Why is evolution right?
harvey smith

Albuquerque, NM

#41 Feb 19, 2009
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to burst your bubble, but eagles and hawks can see in color.
As a matter of fact, MOST (if not all) birds can. That is why their feathered mating displays are so colorful. Why would a peacock be so beautiful if the peahen couldn't see the impressive colors
No, you loved bursting my bubble.

If you evolutionists have truth on your side why are you so haughty? Why do you broadcast such insecurity? Is it because your evolution isn't a loving outlook? Aren't you seeking for something more?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#42 Feb 19, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
Nop, I don;t have any creationist book. And I havn't even mention the bible at all for you to be saying that.(Not you but the other guy). This is just coming from my mind. Questions that I want to ask and need to. I still don't get the thing about natural selection and it being for food to survive etc.
I don't understand something. I will take dar example of the bears with brown and white fur. If the brown bears where together and then some separated cause supossesly there were too many of them and it was hard to eat for some. So those went to the artic. Wouldn't they have to live there for millions of years for them to evolved into white fur bears. Since brown bears have the disadvantage at the artic, that would mean that most if not all of them died in those millions of year for lack of obtaining food.(Because they were in disadvantage.)
However, Dar explained that there gene were already changing. Which now rises the question. If before the bears split their genes were already changing, why would then only half of the one who went to the artic actually completed the evolution? Another thing is that evolution would require a long period of time for it to occur, taking me back to my first point.
And yes I might be using my "common sense" logic, prediction from observations that i have made in what I know about the theory. What's wrong with that? Didnt darwin do the same thing?
Instead of asking question in a Topix forum, your time would be better spent doing some research on your own at reputable sites. A very good place to start would be:

http://www.talkorigins.org

You will find a plethora of good information to start you journey in seeking answers to your questions

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#43 Feb 19, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
Nop, I don;t have any creationist book. And I havn't even mention the bible at all for you to be saying that.(Not you but the other guy). This is just coming from my mind. Questions that I want to ask and need to. I still don't get the thing about natural selection and it being for food to survive etc.
I don't understand something. I will take dar example of the bears with brown and white fur. If the brown bears where together and then some separated cause supossesly there were too many of them and it was hard to eat for some. So those went to the artic. Wouldn't they have to live there for millions of years for them to evolved into white fur bears. Since brown bears have the disadvantage at the artic, that would mean that most if not all of them died in those millions of year for lack of obtaining food.(Because they were in disadvantage.)
However, Dar explained that there gene were already changing. Which now rises the question. If before the bears split their genes were already changing, why would then only half of the one who went to the artic actually completed the evolution? Another thing is that evolution would require a long period of time for it to occur, taking me back to my first point.
And yes I might be using my "common sense" logic, prediction from observations that i have made in what I know about the theory. What's wrong with that? Didnt darwin do the same thing?
No, JPr, it would not take millions of years. At least, once the white fur allele appeared, it would spread rapidly through the northern population.

Plus, you are taking my little scenario too literally. I am not saying that is exactly how it happened.

In fact, on further thought, this is a scenario I find very likely (note the "likely")...

The brown bear population would have pushed as far north as it could survive. This is what populations of any species do, because there are always more individuals than the environment can support. So individuals on the edge of their current range push out into new territory. Some times they survive, sometimes they don't.

Now this border region on the arctic would have snow much of the year. White fur is an advantage part of the time, a disadvantage part of the time. The same with brown fur, but the times reversed. The brown bears can survive, but survival is probably tough. The same for the white bears. A few of each survive to reproduce and the species continues.

Once the white fur allele came about by mutation, the white bears could move further north, to areas where white fur is a big advantage.(Brown bears would be migrating too, but they wouldn't make it in the long run.) And, NO, the bears wouldn't see they were white and think "I need to go where there is snow". It is just that some would migrate there (for the reasons given above...species expand their territory if they can). And because they had white fur, they prosper.

The way population genetics work, once in the arctic, the brown allele would quickly disappear since it has much less advantage than the white allele. Not millions of years. Probably a few thousand at most.

Now the two populations, the southern brown bears and the northern white bears are effectively isolated...with just a tiny overlap at the edge of their ranges. The two populations go their separate evolutionary ways and become separate species.
harvey smith

Albuquerque, NM

#44 Feb 19, 2009
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of asking question in a Topix forum, your time would be better spent doing some research on your own at reputable sites. A very good place to start would be:
http://www.talkorigins.org
You will find a plethora of good information to start you journey in seeking answers to your questions
Research what? They say "we have this animal and we have this animal, we can see how one could have evolved into the other", "we don't know what happened step by step", "we don't know the sequence of changes at the genetic level".

