Religion Irreligion - the world's fastest growing 'religion'

What is your affliation?

  • Non-religious

    Votes: 146 73.4%
  • Christian

    Votes: 26 13.1%
  • Muslim

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Jewish

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Hindu

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Buddhist

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 8.5%

  • Total voters
    199
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,476
as for Evolution and selective stuff

how has stuff been tested

Darwin was around two hundred years ago
he made his theories on his collection of stuff

he wasn't privy to DNA tests that dispell stuff he believed back then

for instance you can't change stuff
a Bactria can not become a dog

a dog can't be mutated to become a mouse

a mouse can not be mutated to become a shark

that flies in the face of everything we know today!
All those statements shows is that you don't understand evolution or alternatively you're being consciously and deliberately dishonest.

In evolution a plant does not magically turn into an animal within one or two generations, something that you clearly believe should happen. Neither does a cat turn into a dog in one generation. Or at all, given that (and please re-read this bit carefully) evolution is essentially about common ancestry (or more correctly 'common descent') between different species of both animals and plants.

If that's the type of thing you want as evidence, you won't find any because that's NOT what evolution is about.

Nonetheless evolution has been directly observed many times, and we have overwhelming observable, empirical evidence to support both the fact and model (theory) of evolution. The model is still being tinkered with in light of new discoveries and advances in technologies such as better DNA sequencing. Adjusting the model in the light of new evidence does not however falsify the fact of evolution.

Speciation is one species evolving into another species. Not only has it been directly observed, but we also have hundred of thousands of specific pieces of evidence (at least) across a number of scientific fields that support and confirm the fact of evolution.

Some examples of observed speciation (in other words evolution) are:

  • Hawthorn fly
  • Three-spined sticklebacks
  • Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
  • Tennessee cave salamanders
  • Greenish Warbler
  • Ensatina salamanders
  • Larus gulls
  • Petroica multicolor
  • Drosophila
  • Mayr bird fauna
  • Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
  • Apple maggot
  • Faeroe Island house mouse
  • Primula kewensis
  • Croatian lizards

A study published a couple of years ago in the Royal Society journal "Proceedings B" has found coackroaches have evolved separately up to nine different times across Australia. A team of evolutionary biologists at the University of Sydney sequenced the DNA of 25 different species of soil-burrowing cockroaches from around Australia, and compared the results with DNA from a more slim-line type of cockroach that eats and burrows into wood. They found soil-burrowing cockroaches have possibly evolved up to nine different times from the wood-feeders. The researchers found the evolution of soil-burrowing cockroaches occurred as recently as 5 million years ago in New South Wales and as far back as 15 million years ago in Queensland. What the study also confirmed is that evolution can be predictable because different species often (but not always) evolve the same characteristics when exposed to the same environmental pressures. But they do this seperately. It also supported the idea that different environmental pressures lead to different rates and types of evolution. Just because the cockroach has not evolved at a great rate of knots, compared with other species that have faced different types of environental pressures does not mean that modern cockroaches hae not evolved at all. They clearly have.

The above is another example of how advances in DNA sequencing are confirming / answering questions about the evolutuonary processes of a great many species of animals, insects, birds and reptiles. Including humans.

It's basic biology. We have actually observed the evolution of one species into another species.

Scientific literature does contain dozens of examples of speciation events in plants, insects and worms.

In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection - for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits - and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders.

For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

Scientists have also directly observed that mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. To use the fruit fly example above, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their very existence and development demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures and changes to anatomy, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

More speciation occurs and the two new species move further apart in gene structure, physiology and so on.

That is evoluton in action. Evolution clearly exists.

Molecular biology has also discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond the point mutations described above, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in new ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features hence creating new species with different anatomies. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

The above, as well as many other observed examples as well as overwhelming genetic evidence, aptly demonstrate that evolution occurs. DNA testing suggests that macroevolution (what we might also called common descent) also very likely occurs.

Of course, examples of common descent have not been directly observed because no one was there to observe it over such a long period of time (the same problem that exists when there is no direct eyewitness in a murder trial). However the above empirical evidence (which is only a tiny fraction of the evidence that has been gathered) clearly shows that speciation with different genetic mutations influencing anatomy can occur and has been observed to occur.

So based on our understanding and observations of genetics, it is very reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur and that there are no rational reasons or contrary evidence to support the idea that they can't occur.

It is therefore also logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events (which do occur - we have observed them in action) would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc., as per the biological classifications I outlined earlier.

Again the evidence for evolution is there and it is vast.

