Print

[Benito]

Benito

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

How much does something have to change before being a different species?

I ♥ Open Girlfriend (What!? I didn't add this.. must have been Solly!)

• 

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

We do physically change: That cannot be denied, due to the changes in average height over some hundreds of years.

That's not sufficient evidence. Change in height is easily attributed to improvements in environmental factors - e.g. diet, healthcare, disease, etc. Not evolution, sorry.

Evolution only works when things die, due to the way the world's been going, in most "civilised" parts of the world, almost everyone lives to breed.

Besides, to all you nay-sayers that are inspired by religious belief: Evolution doesn't rule out the existence of superior beings, that did or did not affect the evolution of mankind. We just don't need them anymore. Just like we don't need other gods to explain thunder. (of course, moral and existensial need is something else...)

Many people believe in both God and evolution. I heard an interesting thing comparing the creationist story to evolutionary history as a metaphor (it was kinda bullshitty, but it kinda worked).

Can we not watch certain things evolve, like things with a short life span, can't remember what insect it was but there are many generations in one human lifetime, 100ds so we can watch them adapt and so on, small changes etc.

I may be wrong, but I am fairly sure I've seen this on TV or in a science lesson got told about it.

Fruitfly. I think my mum used to work with fruitfly evolution/mutation back in her biologist days; because they've got such short lifespans and such simple genetic structures, they adapt genetically very quickly.

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

Evolution is merely the adaptation to environment through the "natural selection" of individuals with advantageous genes, which would, naturally, pass their genes on to their offspring. Skin colour can count as evolution, if it's hereditary, but it can also be merely environmental, if it's say, just a skin tan.

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

How much does something have to change before being a different species?

By definition, two individuals of opposite gender are considered a species if they can produce fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can produce offspring that are infertile; these are two different species. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring; they are one species. Nice and simple.

[Alex2539]

Alex2539

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

Evolution is adaptation in that the genome changes to adapt to the environment through the generatations. Evolution is therefore adaption. This is not to say that adaptation is necessarily evolution. Adaptation is merely to adapt to an environment or situation. A very simple example testable by anyone reading this is to turn off the lights so that it's dark (if you don'thave really good blinds, this won't work during the daytime). Everything will look pitch black and you'll be practically blind. After a few seconds, depending on how dark it is, you might be able to identify some basic shapes. After a few minutes, your eyes and brain will have adapted to the dark and you can properly interpret your surroundings despite the low light. Less efficiently that in a normal light, but well enough. This is adaptation at work in mere minutes. It's not evolution though. Evolution would occur if you were to live for thousands of years under the Earth in dark caves. Your eyes would change to be similar to those of nocturnal animals in order to see in the dark, and your other senses, such as hearing, would increase in order to compensate for your decrease in vision. At this point you have effectively created a new sort of nocturnal human. This "breed" would be an evolved form of what we perceive as humans.

It's sort of a rectangle/square thing:
A square is necessarily a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

"They say 'Don't sweat the little things!', but in the end, the little things are all that matter..."
--Alex2539

[Benito]

Benito

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

How much does something have to change before being a different species?

By definition, two individuals of opposite gender are considered a species if they can produce fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can produce offspring that are infertile; these are two different species. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring; they are one species. Nice and simple.

But wait, in that definition how would things have evolved as it would just be the same species all the time, not new ones from old creatures 

I ♥ Open Girlfriend (What!? I didn't add this.. must have been Solly!)

• 

[Limey]

Limey

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

its a stupid Theory who beliefs oure grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrand pa was a dot.
INFO:http://drdino.com/

I think you need to look up the definition of evolution. u__u

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

How much does something have to change before being a different species?

It's considered a different species at the point that the different groups can't reproduce together.



And I've gotta say, most people misunderstand evolution.  Evolution isn't the genes changing to adapt tho the environment.  Its basically this; There WILL be mutations in births, no matter what.  Basically, the mutations that would impede the creatures, will most likely lead to a creatures death.  A mutation that helps an animal, will more likely help that creature survive.  So it works out that the helpful genes get spread on, while the un-helpful mutations don't work out.  Think about that, it makes sense.

I don't think humans will evolve much more, and if we do, it will be very slowly because;
A.  We have such a HUGE population, it would take forever for mutations to spread.
B.  In our modern world, we've gotten to the point where you can survive and reproduce even with mutations... Meaning not just the good ones will spread :/

[4Sword]

4Sword

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

Finally, I can bring examples out of The Time Machine by HG Wells.  In it, the Eloi and the Morlocks are seperate species.  They were once human, but overtime changed to the point where they could no longer interbreed, at least evidence is not shown for it.  There was probably a time when they could, but as time went by, they could not, they became too different.

So, as a species becomes more seperated from its ancestor and members of its own species, the original species becomes two new species.

