Proof of Evolution

[j_m_s]

lions with lions will only procreate more lions. tigers with tigers will only procreate more tigers. yes.

Humans with humans will only procreate humans no?

likewise, humans with another thing will produce something else (lets not go there shall we...)

likewise, in cross-pollination and cross-contamination, something new is produced.

Evolution is, in layman terms, the changing of an ape into man. now, if there were only apes at the start, how did they evolve into men? that is "evolution" not cross-breeding.

 

[Vaiyen]

likewise, humans with another thing will produce something else (lets not go there shall we...)

really??? u seen b4???? Wow.

 

[teleplayer]

yes... if there's evolution, it can only occur within a species... crossing a species with another species is not evolution...

In conclusion, evolution only happens when "survival of the fittest" takes place...

 

[j_m_s]

Vaiyen, nope i've never seen it, nor do i want to.

 

[theliverevolution]

BTW something interesting here, this is a LIGER, born from lion father, but tiger mother (or other way around forgot)

The Lion and Tiger share enough common DNA to create offspring, because they share a common ancestor. But if God or a perfect designer created the lion and the tiger, shouldn't they not be able to create offspring? Shouldn't lions only make lions and tigers only Tigers?

Note that Ligers only exist because humans forced them to be together - you'll never find a wild liger because lions and tigers exists at different parts of the world and even if you did put them together, they just won't naturally mate with each other!

Also, note that ligers don't mate naturally, leading people to believe they are sterile. Yes, there are a few rare cases of ligers mating, but I've yet to see an account of Liger + Liger = Liger. How can that be used as a successful way of claiming evolution on the grand scale exists?

 

[predz23]

Note that Ligers only exist because humans forced them to be together - you'll never find a wild liger because lions and tigers exists at different parts of the world and even if you did put them together, they just won't naturally mate with each other!

Also, note that ligers don't mate naturally, leading people to believe they are sterile. Yes, there are a few rare cases of ligers mating, but I've yet to see an account of Liger + Liger = Liger. How can that be used as a successful way of claiming evolution on the grand scale exists?

If tigers and lions were "created" then ligers would be impossible because tigers and lions would only create their own offspring. So how are Ligers possible? the answer is tigers and lions share enough genetic similarities to create ligers. Why do they share enough genetic similarities to make ligers? because they have a common ancestor from which they evolved from.

the point I was trying to make was that if tigers and lions were created they would never be possible to make ligers, I provided evidence AGAINST creationism, but not evidence for evolution

unless you believe my explanation that Tigers and Lions share enough DNA to create offspring, because they share a common ancestor, then yes I also provided evidence for evolution.

Tigers and tigers only make more tigers, humans and humans only make more humans. Thats obvious. But the offspring have the genetic material that helped their parents survive. passing down specific traits that help them survive to every single generation for hundreds of thousands of years causes a slow gradual change to the species.

You must agree with me that certain traits helped individuals survive right? you must also agree with me that parents pass down their traits to their offspring right? Then you should be believing in evolution, because that is exactly whats happening to every single generation. 50 million generations passing down the same trait later = evolution

 

[theliverevolution]

the point I was trying to make was that if tigers and lions were created they would never be possible to make ligers, I provided evidence AGAINST creationism

They're all part of the feline family.
And who said it is evidence against creationism? Did God make only ONE pair of felines? It is not said that God made only ONE set of felines. It is also not specified that He made only two of each kind. He could have made Tigers and Lions, but with similar traits and genes to each other.

And besides, even if He didn't create Tigers and Lions separately on the first 6 days, I don't see how is it a chain of reasoning against Creation.

Take humans for example. If you believe in Creation, then you believe that God made Adam and Eve and they are the common ancestor.
Then how come the Indians and Africans have dark skin, Americans have fair skins, Asians have dark hair, etc..?
Because, as you've said, we share the same gene pool. God must have allowed it to happen, and for once, you are right in saying that evolution exists. Because people went to various parts of the world and adapted to the conditions there and thus changed.

I finally get what you're trying to get at when you say that evolution exists on the micro-level. But that is more of an argument for Adaptation.

 

[EngelFaeuste]

Evolution is plausible based on what is observable, genes can mutate. There is absolutely nothing that can remotely substantiate the existence of god. Stop arguing and end this already. (I'm going to lose my bet with my friend if mods/admins doesn't close this thread soon!)

I'm not saying evolution is a 100% sure-on real, unshakeable truth. It's just the only plausible explanation right now.

Give me one single piece of observable, quantifiable, PHYSICAL evidence that can PROVE god exists. Don't give me some funny-ass idea that god must exist because this this this and that are so in perfect harmony it must be created. That's an inference, I want a direct arrow.

 

[ymmak]

Predz23 is right that evolution does occur. Read my posts many many pages before this page, where I have explained how evolution can occur in terms of gene pool, the mechanisms, the factors that has the potential for evolution to occur. Also read posts from babbage and hifi_killer, where they explained how evolution can give rise to variety. Cross-breeding between tigers and lions may not be evolution per se, but cross-breeding does have the potential for evolution to occur.

