence of life on earth.

Falkus, I previously provided you with evidence of scientists who dispute the theory of evolution, some of the Nobel Prize laureates.  What makes you more qualified than they are?

99.97% of all scientists in fields related to evolution accept it as true.

?  Why do you insist on saying this is something that is conclusively proven when it is not, even in the scientific community?

0.03% of a community does not represent a significant divide.

And 86% of all statistics are made up :P

Anyway, the fact that a lot of people agree on something isn't indicative of much of anything. A lot of people have agreed on things that are very foolish indeed (and smart people at that!)  If you want to convince people like Rogue that evolution exists and resulted in life as we know it, you will have to rely on evidence and strong theories (as well as by answering questions) rather than quoting authorities.  I can tell you that just telling him that other people believe in evolution so he should too won't work.

Where do you get these statistics?  Further, it is the caliber of scientists more than the number that really is impactive anyway, and since they are well-reknowned scientists and Nobel laureates, I think that there is a significant divide.

Here is a list of 481 well respected scientists who have problems with evolution:  http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm

And that just scratches the surface.  I think your .03% number is inaccurate, to say the least, unless there are over 16,000 scientists with these credentials and every single one of them fully accepted all aspects of evolution.  Even if they didn't, this number is still quite significant given the credentials involved.

Besides, it only takes one man.  One Darwin.  One Einstein.  One Newton.  And the whole body of science can be turned upside down.
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:42, Sat 06 May 2006.

That's what I mean. People hear it so often they believe it true with only being told it's a sequence.

My suggestion to help make this easier instead of going over all the sequence at once, is to pick one skeletal structure at a time. Pick one, and we can discuss it. Neanderthal is well documented, do you want to go over the "proof" of that one first, or would you rather pick a different one such as Homo Habilis, made famous by "Lucy"?

  I think you missed what I said. That doesn't prove where evolution says that a lower life form evolves into a higher life form.

I understand that you see me as a christian, one who lives perhaps in a small town out in the country, perhaps educated in a christian school where only creation is taught.

But I was raised in the city, and grew up on evolution, and believed it to be true for about 27 years until I actually delved deeper. I really did go to museums, and see dinosaurs, and cave man landscapes, and the like. I even did plenty of reading on the topic. I'm willing to discuss this much deeper, because I have been there, and can go over the evidence with you. I am confident enough to say that the reason you are having trouble finding evidence is precisely because of what you are limited to.

The challenge is put forth,a nd I understand it's a difficult stance to back up with facts. There's not much to go with, is there?

This is a slightly different approach.

Imagine today if we genetically altered a life form and set it loose among its kind.  We certainly have the power and knowledge to do so and can literally do it overnight.  Imagine we took an ape and genetically altered it to be as smart as a human.  Again, possible in the not too distant future.  Then we set them loose in Africa among their kind with no humans around.

All the apes would begin their scientific experiments and decide that evolution works, it's a grand and conclusive theory, and therefore they must have evolved from something.  They find their ancient cousins, untouched by human genetic alterations.  Ah!  There is the proof that they evolved.

But did they?  The touch of a wise and powerful hand can do much to make mischief with our working theories, even making overnight changes.  The Uplift novels by David Brinn are interesting in this theory.  The Darwin's Radio books by Greg Bear are interesting to show genetic jumps based on dormant viruses.  So there are many things that could interfere with the evolution of Man.  Quite frankly, I've heard several facts about humans that seem to defy evolution, thus indicating an intelligent hand in our development.  So although I believe evolution as a theory, I do not completely accept it as definitive for human development.

But I was raised in the city, and grew up on evolution, and believed it to be true for about 27 years until I actually delved deeper. I really did go to museums, and see dinosaurs, and cave man landscapes, and the like. I even did plenty of reading on the topic. I'm willing to discuss this much deeper, because I have been there, and can go over the evidence with you. I am confident enough to say that the reason you are having trouble finding evidence is precisely because of what you are limited to.

Actually the reason I am having trouble finding you the evidence you are asking for, Ie, proof that a less complicated genetic structure evolved into a more complex one, is because it is one of those few things to do with evolution that litterally has no proof. It does not mean that this is proof that it can't be, but merely that you are asking for soemthing you know is next to impsoosable to provide. That is hardly a fair challenge, but I'm not saying it can't be done. It just makes this tough that you are limiting the proof you will accept to something you know or at least think you know, isn't out there.

It is like someone who doesn't believe in a God saying show me proof that he exsists. And then is only willing to accept the presence of God if he see's and talks to Him. But yet continue's to debate the topic.