They think they know some evolutionary pathways, which seem like the highest probability, but we can't know the specifics.
JPr

Kannapolis, NC

#45 Feb 19, 2009
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
No, JPr, it would not take millions of years. At least, once the white fur allele appeared, it would spread rapidly through the northern population.
Plus, you are taking my little scenario too literally. I am not saying that is exactly how it happened.
In fact, on further thought, this is a scenario I find very likely (note the "likely")...
The brown bear population would have pushed as far north as it could survive. This is what populations of any species do, because there are always more individuals than the environment can support. So individuals on the edge of their current range push out into new territory. Some times they survive, sometimes they don't.
Now this border region on the arctic would have snow much of the year. White fur is an advantage part of the time, a disadvantage part of the time. The same with brown fur, but the times reversed. The brown bears can survive, but survival is probably tough. The same for the white bears. A few of each survive to reproduce and the species continues.
Once the white fur allele came about by mutation, the white bears could move further north, to areas where white fur is a big advantage.(Brown bears would be migrating too, but they wouldn't make it in the long run.) And, NO, the bears wouldn't see they were white and think "I need to go where there is snow". It is just that some would migrate there (for the reasons given above...species expand their territory if they can). And because they had white fur, they prosper.
The way population genetics work, once in the arctic, the brown allele would quickly disappear since it has much less advantage than the white allele. Not millions of years. Probably a few thousand at most.
Now the two populations, the southern brown bears and the northern white bears are effectively isolated...with just a tiny overlap at the edge of their ranges. The two populations go their separate evolutionary ways and become separate species.
Well, about mutation. Wouldn't mutation be bad? Not bad but, like do mutations "today" survive? And well the allele thing doesn't really explain evolution. Since the bear didn't evolve at all, just the fur changed color like our eyes change color thanks to the allele.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#46 Feb 19, 2009
harvey smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you loved bursting my bubble.
If you evolutionists have truth on your side why are you so haughty? Why do you broadcast such insecurity? Is it because your evolution isn't a loving outlook? Aren't you seeking for something more?
He simply corrected your misconception.

Just out of curiosity, where DID you get the idea that birds were color-blind?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#47 Feb 19, 2009
harvey smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you loved bursting my bubble.
So, you admit that you were wrong then? and was that the best argument against evolution that you could come up with?
harvey smith wrote:
<quoted text>If you evolutionists have truth on your side why are you so haughty? Why do you broadcast such insecurity?
I think you have this backwards. We are NOT the ones whose
philosophical, theological, religious worldview is threatened by REALITY.

It is the "creationist/IDer" who MUST deny, refute, ignore reality to preserve their fragile psyche, desperately afraid that any hint of error in their rigid dogma will make their faith collapse like a house of cards built on shifting sands.
harvey smith wrote:
<quoted text>Is it because your evolution isn't a loving outlook? Aren't you seeking for something more?
This is silly. Those of us who accept the biological Theory of Evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth look at it as ...
the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

We do NOT see it as "truth" in the sense that you imply. We do NOT see it as a philosophy or a theology or a religion.

When we need a "loving outlook" we look to family, friends, human relationships, philosophy, theology, religion (yes, even *gasp* Christianity).

When we look for "something more", we look to the same places that ALL of humanity looks to.

Science is a TOOL used to learn how the Cosmos works. It is NOT a substitute for a loving wife or husband, children, grandchildren, family, friends, good times, quiet reflection, compassion, good will, love.

Why in Heavens Name would you think such a silly thing?
harvey smith

Albuquerque, NM

#48 Feb 19, 2009
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
He simply corrected your misconception.
Just out of curiosity, where DID you get the idea that birds were color-blind?
I didn't know if they were or weren't. I thought cats and similar predators were color-blind and that's where I thought the evolutionary pressure came from?

But anyway, eagles have such good eyes (color enhanced or not) a brown sparrow would be easily see when it moved. But anyway, fat rodents are preferred by hawks and eagles.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#49 Feb 19, 2009
harvey smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know if they were or weren't. I thought cats and similar predators were color-blind and that's where I thought the evolutionary pressure came from?
But anyway, eagles have such good eyes (color enhanced or not) a brown sparrow would be easily see when it moved. But anyway, fat rodents are preferred by hawks and eagles.
Umm, cats can see color also.