For me, I cannot agree with predz23 in that all the living organisms we see today are all evolved from a common ancestor. The difference between us is that we have different opinions on how far evolution can go. For me, I dont think a single-cell amoeba can evolve into a complex multicellular organisms like human. For predz, he/she thinks that all the living organisms we see today are descended from the same ancestor.

Who is right, who is wrong? We do not know. Because as of yet, science has not witness or documented an evolution so drastic that an order can evolve into another order (check out biology classification to know the difference between specie, genus, family, order class, kingdom etc). We have seen wolves to dogs, but have we seen wolves to bears? At most, we can only speculate that probably wolves descended from bears, who can be for certain?

Now if you want to weigh proofs, logically evolution appears to have a more viable explaination of the origin of life, but then again, not everyone can accept that. Evolutionist are convinced by the current evidence that we could have descended from a common ancestor, but there are other people out that who do not agree, or slightly agree, or still need some more persuasion and convincing. Not everyone can accept a theory, given the same amount of evidence, some need more evidence.

For me, I think that since the beginning of time, an array of living organisms are already present. From just a few, evolutions give rise to many variations, e.g from maybe 10 birds of the same size and color, to 1000000 birds of different beak sizes, colors, physical size, etc. Evolution gives rise to variation, but I dont think it is by evolution that man has descended from a common ancestor.

 

[RedHot]

Good stuff...so yea.. basically want to proof, give 100%(not 99%) evidence if not its FAKE! lol...(Y)

yea... so in short, <PICTURES OR IT DID'NT HAPPEN!!!>

 

[ymmak]

That's an inference, I want a direct arrow.

Similarly, some of us have infer that maybe whales have evolved from land-dwelling mammals. There is no "single piece of observable, quantifiable, PHYSICAL evidence", that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals.

The Lion and Tiger share enough common DNA to create offspring, because they share a common ancestor. But if God or a perfect designer created the lion and the tiger, shouldn't they not be able to create offspring? Shouldn't lions only make lions and tigers only Tigers?

An assumption has been made here. The poster assume that if God created lion and tigers separately, they should not produce offspring. Second assumption, he/she assumed that sharing similar DNA means that they evolved from a common ancestor.

Read my post many pages before, and by another softie kym. Not everyone interprets this as:

similar DNA = not coincidence, but descended from common ancestor

Some biologists interpret this as:

similar DNA = this similar portion of DNA is essential to what we call "life". Without this similar DNA, life probably cannot occur.

The point I am trying to make is that you can place all the evidence on the table for both camps, but different people will react differently to these evidences. At the end of the day, we choose our sides based on what we are more comfortable, where we place our faith (or trust or whatever you call it) in.

 

[predz23]

They're all part of the feline family.
And who said it is evidence against creationism? Did God make only ONE pair of felines? It is not said that God made only ONE set of felines. It is also not specified that He made only two of each kind. He could have made Tigers and Lions, but with similar traits and genes to each other.

And besides, even if He didn't create Tigers and Lions separately on the first 6 days, I don't see how is it a chain of reasoning against Creation.

Take humans for example. If you believe in Creation, then you believe that God made Adam and Eve and they are the common ancestor.
Then how come the Indians and Africans have dark skin, Americans have fair skins, Asians have dark hair, etc..?
Because, as you've said, we share the same gene pool. God must have allowed it to happen, and for once, you are right in saying that evolution exists. Because people went to various parts of the world and adapted to the conditions there and thus changed.

I finally get what you're trying to get at when you say that evolution exists on the micro-level. But that is more of an argument for Adaptation.

1.) with such a statement I could also say God could have also made evolution. and that brings us nowhere

2.)

I finally get what you're trying to get at when you say that evolution exists on the micro-level. But that is more of an argument for Adaptation.

Which IS evolution, the species ADAPTS, and over time the adaptions create a whole new species

for every generation there is one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change.............

All those changes pile up with the latest generation = different enough creature to be called a new species. Micro evolution is the same thing as macro evolution. Micro is within a species (dog breeds) macro is not (lizards to snakes, big cat into tigers and lions)

 

[ymmak]

1.) with such a statement I could also say God could have also made evolution. and that brings us nowhere

2.) Which IS evolution, the species ADAPTS, and over time the adaptions create a whole new species

for every generation there is one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change, one change.............

All those changes pile up with the latest generation = different enough creature to be called a new species. Micro evolution is the same thing as macro evolution. Micro is within a species (dog breeds) macro is not (lizards to snakes, big cat into tigers and lions)

1) Possible, but not everyone can agree, but that will be another round of debate, haha.

2) Agree, evolution occurs as long as there is a change in gene pool (read my posts and many others by babbage, hifi_killer and predz23 to understand what we are talking about). A small insignificant change at a time can lead to a drastic noticeable change over a loooooooo...ooong period of time. But like I said, not everyone agree with the extent to which evolution can occur. For me, I do not think that evolution can have such a great extent as to "transform" let's say a cow into a bird.