I don't assume you live anywhere are are anything. I honestly try to avoid assumptions, sepcially of that sort. The only assumptions of you that I have are that you are most likely a rather intelegent person who likes to build your arguments out of the stuff that is just about impossable to refute. I must admit it is a good way of remaining right, in your own mind, but not a fair way to enter a debate.

Side not here, I was raised in the opposite way of thinking. Grew up in a christian family that chooses not to hold any faith in evolution. I have come to belive what I beilve through the learning of the huge amount of information I have found that supports evolution. It is the information I have learned, my own reasoning, and my gut instincts that keep me believing what I beilve.

That said, I am out of my depth trying to find the information that you require for this debate. I am NOT giving up though. I just need to do some reserch. Never fear, I have my wife's univeristy text book, Biological Anthropology, a great book that very fully looks at the evolutionary proccess and the proccess  of learning about it, and will be reading it to find factual proof for you.

When I said that I thought you should do some resrch, I ment go to university or gollege and take a course on this, or, find some text books and do some reserch.  It is obvious that you have learned some stuff about evolution, or rather it's unlikely hood. I think that you should expand what you are looking for, in your pursuit for knowledge. Try not to limit yourself to harping on what you can't find, but rather, attempt to learn all that you can from what info there is.

Just to be clear on what it is that you are looking for, you want some evidence that shows how a simple life form evolved into a more complex life form, right?

 That's what I mean. People hear it so often they believe it true with only being told it's a sequence.
this isn't information I picked up at the local tavern, these bones aren't rumors I heard about at a crib game, they are the stuff that anthroplgy, or specificaly, Biological Anthropology is built on.

My suggestion to help make this easier instead of going over all the sequence at once, is to pick one skeletal structure at a time. Pick one, and we can discuss it. Neanderthal is well documented, do you want to go over the "proof" of that one first, or would you rather pick a different one such as Homo Habilis, made famous by "Lucy"? Here is a stem to your problems in understanding the evolutionary concept I believe. We can not pick one well documented skeletal form to discuss this, because it is all of them that make the argument. but, let's take your suggestion and build on it.

Lets look at the evolution of man, where we can see how we evolved from something a tad less complex, to something more complex. Given the enormity of this subject, and your pension for structoring your argument on a lack of evidence, I'll let you start this. Let's rememebr though that we are going to be discussing all the homonid forms, and not just one or two. We are discussing man's evolutionary walk, or lack there of, how ever you might see it.

In science, making sure your position has a way of being tested is the ONLY way of being right, and hence, at least this one point of Rogue's is very scientific.

If evolution is not testable, it is not a scientific theory of any weight.  There are many theories which have been put aside because they couldn't be tested at the time.  Since in this case it isn't all of evolution that's in question, but rather the concept of creatures gaining genetic material through mutation, and the fact that there is no other scientific theory on the matter that is testable, we accept evolution not as The Truth, but as the best understanding currently available to us.  It is unfortunate that many people in our society seem to confuse religion and science (and I'm not pointing fingers here) in that they demand proof of God, but accept things like evolution with blind faith.

Evolution is a theory in a field built entirely upon the concept that everything we knew before could be wrong.  Evolution is not guaranteed to be right, nor is it provably right.  However, it is the best theory we have available right now, so it wins by default.  Should a better supported theory come along, say the Theory of Staged Biodiversity (I'm making that up), which is testable and all tests come back supporting the theory, we will forget the Theory of Evolution in favor of our new theory.  That's just how science works and how it has worked since the invention of the scientific method.

Hi Nerdicus. Thanks for the response, and I don't want to frighten you off. But I do want to point out the challenge was actually asking for what the "facts" are for evolution.



Ceratinly looking at adaption of animals is evidence for evolution, but not a fact for what the theory claims. I'm glad you were willing to agree that for evidence of an animal becoming more complex is not a fact.

Feel free to believe in evolution, based on gut feelings, or the repetition of scientists. Essentially, faith is fine for many things. I freely admit I'm not trying to prove God when talking of evolution. Even if evolution is proven false with zero merit, that is still not proof for God.



Thanks for the intelligent comment, but as to the assumptions, you have to realize that telling me to go do some extra research of any sorts is actually making an assumption that I have not done those activities.

As to my arguments, that's assuming I only make arguments that are not desputable. Basically, you're basing this on the evolution thread only, and considering that it's only a theory, that's an unfair statement. How can I make a point about something with a lack of facts, and be considered unfair? Unless it has facts to show the theory, my statement is the only one I can make. It's not a matter of being right all the time. (More so, I'd say me taking the side of problems evolution is quite fair. It does have problems.)


Well evolution does say that, but you will find zero evidence for it.

