FileFront Forums - Evolution

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Evolution (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/201115-evolution.html)

I think it explains alot (but just for now).. Man has evolved to a specie that has grown alot of curiosity, so its only logical that man is destend to find out how we did come to the point of "existance". The evolution theory seems to me a good one and only the most logical one for the moment. And Darwin proved that "old" species do evolve into "new" species. So yeah, the poll's clear to me :)

To settle this, read Genome, Chapter 1. Explains EVERYTHING.

All life is complex, no matter how simple it may seem. How long do you think it took a simple water microbe to become how it is today? 4.7 billion years right? But how do you think it became that way? Evolution has been proven. Humans contain genes of these 'simple' water microbes and use them in similar ways. What are we? A product of gene transitions. The same genes that exist within us exist in nearly every other species on this planet. THEY HAVE THE SAME FUNCTION. A species is meerly a collection of different genes, a combination of them. Put all the genes together, take out the neccessary genes, take out any unneccesary genes (eyesight, taste, hearing...[More like gene complexes]), provide all neccesarry materials, and poof. Youd get an organism. A seamingly random yet complex organism at that.

Evolution is the process of change when one species attempts to adapt more to its new environment. Why do monkeys still exist? This can be explained through a branching method of thinking. Species dont always live together and so they get seperated (meaning they live in different environments). Recall that Evolution is the process of change when one species attempts to adapt more to its new environment. Since the species of monkeys living in the warmer climate didnt need its fur, it lost most of its fur. Through this change, we can trace humans and chimpanzess back to one common ancestor.

And for the simplicity argument I have this to say: A single grain of rice contains over twice as many genes as the human. How is that simple? According to the logic that microbes arent complex, that makes us simple creatures.

As for the carbon dating argument. Carbon dating works but it doesnt give back a certain year. It gives back a range of years as to when the carbon in the organism was at 100% of its capacity (or whatever number is needed to sustain).

So please, dont attempt to argue with a theory which shows 1000000% more evidence than one which sustains that all species were created by a great being.

[color=black]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [/color

jobero InCogNiTo]

If that were the case there wouldn't be the need to find the 'missing link', and it would be called the 'Fact of Evolution' surely? The only odd thing i find with the theory is that where the hell are all the fossil records of the 'inbetween' stages of evolution? But yeah i do believe it occurs, albeit not as drastically as Darwin puts it.

Hypotheses are formulated from observations, and theories develop from these hypotheses. Both theories and hyptheses are based on objective inferences.

Evolution can be observed--as a fact--in bacteria, insects, even mice--with dramatic changes to these organisms, reacting to changes in enviroment. With larger organisms, which have longer life spans, it is less obvious and harder to study.

There are gaps in fossil records (do you know how difficult it is to find an 80 million-year-old set of skeletal remains from an extinct species?) because it's a lengthy, difficult process. All that is required is time; more and more gaps will be filled in, as it has been for the last hundred years. Using objective inferences, we can ascertain in the meantime what course of evolution a species probably toke, based on hard science.

Quote:

If his theory is 100% correct then I guess you can expect to see apes and monkeys walking down the high street at some point in the future - although they won't be the same right!? Oh, that's assuming we've not managed to decimate our planet and make them extinct first.

1. There are no percentages of accuracy in theories--is the "Theory of Gravity" 100% correct? No, because we still have no idea what exactly (precisely) gravity is, but we can scientifically measure its effect on things (here, in space, and on the moon). Yet it's pretty much accepted as a fact--what is a fact? A very generally accepted truth, arrived at by scientific methodology.

2. Why do apes have to turn into bipeds? Evolution has no plan for a life form. If at some point in the future a species of ape needs this ability, to walk upright on two legs, it will begin to develop this ability. If it doesn't need to change, it won't.

3. Extinction is a natural process on this planet--things have gone extinct far before we were here, things are going extinct now, and things will continue to go extinct long after we are gone. This is the order of life--life and death, one species disappears and another species fills that void. Life goes on.

Can creationism really be called a theory? It doesn't have any scientific background at all. In fact, I would even call it a hypothesis. It is just an idea.

Quick note: carbon dating cannot prove how old the earth/certain stones are, because it becomes highly after - what? - 50000 years? There are other methods: argon dating for example.

Creationism is as much a scientific theory as the idea that parking a plane in the WTC will bring you onto the highway to heaven where you receive infinite pleasure by 72 young virgins.

As long as we can't prove fundamentalists wrong (because they don't obey scientific methods and don't use theories that can be falsified) we have to accept their ideas. Wait... No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mephistopheles

And why do whales have rudimentary legs? The evolution of the whales had long been criticized by creationists because there had not been enough fossils to prove it. But during the past years the collection of transitional vertebrate fossils has grown and the (creationist) criticism isn't substantiated anymore (if it had ever been).

Here are some pictures of transitional fossils:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence...chus_large.jpg

http://vbeaud.free.fr/Sciences/Biolo...akicetus_2.jpg

http://www.kp-art.fi/taustaa/taustaa2/img/02_5_7.jpg

http://www.cas.cz/ziva/cisla/0405/17.jpg

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...ocetidaeA5.jpg

I suggest you follow this link to get the whole story:

http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2005/0...-whales-tales/

WOW cheers :D . Those are some of the meanest looking critters i've ever seen! Wonder why the top one 'decided' it would be better off being aquatic though - it looks perfectly capable of looking after itself don't ya think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by [jobero] InCogNiTo

Yeah, it's not very often that a species goes into the water--they're usually developing out of it and onto land.

It could be that its habitat was closed off and cilmatic conditions caused it to flood very often. Maybe tectonic activity was driving that bit of land underwater somewhere. Generally, an area growing wetter and wetter over generations would task this species to change, so it can survive in such an environment.

But I'm just guessing here.

I believe extra terrestrials seeded us into rapidly advancing our genetics. Other wise, why hasn't any other species that has thrived as long as us not taken their own steps into advancing as we have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elem3nt

I believe extra terrestrials seeded us into rapidly advancing our genetics. Other wise, why hasent any other species that has thrived as long as us not taken their own steps into advancing as we have.

Just a theory I have, but I believe that at any given point in time, only one species can be dominant. We also have the advantage of highly developed brains.