Evolution is a change in genes, adaptation, selctionism, etc.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

How much does something have to change before being a different species?

By definition, two individuals of opposite gender are considered a species if they can produce fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can produce offspring that are infertile; these are two different species. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring; they are one species. Nice and simple.

But wait, in that definition how would things have evolved as it would just be the same species all the time, not new ones from old creatures 

It's to do with genetic compatibility; the number and type of chromosomes, etc.

its a stupid Theory who beliefs oure grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrand pa was a dot.
INFO:http://drdino.com/

I think you need to look up the definition of evolution. u__u

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

How much does something have to change before being a different species?

It's considered a different species at the point that the different groups can't reproduce together.

Not true. See hybridisation. But true hybrids aren't fertile.

And I've gotta say, most people misunderstand evolution.  Evolution isn't the genes changing to adapt tho the environment.  Its basically this; There WILL be mutations in births, no matter what.  Basically, the mutations that would impede the creatures, will most likely lead to a creatures death.  A mutation that helps an animal, will more likely help that creature survive.  So it works out that the helpful genes get spread on, while the un-helpful mutations don't work out.  Think about that, it makes sense.

I don't think humans will evolve much more, and if we do, it will be very slowly because;
A.  We have such a HUGE population, it would take forever for mutations to spread.
B.  In our modern world, we've gotten to the point where you can survive and reproduce even with mutations... Meaning not just the good ones will spread :/

Limey, it's not just mutation; yes, mutation is the original cause of "new" genes, but it's the natural tendency towards things with advantageous genes to survive. They don't have to be mutants in themselves for this to happen.

Also, you forget: The human genome is so complicated that any minor mutations often results in death before birth, or shortly after, or significant problems in the person's lifespan.

[Limey]

Limey

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

How much does something have to change before being a different species?

By definition, two individuals of opposite gender are considered a species if they can produce fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses can produce offspring that are infertile; these are two different species. Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring; they are one species. Nice and simple.

But wait, in that definition how would things have evolved as it would just be the same species all the time, not new ones from old creatures 

It's to do with genetic compatibility; the number and type of chromosomes, etc.

its a stupid Theory who beliefs oure grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrand pa was a dot.
INFO:http://drdino.com/

I think you need to look up the definition of evolution. u__u

I think some of us are confusing evolution with adaptation. Adaptation is, for example, the changing of a skin colour over time. Evolution is the change from one species to another. I think we agree that humans of different skin colour are still humans. And so far, we've no recorded transition from one species to another.

I'm an evolutionist myself, but I felt that those small points had to be made. I'll contribute properly later.

How much does something have to change before being a different species?

It's considered a different species at the point that the different groups can't reproduce together.

Not true. See hybridisation. But true hybrids aren't fertile.

And I've gotta say, most people misunderstand evolution.  Evolution isn't the genes changing to adapt tho the environment.  Its basically this; There WILL be mutations in births, no matter what.  Basically, the mutations that would impede the creatures, will most likely lead to a creatures death.  A mutation that helps an animal, will more likely help that creature survive.  So it works out that the helpful genes get spread on, while the un-helpful mutations don't work out.  Think about that, it makes sense.

I don't think humans will evolve much more, and if we do, it will be very slowly because;
A.  We have such a HUGE population, it would take forever for mutations to spread.
B.  In our modern world, we've gotten to the point where you can survive and reproduce even with mutations... Meaning not just the good ones will spread :/

Limey, it's not just mutation; yes, mutation is the original cause of "new" genes, but it's the natural tendency towards things with advantageous genes to survive. They don't have to be mutants in themselves for this to happen.

Also, you forget: The human genome is so complicated that any minor mutations often results in death before birth, or shortly after, or significant problems in the person's lifespan.

It really is just mutations.  For example, being taller was an advantage for human beings (looking stronger/bigger against predators, easier walking with longer legs, etc), right?  (I'm actually talking about human ancestors here ), So, a short hominid born would have a much smaller chance of surviving and mating.  A larger one would have a slightly better chance of survival.  Also, some changes sexually attract others.

[4Sword]

4Sword

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

Limey, you are describing selectionism.  That is not to say that mutation hasn't affected the course of human history though. 

The taller ones prospered because they had a greater chance of survival in their environment.  If the environment is different, the short may even prosper.

Mutation has aided human development though.  During the Bubonic plague, humans in Europe with the D32 mutation in their white blood cells were not likely to die or be affected by the disease.  Thus, they had a greater chance of survival.  A population in Africa has bird-like feet with two toes on a foot, but that is just a mutation.  The list goes on.  The point is, evolution is not only mutation, but mutation helps.