What I origially said was this,



I'm aware of this, but as you are aware, science changes all the time. The theroy of evolution even has to evolve all the time to stay with science. Just because something was thought before, doesn't mean it is always true.  Look at the appendix for example. It was thought vestigal for many years. It's been about 30 years now that they have known it served a function after all.



My "pension for structuring my argument on a lack of evidence?" Plain and simple, an unfair statement. I don't know your age, but assuming you're over 18, let's stick to facts, and not any form of posts that call into question about poor tactics, or abilities. I don't do it to you, so don't do it to me. (more so, I'm more proactive when it comes to these kind of comments directed towards other users of the forum.) I don't accept it. It's a weak way to debate, as it's meant to "push" the person, and not the points of the argument.

I will start a new thread just for evolution about ape to man.

Evolution in action?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/...eofevolutionarysplit

Why does there NEED to be a conflict its clear scientifically Evolution is what we see as the mechanism for all life? That doesn't mean that a creator couldn't have formed the universe to appear old and even make a creation before the Biblical one.

And all scientific theory always COULD be wrong. The Theory of Gravity is just a theory we could prove its wrong- unlikely but no theory is 100% certain. The best we can do is apply the most rigourous proofs and tests to show its true or not. But Evolution is testable by looking into the past through dating fossils, genetic studies in the DNA and other means including Archeology which studies early human civilization.

Think of it like this:  Why would God go to some great deception to humanity about making the earth appear old?  1 year is the same as billions to someone as omnipotent and eternal as that.

Is it to test faith?  Well, could be, but then again, studying the language of the Old Testament shows that the seven days was not meant to be literal at all, but represent merely "time periods."  So it's not really a critical part of Judeo-Christian beliefs at all, but perhaps just a great mistranslation (not unlike the imagery of "Hell").

I do not feel the evidence for evolution is compelling. Really, the strongest evidence for it, is a fruit fly turning into a fruit fly.

That may be cryptic to you ruby, but that comment seems to have a bit of history here at CC:R. Basically, the evidence for evolution is a bunch of people saying it happened.

Really, the strongest evidence for it, is a fruit fly turning into a fruit fly.

Do we really need to have another discussion on the meaning of speciation again, and that the difference between two species of fruit flies is essentially the same as it is between a fruit fly and a human?

And that is exactly why I feel that the idea of a one celled organism having evolved it's way eventually into a man is fully based on the idea it could happen, and not because it has been shown it could happen.

Basically, it takes too much faith to believe in evolution for me.

You are aware of the fallacy of argument from incredulity, correct?

I wasn't aware of it. I had to look it up.

I wasn't trying to compare that it is so unbelieveable that is why I don't believe it. I was trying to compare that the actual facts of evolution leaves a lot of problems that create bigger problems in the theory.

I was trying to compare that the actual facts of evolution leaves a lot of problems that create bigger problems in the theory.

Could it be that you don't fully understand the theory?

The problem with evolution as a theory is that there is not a second model which it can be tested against apart from creationism, which is a theory which many (oh, so many!) people hold as being based on unscientific beliefs. But, as a theory, evolution is being constantly rewritten and refined to try and fit things which do not fit into it's current configuration, while many attempts at an alternate theory are label as "attacks".

When I speak of evolution as being faulty, I mean that it is faulty as the sole paradigm driving the appearance of all present life on Earth, and the disappearance of many species we have fossil records of. For instance, the idea of all life evolving from a single primordial form (not my words, by the way, but they sound so cool) is not only hard to believe, but possibly completely wrong. Illinois has a professor named Carl Woese who a few years back found evidence that there would have to be at least three different simple organisms to account for the various cell structures we see today. What's more, these organisms destroy all hopes of accurately charting their genealogy, because they would share RNA horizontally. It's only after one of these organisms broke the Darwinian Threshold that more traditional vertical evolution could occur. While he never comes out and says so, there is a feel from his writings (at least what I read of them) that this Threshold is the first multi-celluar organism. What he does say is that, prior to the Threshold, the currently accepted and supported theory of evolution breaks down.

For now, the theory of evolution is the only theory out there which can help students (and their professors, for that matter) understand how biology interacts today, and how it probably interacted when the dinosaurs where around, but it isn't perfect. Much like Einstein's general relativity in physics, biology is in need of a new theory to explain those things which evolution can't. But, much like Newton's laws, evolution is useful to help with understanding the world. It just may not be 100% accurate.

Perhaps, but I have to say in my own defense, it's not from lack of trying.I have actually discovered quite a few holes that cannot be explained, and are problematic the theory. You have seen these in previous threads, and they have yet to be answered.