Molecular biologists, geneticists and chemists will keep adding to the vast catalogue of empirical evidence supporting both the fact and theory of evolution.

NOT ONE PIECE of the many hundreds of thousands of picees (and some scientists are now talking in the millions of pieces - but I'll be conservative) of evidence gathered up to this point have falsified evolution. Not one.

It only takes one piece of contrary evidence to falsify evolution. If you're so sure that evolution doesn't occur, present just ONE piece of evidence that falsifies evolution. For someone who discredits the scientific fact (see definition of 'scientific fact' above) of evolution, surely that's not too difficult for you to do.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,477
I do understand what you're saying

you're into half baked narratives
I'm into scientific theories supported by as much empirical evidence as can be found.

you can't point to the big bang because it needs something to have caused it
That may be true, but science doesnt know what that is.

you need to point to what caused it
Once again. Because science doesn't currently know what caused the Big Bang, does NOT invalidate the Big Bang Theory

because God sits outside the dimensions of time, space and time ...
Isn't that just a half baked narrative, that has little in the way of evidence to support it?

The big bang was part of a process not the cause
That's what I've been saying.

You know.

"Because science doesn't currently know what caused the Big Bang, does NOT invalidate the Big Bang Theory."
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
yes but when has DNA shown that species have jumped and changed to other species

lol

mate! again you need to put a bacteria or anything into a situation and mutate it into something else

give me an example of a computer taking DNA from one species and allowing it to mutate into another

it's been tried of course

no matter what you do to a species you can't change it into anther

as a matter of fact mutations harm and degrade the control species
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
I'm into scientific theories supported by as much empirical evidence as can be found.



That may be true, but science doesnt know what that is.



Once again. Because science doesn't currently know what caused the Big Bang, does NOT invalidate the Big Bang Theory



Isn't that just a half baked narrative, that has little in the way of evidence to support it?



That's what I've been saying.

You know.

"Because science doesn't currently know what caused the Big Bang, does NOT invalidate the Big Bang Theory."
how can something be empirical evidence but true?

when it's never seen what caused it?

do you realise that the crux of what you're arguing about is not the big bang.. but the cause of the big bang
without the cause there can be no big bang

so you can't look at the big bang till you can get behind the big bang

on its own the big bang would mean lots of banging and a heap of universes exploding into action everywhere

and yet we know this isn't happening

you'd be getting them under your bed
in your car
in the kitchen

etc etc etc
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
do your theory can't be scientific
you'd have half formed universes
quarter formed

just trillions of them going off in different stages of what you called development

as you said it needs to be repeated

and we know they're not

because there would be evidence of more than one over billions of years

are you with me?
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
we only have evidence of one over fifteen billion years

a once off random big bang and from that came perfection AnND order ,from chaos!

all of that is against the laws of science

no matter what you think

forget about your definitions of what is science

they're meaningless

scientific laws laugh at what you're suggesting!

because surely scientific laws take precedence over scientific theory

for example if no law exists and you have theory you can run with it

but in this case theory can't trump scientific laws
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,487
yes but when has DNA shown that species have jumped and changed to other species
I've explained this already.

mate! again you need to put a bacteria or anything into a situation and mutate it into something else
Read what I presented above.

no matter what you do to a species you can't change it into anther
I've already explained this to you above.

Evolution is a scientific fact supported by overwhelming evidence. You just don't understand what evolution actually is.

Once again.

In evolution a plant does not magically turn into an animal within one or two generations, something that you clearly believe should happen. Neither does a cat turn into a dog in one generation.

Or at all, given that (and please re-read this bit carefully) evolution is essentially about common ancestry (or more correctly 'common descent') of different species of both animals and plants.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,489
you haven't explained it
I have. You just don't understand what evolution actually is. Nor the "theory of evolution".

Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the supporting evidence for such is so overwhelming. No piece of evidence ever discovered, across a variety of fields, including biochemisty, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, comparative embryology, molecular biology, palaeontology and radioisotope dating, amongst others has falsified evolution.

There is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for further examples (even though this continues so that the "model" (theory) of evolution can continued to be refined/improved). Evolution as a scientific fact has been confirmed by empirical evidence in the above mentioned scientific fields over and over again.
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
what you believe is you have common ancestry with a fish but dnA proves through computer simulation
you can set up a super computer algorithm with your DNA and you can throw any scientific and mathematical program at it you want and you'll never randomly turn into you lol

that's been shown
I've explained this already.



Read what I presented above.



I've already explained this to you above.