“Question everything.”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Lookingglass Land

#50 Feb 19, 2009

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#51 Feb 19, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, about mutation. Wouldn't mutation be bad? Not bad but, like do mutations "today" survive?
Kid, you were born with about 100 to 200 mutations. Every human is. The copying process for DNA is not perfect. So no, not all mutations are bad. In fact, most of them are neutral. Some are bad, a few beneficial.
JPr wrote:
And well the allele thing doesn't really explain evolution. Since the bear didn't evolve at all, just the fur changed color like our eyes change color thanks to the allele.
Are you trying to say that brown bears and polar bears are not the same species?

The white fur is only one of the differences between the two species. I find it likely that it was the first that allowed for the species to split - by allowing part of the species to move into an isolated environment.

Once isolated, genetic changes in one branch would not reach the other. The white bears changed in ways that made them the polar bears we have today. The brown bears changed in different ways and became the American brown bear we have today.

Genetic isolation is one of the key elements. With such isolation, the genetics of the two populations develop in different directions, eventually leading to speciation.

Also, evolution is made up of genetic changes, one change at a time. So, yes, the white allele would be part of evolution. By itself, it wouldn't be speciation. But combined with many such events over time, it does end in speciation.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#52 Feb 19, 2009
harvey smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know if they were or weren't. I thought cats and similar predators were color-blind and that's where I thought the evolutionary pressure came from?
But anyway, eagles have such good eyes (color enhanced or not) a brown sparrow would be easily see when it moved. But anyway, fat rodents are preferred by hawks and eagles.
Reptiles and birds have good color vision. Better than most mammals. Mammals, except for primates, see in only two colors (IIRC, they are missing the red). An early primate appears to have had a gene duplication event, giving an extra copy of one of the two color vision genes. This was followed by a mutation to one copy, giving vision in red as well.

BTW, many birds are also able to see in the ultraviolet. There are many bird species that appear to have bland plumage, but are brilliantly fluorescent in ultraviolet.
The Dude

UK

#53 Feb 20, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
Nop, I don;t have any creationist book.
It's a metaphorical book.
The Dude

UK

#54 Feb 20, 2009
harvey smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you loved bursting my bubble.
If you evolutionists have truth on your side why are you so haughty? Why do you broadcast such insecurity? Is it because your evolution isn't a loving outlook? Aren't you seeking for something more?
Evolution isn't an outlook. Unless you think gravity is an outlook?

I notice you changed the subject to attacking "evolutionists" rather than admitting you're wrong.

I wonder why that is?
The Dude

UK

#55 Feb 20, 2009
harvey smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Research what? They say "we have this animal and we have this animal, we can see how one could have evolved into the other", "we don't know what happened step by step", "we don't know the sequence of changes at the genetic level".
They think they know some evolutionary pathways, which seem like the highest probability, but we can't know the specifics.
So just because we can't explain everything step-by-step, that means GODDIDIT? Heck, you don't even have a plausible pathway, never mind able to explain HOW Goddidit step-by-step. You can't even provide any plausible reason to think that God even exists.(shrug)

Evolution on the other hand, makes successful predictions. ALSO, it does NOT SAY that God DIDN'T do it.

So uh, why are you arguing?
The Dude

UK

#56 Feb 20, 2009
And perhaps, Harv, that "evolutionists" are so "haughty" because they're fed up of religious fundie idiots who continue to push their religion onto others where it is inappropriate, like public school science classes.
Pray to Zeus

Bradenton, FL

#57 Feb 20, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe EVERY fossil FITS perfectly with the evolution theory. I can't look them up right now (too lazy). But, not every fossil FITS with the theory of evolution. Yes, maybe evolutionist don't use the term of missing links, but doesn't mean that there is none missing links that have been found.(At least you know what i mean by missing links.) And I don't believe evolution was just done like crazy. I believe, and is true that what Darwin observed were micro evolutions. Not actual evolutions how they are defined now.
My question is, since you are clearly not interested enough in evolution to bother learning about it then why do you want to come onto a discussion group and air your ignorance?

