Evolution is a Fact

Evolution is a Fact

There are 284 comments on the News24 story from May 21, 2013, titled Evolution is a Fact. In it, News24 reports that:

Teachers won't have any reason to underperform when they realise that government is taking them seriously, says Ace Moloi .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

First Prev
of 15
Next Last

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1 May 21, 2013
Only one flaw, it's the cockroach that is the most successful in the niches on land, shark in the sea. This is evidenced by how little they have changed.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#2 May 21, 2013
Here is you a short list of several more things that they say have not changed or evolved as you like to call it.

The very oldest species on Earth are the cyanobacteria, which seem to have been around virtually unchanged for nearly 4 billion years.

Another remnant of ancient organisms includes the stromatolites, mounds of algae and bacteria. They have been around also largely unchanged for over 3 billion years.

On the animal side of things, the brachiopod Lingulaa is probably the oldest, having existed nearly unchanged for over 500 million years.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#3 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Here is you a short list of several more things that they say have not changed or evolved as you like to call it.
The very oldest species on Earth are the cyanobacteria, which seem to have been around virtually unchanged for nearly 4 billion years.
Another remnant of ancient organisms includes the stromatolites, mounds of algae and bacteria. They have been around also largely unchanged for over 3 billion years.
On the animal side of things, the brachiopod Lingulaa is probably the oldest, having existed nearly unchanged for over 500 million years.
All within the explanation that is called the theory of evolution.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#4 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
All within the explanation that is called the theory of evolution.
I don't study evolution much for I don't believe in it. But to my understanding it is about change "evolving" so what does the theory say about the species that haven't changed. Do they then say it is only possible with selective species? Just asking your opinion.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't study evolution much for I don't believe in it. But to my understanding it is about change "evolving" so what does the theory say about the species that haven't changed. Do they then say it is only possible with selective species? Just asking your opinion.
That explains why you know nothing about it, and this post of yours is also evidence that you know nothing about it.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#6 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That explains why you know nothing about it, and this post of yours is also evidence that you know nothing about it.
Well I thought if I acted stupid for you that you might actually answer a questions for once. But again you side step the question and give no answer. Just your normal gibberish. But I will say your a very consistent at giving no answers. lol
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#7 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Here is you a short list of several more things that they say have not changed or evolved as you like to call it.

The very oldest species on Earth are the cyanobacteria, which seem to have been around virtually unchanged for nearly 4 billion years.

Another remnant of ancient organisms includes the stromatolites, mounds of algae and bacteria. They have been around also largely unchanged for over 3 billion years.
I guess they must be the same species then. Oh wait - you're talking about an entire biological DOMAIN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biological_...
replaytime wrote:
On the animal side of things, the brachiopod Lingulaa is probably the oldest, having existed nearly unchanged for over 500 million years.
And the coelecanth, mustn't forget that one. However I think you'll find that those of today are NOT the same species as millions of years ago. The key word here being "nearly".

Thing with evolution is that it does not require that all organisms change at the same rate, especially if groups have filled a particular environmental niche which fluctuates very little, ergo providing very little selection pressure in order to drive change.

And of course pointing to species that haven't changed much does not address the species that HAVE, of which there is quite clear evidence.
replaytime wrote:
I don't study evolution much
You may as well have told us quadruple paraplegics don't do much acrobatics. This is why there is very little reason to take your opinions seriously.
replaytime wrote:
for I don't believe in it.
That's the great thing about science. It works whether you believe in it or not. The bad news is that the latest you could claim that evolution may have been ***scientifically*** controversial was uh... oh, about 1949. Since then the only people who have had beef with it are creationists and the occasional crank.
replaytime wrote:
But to my understanding it is about change "evolving" so what does the theory say about the species that haven't changed. Do they then say it is only possible with selective species? Just asking your opinion.
No, evolution occurs across all organisms.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I thought if I acted stupid for you that you might actually answer a questions for once. But again you side step the question and give no answer. Just your normal gibberish. But I will say your a very consistent at giving no answers. lol
You have admitted to not being interested in learning anything, thus, there is no reason to answer any of your questions as it would be a waste of time with no entertainment value. Making you post ad homs like this is much more entertaining for the masses.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#9 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have admitted to not being interested in learning anything, thus, there is no reason to answer any of your questions as it would be a waste of time with no entertainment value. Making you post ad homs like this is much more entertaining for the masses.
It is much more entertaining to me to watch you run from and dance around questions because you have no answers. You are full of questions and sarcasm, but you are empty on answers.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
It is much more entertaining to me to watch you run from and dance around questions because you have no answers. You are full of questions and sarcasm, but you are empty on answers.
Try asking questions that are ... well .. challenging then.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#11 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Try asking questions that are ... well .. challenging then.
Hmmm I wonder if you would consider these challenging;

What is the cure to all diseases?
What is the cure to the common cold?
How many atoms are in the world?
What was the first species to show signs of evolving?
How many species have actually evolved?
Which species has evolved the most?