Evolution is a scientific fact supported by overwhelming evidence. You just don't understand what evolution actually is.

Once again.

In evolution a plant does not magically turn into an animal within one or two generations, something that you clearly believe should happen. Neither does a cat turn into a dog in one generation.

Or at all, given that (and please re-read this bit carefully) evolution is essentially about common ancestry (or more correctly 'common descent') of different species of both animals and plants.
 

TheHeatleyStand

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Posts
5,866
Likes
1,126
Location
Iceland
AFL Club
Carlton
ok mate
you're talking random changes

if you talk to any computer programmer and ask him to do this

get a simple functioning program and make some random changes to its code

do it billions of times and then stand back and see how that program operates

then do it again and again billions of times

just random

and we get a perfect complex program

he would think you're nuts!


and yet you think it's highly probably

lol
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,492
what you believe is you have common ancestry with a fish but dnA proves through computer simulation
See? You just don't understand or are particularly knowledgable about science.

Are you referrring to DNA sequencing? DNA sequencing is the process of determining the nucleic acid sequence, which is the order of nucleotides in DNA.

DNA contains the genetic information that allows all forms of life to function, grow and reproduce. The advent of rapid DNA sequencing methods has greatly accelerated biological and medical research and discovery, including the overhwleming evidence for the scientific fact and scientific theory of the model of evolution. DNA sequencing technology has been instrumental in the sequencing of complete DNA sequences, or genomes of numerous types and species of life, including the human genome and other complete DNA sequences of many animal, plant, and microbial species.

DNA sequencing is used in molecular biology to study genomes and the proteins they encode. Information obtained using DNA sequencing allows researchers to identify changes in genes, associations with diseases and phenotypes, and identify potential drug targets.

DNA sequencing is used in evolutionary biology to study how different organisms are related and how they evolved. This information is used for the scientific theory of evolution

DNA sequencing is used in metagenomics which involves identification of organisms present in a body of water, sewage, dirt, debris filtered from the air, or swab samples from organisms. Knowing which organisms are present in a particular environment is critical to research in ecology, epidemoiology, microbiology, and other fields.

And of course medicine where medical technicians may sequence genes (or, theoretically, full genomes) from patients to determine if there is risk of genetic diseases. This is a form of genetic testing though some genetic tests may not involve DNA sequencing.

And finally forensics where DNA sequencing may be used along with DNA profiling methods for forensic idenitification and paternity testing. DNA testing has evolved tremendously in the last few decades to ultimately link a DNA print to what is under investigation. The DNA patterns in fingerprint, saliva, hair follicles, etc. uniquely separate each living organism from another and of course is the basics for evolutionary biology. Testing DNA is a technique which can detect specific genomes in a DNA strand to produce a unique and individualized pattern. Every living organism ever created has a one of a kind DNA pattern, which can be determined through DNA testing. It is extremely rare that two people have exactly the same DNA pattern, therefore DNA testing is highly successful.

All the empirical evidence collected to date (millions upon millions of individual pieces of evidence), including DNA sequencing overwhelmingly supports the scientific fact and scientific theory of evolution. The absolutley overwhelming supportive empirical evidence in support of the fact of evolituon and the theory of evolution

Not ONE piece of evidence from the millions of indivudual pieces of evidencs observed has falsified evolution. NOT ONE. There is therefore no reason to doubt that evolution is fact. The deniers clearly have another agenda (most often religious) to pursue.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,497
WOW! Roylion, you have more patience than anyone I have ever encountered on BF.
Well thanks, but it's more about trying to explain that there are excellent reasons to "believe" that theories like the 'Big Bang' and 'evolution' are in fact correct.

Not for a minute do I claim they have been absolutely 'proved". Science doesn't do that.

However both scientific theories do provide the best (and indeed the most supported with evidence) explanation of how life developed on the planet [evolution] or how the universe developed from the beginning and indeed appears to be still developing. [Big Bang]. At this present stage with the evidence that has been collected I see little reason to "believe" that a better explanation exists.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,498
you can set up a super computer algorithm with your DNA and you can throw any scientific and mathematical program at it you want and you'll never randomly turn into you lol
Evolution does not mean a drastic and obvious change from one type of organism into another, although more distantly related organisms with different genmes caused by mutations will obviously look quite different from one another. Those who think this way somehow believe that evolution is something like two dogs breeding to suddenly produce a cat, or two guinea pigs mating to produce a mouse. That doesn't happen in evolution and has never been suggested in the theory.