As for your question, if you can provide JUST ONE fossil, or other piece of evidence, showing that evolution is incorrect, then scientists will return to the drawing board, trying to figure out how your evidence fits into the total picture (even if it means trashing the whole idea of evolution). So far, people have been trying for 150 years and haven't come up with even one iota of evidence that goes against evolution. The same goes for gravity - both seem to be very solidly placed on earth. I wouldn't expect any valid counter arguments for either one in the near future. This may be why you couldn't find an exception -- although your total lack of understanding may well represent lazyness. If you are truely interested in evolution (not just a straw man excuse to push religion) then why not spend some time reading and gaining understanding? You might actually find it interesting.
Nuggin

Northridge, CA

#58 Feb 20, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, about mutation. Wouldn't mutation be bad? Not bad but, like do mutations "today" survive? And well the allele thing doesn't really explain evolution. Since the bear didn't evolve at all, just the fur changed color like our eyes change color thanks to the allele.
First of all, mutations can be good, bad or neutral - it mostly depends on the situation.

Even if 99.99% of all mutations were always bad, that would still mean that .01% were good.

Second, who ever said that polar bears aren't evolved. Yes, they are white. They are also a different size, with different proportions, they are waterproof, etc.

But none of this is going to sink in because NOTHING that anyone says sinks in. Does it?

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#59 Feb 20, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, about mutation. Wouldn't mutation be bad? Not bad but, like do mutations "today" survive? And well the allele thing doesn't really explain evolution. Since the bear didn't evolve at all, just the fur changed color like our eyes change color thanks to the allele.
Then please explain to us why the white fur allele is so common among polar bears but absent in bear populations in more southern lattitudes.

The only explanation I know of for this lopsided distribution of the white fur allele is evolution. And that is just one difference between the two populations.
Nuggin

Northridge, CA

#60 Feb 20, 2009
JPr wrote:
I don't believe in evolution for different reasons.
Let's see how these reasons stack up against Creationism.
JPr wrote:
1. There is no explanation in "Evolution" on how life began.
First of all, there is. It's called abiogenesis and it's a part of Chemistry.

However, Creationists only have "magic" as their answer. "Magic" isn't an answer, it's the lack of an answer.
JPr wrote:
2. Since the universe is expanding is believed that it all began with an explosion; however, if it did, then what caused it?
Again, Creationists answer: "Magic", or "I don't know."
JPr wrote:
3. So let's say that whatever happened, the big bang came out of nothing. How then all the stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, worms etc got created?(Luck?)?
Sharp shooter fallacy. Just so you know. That's a phrase you are going to hear a lot until you learn to learn.

By the way, again the Creationist answer: "Magic".
JPr wrote:
4.So, let's narrow it down to earth. I think is 10,000,000,000,000 the possibility of earth being in this exact place to substain life. That's a huge number isn't it??
Anyone can type a big number, doesn't mean it means anything.

This is also the sharpshoot fallacy. Wanna know what that means? Nope? Didn't think so.

Oh, by the way: "Magic" _again_.
JPr wrote:
5. Now multiply that number times the thousand of different species and things on the planet.?
Still sharpshooter. Still.
JPr wrote:
6. How did the atmosphere, and the whole system in which the earth works come to being?

Still sharpshooter.

[QUOTE who="JPr"]
7. Earth even "recycles" itslef. Look at the process of rain. And also how if a volcano explodes all the smoke and rest of the explosions equalizes around the earth.?
Finally not the sharpshoot fallacy, but completely irrelevent.
JPr wrote:
8. So how did the first animal came to being? Did the heart evolved first, then the blood, the arms, liver, kidney whatever...? Would not they all had to appeared at the same time for it to live??
Nope they wouldn't. You know how we know. There are things with blood and NO HEART. There are thinks with blood and a heart and NO LIVER.
JPr wrote:
9. Not just that, but then consider that a female had to be evolved. The two where so lucky that somehow one had half and the other one had half to make a baby.?
One of the stupidest things that Creationists say. You've had this explained to you on another thread.

Either you didn't understand what was written because you're stupid or you are being dishonest because you are Christian.
JPr wrote:
10. Well, these are just my common sense thoughts. If you want to laugh then do it, but I would love to hear some explanations.
No, you wouldn't. You don't want any explanations. You won't accept any explanations.

You have decided evolution is false because you have no education and your mommy told you to believe in creationism. That's it. That's the sum total of your existance.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 18 min nanoanomaly 3,282
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min Frindly 83,926
Time 1 hr Beagle 3
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Genesis Enigma 164,943
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 5 hr Dogen 42
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
More from around the web