Is that enough od would you like more? lol

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#12 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Try asking questions that are ... well .. challenging then.
Were those last questions to hard for you? Ok here is an easier one for you; Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now there are to theories to this. 1. is that without the egg there could be no chicken. 2. without the chicken there could be no egg.

Explain your answer.

I will be back later to see how you did. lol
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#13 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Were those last questions to hard for you? Ok here is an easier one for you; Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Egg.

Chickens haven't been around very long.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#14 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm I wonder if you would consider these challenging;
What is the cure to all diseases?
What is the cure to the common cold?
How many atoms are in the world?
What was the first species to show signs of evolving?
How many species have actually evolved?
Which species has evolved the most?
Is that enough od would you like more? lol
1. Nothing, if you studied biology you'd know why.
2. Nothing, if you knew about evolution you'd know why.
3. Stupid question.
4. All of them.
5. All of them.

Better on being specific, but stupid questions are still stupid. Open basic high school textbooks and you can find the answers.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Were those last questions to hard for you? Ok here is an easier one for you; Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Now there are to theories to this. 1. is that without the egg there could be no chicken. 2. without the chicken there could be no egg.
Explain your answer.
I will be back later to see how you did. lol
Wrong. The egg came first, many species use eggs as part of their reproduction, and since the chicken is the result of one such specie's evolution, the egg was first.

Please, read biology 101.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#16 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Nothing, if you studied biology you'd know why.
2. Nothing, if you knew about evolution you'd know why.
3. Stupid question.
4. All of them.
5. All of them.
Better on being specific, but stupid questions are still stupid. Open basic high school textbooks and you can find the answers.
Again you give no real answers. That was expected. So you think finding a cure for all diseases is stupid? You think evolution is why we cant find a cure for the common cold? LMFAO

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#17 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The egg came first, many species use eggs as part of their reproduction, and since the chicken is the result of one such specie's evolution, the egg was first.
Please, read biology 101.
Wrong??? Were is your proof??? With out a chicken to incubate the egg it would never hatch. So again you gave no real answer or proof. For it is a FACT that a chicken egg cannot hatch without being incubated (or set upon by the hen) how ever you want it worded. unless you believe that we can just throw chicken eggs out in the field and the will hatch on their own.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#18 May 22, 2013
Ah, the old chicken and egg BS again. The problem is, as you freely admit, you just don't understand evolution, so it's no wonder you ask meaningless questions and then get all ticked off when people call you on them. Chickens evolved from other birds. There was no single point at which you could say "this was the first chicken". It is entirely analogous to the colours of the rainbow. You can easily point to blue (ie chicken) and also to green (not chicken) but at what point does green become blue? You are asking nonsense questions, you cannot complain if you then get nonsense answers.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#19 May 22, 2013
replaytime wrote:
You think evolution is why we cant find a cure for the common cold?
Yup.
replaytime wrote:
Wrong??? Were is your proof??? With out a chicken to incubate the egg it would never hatch. So again you gave no real answer or proof. For it is a FACT that a chicken egg cannot hatch without being incubated (or set upon by the hen) how ever you want it worded. unless you believe that we can just throw chicken eggs out in the field and the will hatch on their own.
It's a fact that eggs predate chickens by hundreds of millions of years.

Hence it's a fact eggs came first.

So what's next? Why are there still monkeys?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#20 May 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup.
<quoted text>
It's a fact that eggs predate chickens by hundreds of millions of years.
Hence it's a fact eggs came first.
So what's next? Why are there still monkeys?
replaytime wrote:

You think evolution is why we cant find a cure for the common cold?

That comment is again one you made up for I did not say that. But you have to make things up to try to make yourself believe that we are wrong and you are right. LMAO
And Yes why are there still monkeys being they/we have evolved from them. Why are there not new species of them being found?
You can call it a dumb question for that will be your only answer.

But lets break it down a little more. If you breed a German Shepherd with a poodle what happens? You get a new breed in the mix. Now if you keep breeding that species out of the line it will mutate and you will keep getting something different until one takes over the other down the line. Like it or not we humans have been mixed breeding and or inbreeding for thousands of years. To make it more closer to your time we whites back in the day bred the biggest male black slaves to the biggest black females slaves to produce the biggest and best offspring to be slaves to work the fields (which is why black people dominate every sport, we bred them that way) but at the same time we whites also bred the Blacks, Indians and all we could slip our peckers in just for the pleasure of sex. So like the dogs we have mixed breeds that spawn off new breeds of part white, part black, part Indian and/or part what ever we bred but yet you call it evolution. It is just mixed breeding that with no doubt will have change. Like it or not we all have more than one race in us which leads to different and mixed DNA from two or more races. So yes it is going to change and take on new and different traits for when you mix things together nothing but something new becomes of it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min ChristineM 35,255
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 40 min Aura Mytha 199,426
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 151,342
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr ChristineM 14,944
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... Tue DanFromSmithville 36
Ribose can be produced in space Mon JanusBifrons 6
A Simple Simulation Mon JanusBifrons 1
More from around the web