If you think that's what evoloutionists are suggesting then you know very little about evolution

In evolution basic mechanisms like mutation (see DNA explanation above), migration, genetic drift and natural selection are at work.

The scientific case for universal common descent of all life on the planet (whic is central to the whole concept of evolution) is overwhelming. The development of a new species or 'speciation' has been observed.

Universal common descent specifically suggests that all of the earth's known biota (life) are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes. All the millions of pieces of genetic evdence found to date, supports universal common descent.

Because DNA is universal to all life, its presence very strongly supports the idea that all creatures on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. It also explains how the proliferation of genetic mutations (essentially copy errors), combined with the processes of natural selection, enables evolution to happen. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. Evolution. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice and so on.

This does not argue that humans evolved from chimpanzees or cats though, (as is the usual cry from those creationists who don't understand what evolution actually is), only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. The amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. For example we have well known and documented transitional forms between fish, snakes, lizards, and frogs, between whales, dolphins, and other land mammals, between reptiles and other proto-mammals, between birds and dinosaurs, etc. ASs I have said repeatedly, the evidence is overwhelming. There is no serious debate in science whether or not common descent (i.e. evolution) happened.

One of the examples of transitional fossils mentioned above, is our collection of fossil hominids (see picture below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.



  • (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
  • (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
  • (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
  • (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
  • (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
  • (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
  • (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
  • (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
  • (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
  • (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
  • (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
  • (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
  • (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
  • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Added to the above, humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos (including humans and including you and I when we were embryos), all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

74623d304a610fc4e1edae883ff902d2.png


In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

Natural selection also exists. For example bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. Over time in most species, the number of mutations will multiply to the extent where speciation will occur. Evolution in action.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

Evolution in action is the development of a new species or 'speciation'. So, two populations that cannot mate to produce successful offspring are by definition separate species. When enough genetic changes accumulate in a population, eventually it loses the ability to mate with others of its species. Then, by definition, it becomes a new species. In other words, 'evolution' has occurred.

Here's an example of observed speciation (i.e evolution).

Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying finches since 1973 on an island called Daphne Major in the Galapagos. When they first began their studies, only two species of Finch lived on Daphne Major: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. But, in 1981, they noticed that an odd new finch had arrived at the island. It was a hybrid, a mix between a cactus finch and a medium ground finch. It had an extra large beak, an unusual hybrid genome, and a new kind of song. But somehow it was still able to find a mate. The female also had some hybrid chromosomes of her own. So their offspring were very different from the other birds on the island. The biologists observed that after four finch generations, (about four-five years) a drought killed off many of the birds on Daphne Major. In fact, almost the entire hybrid line was exterminated. Only a brother and sister pair remained. The two family members mated with each other, producing offspring that were even more unique than their parent line. From that point on, it was observed the odd population of finches mated only with each other. They were never seen to breed with the cactus finches or the medium ground finches on the island. The hybrid finches had become a brand new species.

Evolution in action and observed.

If you somehow believe that evolution is something like two dogs breeding to suddenly produce a cat, or two guinea pigs mating to produce a mouse, then it's clear that there a complete misunderstanding of what evolution actually. Evolution is scientific fact. The model of evolution (which is how the process occurred) is scientific theory. The model of evolution is being altered all the time as new pieces of evidence are found. This does not alter the fct of evolution. And of course not ONE piece of the millions of pieces of evidence that have been collected has ever falsified the scientific fact of evolution.
 

Boston tiger

Premiership Player
Joined
May 10, 2010
Posts
4,741
Likes
3,413
Location
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
Well thanks, but it's more about trying to explain that there are excellent reasons to "believe" that theories like the 'Big Bang' and 'evolution' are in fact correct.

Not for a minute do I claim they have been absolutely 'proved". Science doesn't do that.

However both scientific theories do provide the best (and indeed the most supported with evidence) explanation of how life developed on the planet [evolution] or how the universe developed from the beginning and indeed appears to be still developing. [Big Bang]. At this present stage with the evidence that has been collected I see little reason to "believe" that a better explanation exists.
But why throw them up against a creation story?
To say it a better explanation than some sheep herders thousand a of years ago is dishonest. The Big Bang and evolution have nothing to with creation.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,027
Likes
8,624
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #3,500
But why throw them up against a creation story?
To say it a better explanation than some sheep herders thousand a of years ago is dishonest. The Big Bang and evolution have nothing to with creation.
Evolution deals with the appearance of various animal species as well as the appearance of homo sapiens on the planet. So does part of the creation narrative of Genesis 1.20 to 1.31
 
Top Bottom