[Limey]

Limey

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

Yeah, what I was describing is called 'Natural Seletction'.  And it IS the definition of evolution basically...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

# Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

or technically Evolution is the 'change caused by natural selection'

[4Sword]

4Sword

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

When two groups of the same species change and no longer are compatible with eath other, that is not selectionism, but it is isolationism.  The two seperated groups cannot breed, so in some sense the amount of selection is decreased, but as time goes by, the two stray even further apart genetically and become unlike what was once their species.  The selectionism occurs in the two newfound groups seperately, and may even be the reason for the start of the isolationism, but isolationism in itself is different from natural selection.  The strong may survive, but sometimes the weak for lack of a better word also live on as well.

[Limey]

Limey

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

When two groups of the same species change and no longer are compatible with eath other, that is not selectionism, but it is isolationism.  The two seperated groups cannot breed, so in some sense the amount of selection is decreased, but as time goes by, the two stray even further apart genetically and become unlike what was once their species.  The selectionism occurs in the two newfound groups seperately, and may even be the reason for the start of the isolationism, but isolationism in itself is different from natural selection.  The strong may survive, but sometimes the weak for lack of a better word also live on as well.

I wasn't talking about isolationism O__o

[4Sword]

4Sword

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

You were saying that natural selection was the definition of evolution, and while that is true, isolationism is the expansion of that definition.  Isolationism is not really natural selection, and yet it is still evolution.

[aab]

aab

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
awwk.

We find artifacts and art created by something in times in which only evidence of something different from us, but similar, exist ie: possible ancestors of ourselves was living (The oldest discoveries are around 20-30 000 years if i remmember correctly). Wether we could reproduce with an incarnation of the things only known as skeletons to us today, i dont really know lol. Maybe someone here could search and find out what is believed or proven with this. There are seperate classifications for such things.
So, say hypothetically that they whom produced the evidence of their own free, creative thought were a different species from us.
It makes sense to me that with us being quite unique in our ability to think freely, that this different species at a different time, when we were not alive, doing that same thing which we, uniquely do, were what we were, then. Hence for us to become a different species now, we would have to have evolved.

We do physically change: That cannot be denied, due to the changes in average height over some hundreds of years.

That's not sufficient evidence. Change in height is easily attributed to improvements in environmental factors - e.g. diet, healthcare, disease, etc. Not evolution, sorry.

And i said 'we do physically change', not 'we do evolve'.

I ♥ Sol
.... I ♥ Sol ? wtf how long has that been there? >_> *rrrrrrrrar*

• 

[Psy]

Psy

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

Until a more logical theory comes along (which I doubt will happen), I say fact.

[Cuddle♥Bunny]

Cuddle♥Bunny

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.

• 

[4Sword]

4Sword

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.

Evolution is in some cases proven, therefore it exists and is not a theory (i.e. differenciation and similarities of species).  The reason it is still called a theory is that the religious majority do not want science stepping in for God, even though Darwin himself was a devout Christian man who believed in God.  Another reason that it is left "theory" is that media resources often refer to Darwin's research which at that time was called generalized as the theory of evolution because of over-zealous religionists.  Now, it is accepted as more than a theory, but is left called that due to the fact that it is still controversial to anyone without an open mind.

DNA testing solves crimes by proving that a person's DNA was there.  The only case DNA wouldn't work is if it were fractured or incomplete or the suspects in the case were twins.  Even then though, finger prints would solve the crime because even twins finger prints are different.

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

The reason it is still called a theory is that the religious majority do not want science stepping in for God

You don't understand much about religion, do you?

You see, God didn't neccessarily create the grizzly bear, the polar bear, it could be that He just created the bear... or even *gasp* it could have evolved from another form of life!  Just because God created us doesn't mean that natural selection isn't real.  As for the "theory of evolution", I'd like to see ANYONE prove it.  Natural selection and the process of evolution is a fact.  The "theory of evolution" is merely a theory.

[Cuddle♥Bunny]

Cuddle♥Bunny

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.

Evolution is in some cases proven, therefore it exists and is not a theory (i.e. differenciation and similarities of species).  The reason it is still called a theory is that the religious majority do not want science stepping in for God, even though Darwin himself was a devout Christian man who believed in God.  Another reason that it is left "theory" is that media resources often refer to Darwin's research which at that time was called generalized as the theory of evolution because of over-zealous religionists.  Now, it is accepted as more than a theory, but is left called that due to the fact that it is still controversial to anyone without an open mind.

DNA testing solves crimes by proving that a person's DNA was there.  The only case DNA wouldn't work is if it were fractured or incomplete or the suspects in the case were twins.  Even then though, finger prints would solve the crime because even twins finger prints are different.

Do you have ANY idea what a scientific theory is? It differs from the ordinary use of the term 'theory'. And no science can be proven, otherwise it would be fact, not science.

• 

[Limey]

Limey

Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

Of course it's just a theory.  You can't really define much as fact... A lot of things we teach in schools are theories.

Personally, I think that schools should teach multiple theories, really.  Like intelligent design AND evolution.