 

[predz23]

... For me, I do not think that evolution can have such a great extent as to "transform" let's say a cow into a bird.

no scientist has ever made that claim, no scientist will ever make that claim. I dont even know where to begin with that statement, no single cow can turn into a bird. If you said cows become a species of birds, that makes more sense. But it still makes no sense. especially after cows have their own evolutionary pathway, and birds have their own evolutionary pathway.
if you have doubts over evolution because you dont think random animal A can evolve into random animal X then you don't really understand evolution. Saying something like suggests you completely missed the point.

 

[EngelFaeuste]

Similarly, some of us have infer that maybe whales have evolved from land-dwelling mammals. There is no "single piece of observable, quantifiable, PHYSICAL evidence", that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals.

I know,

but I am going to the root of the other stand. I am questioning the existence of the creator himself. No creator, no creationism. I didn't say evolution is an absolute truth.

(shit I lost my bet)

 

[ymmak]

no scientist has ever made that claim, no scientist will ever make that claim. I dont even know where to begin with that statement,

Notice, I used the phrase "let's say" to hedge my sentence? Please read my post very very carefully. Now to quote what you have said in post 118:

No, dolphins and whales evolved from a land dwelling meat eater

If I changed the cow into bird example to and replace it with the above, maybe I will be clearer in my meaning:

"...For me, I do not think that evolution can have such a great extent as to cause an evolution of dolphins and whales from a land-dwelling meat eater."

no single cow can turn into a bird. If you said cows become a species of birds, that makes more sense. But it still makes no sense. especially after cows have their own evolutionary pathway, and birds have their own evolutionary pathway.

I really do not know what you are saying in the first 2 sentences. And your last sentence is exactly my point. Read my point 149, last paragraph. I believe (you may not agree with me, but that's fine) that in the beginning, an array for animals were already present, and evolution gives rise to more variation within the specie, which concur with you that cows and birds have their own exclusive, distinct evolution pathway.

Now let's ignore the cow and birds, but replace them with the whales and dolphins example which you suggest. You have suggested that whales and dolphins could have evolved from land-dwelling mammals. But my opinion is (my opinion, you may take it or leave it, no obligations) that whales and dolphins were already present since the beginning of time, but they could have evolved to become bigger, faster and smarter over several generations (I have only quoted beneficial traits, but they may have also developed such non-harmful mutations like thumb or tailbone or whatever), and they have no relation at all to land-dwelling animals.

if you have doubts over evolution because you dont think random animal A can evolve into random animal X then you don't really understand evolution. Saying something like suggests you completely missed the point.

Why have you assume that by having the opinion that animal A cannot evolve to animal X = I dont really understand evolution? Just because I disagree with you, does that mean I am an ignorant forum spammer who doesnt know what evolution is? I have not doubt your knowledge and opinions on evolution, but you have doubted mine, and to be honest, I feel offended.

I completely miss the point? I dont think I have miss the point or contradict myself at all, but I may have miss your point, maybe you can enlighten me on your point. Maybe my knowledge of evolution may be limited as compared to yours, such that it impedes me from seeing as far and deep as you, thus not sharing the same view as you. In that case, please enlightened me on the things I have missed out, so that I may have a better take-home msg when I view this thread the next time. I certainly do not feel very fruitful or that your comments are constructive when you give comments like "you dont completely understand about evolution" or "you have missed the point", without advising me on where I have misunderstood or gone wrong in my explaination. If you think you have more superior knowledge on this discussion that I may see eye to eye with you, do enlighten me.

BTW, READ MY POSTS CAREFULLY AGAIN (which I believe you have not really understood, or even read). I agree all along with you that evolution exist, it is the extent of evolution that I disagree with.

 

[ymmak]

I know,

but I am going to the root of the other stand. I am questioning the existence of the creator himself. No creator, no creationism. I didn't say evolution is an absolute truth.

(shit I lost my bet)

Hi EngelFaeuste,

I know where you are coming from, I just want to throw the question back at you for argument sake, no offence yea. Haha.

God may feel real to me, but maybe not to he or she or you or someone else. There is no way I can prove that God is real unless God appears very real to you too. My proof that God exists is only relevant for myself, but irrelevant to you. So in a way, no one can prove God's existence. So in a way, the believe in God or creationism comes more from faith, than from facts or knowledge.

You can call me foolish to believe in a God and creationism, but this is something I can live with. I dont mind.

 

[hifi_killer]

but I am going to the root of the other stand. I am questioning the existence of the creator himself. No creator, no creationism. I didn't say evolution is an absolute truth.

(shit I lost my bet)

nobody cares.

The validity and purpose of religion in the modern context does not depend on the scientifically proven existence of creator.

Look at it this way, if science is one day able to proof that creator/god exists , And that this creator/god actually did all this wonderful things.
Well then religion will lose its spiritual dimension, and it wont be religion anymore, it will just be another discipline of science.

 

[ymmak]

Haha, and what will it be called? Scientology? Ok, sorry, I know its lame.

My 111st post, good number.

 

[Vaiyen]

Vaiyen, nope i've never seen it, nor do i want to.

so better not say something of which u're not sure k?
Very misleading.