What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Maybe The Best Tech Deal EVER--Give Computers To Whole Family view!
bestbuy.com - Geek Squad(r) installation, HP desktop, monitor, laptop & netbook, wireless router--all for $1,199.99!
673 Comments
- xekko, on 08/09/2008, -31/+228Evolution isn't a "belief", it's a fact. Saying you "believe" in the "theory" of evolution is like saying you "believe in the theory that the sky is blue". It's a theory as all scientific understanding is a theory, but that does not make it any less unproven.
- Isileth, on 08/10/2008, -9/+142I'm not sure I would say I "believe" in evolution.
Rather I accept the overwhelming evidence for it. - BananaStickers, on 08/09/2008, -15/+143My Answer:
Evolution simply means "change over time."
Also it is important to note that evolution happens on the genetic scale, and is seen in a population, not individuals.
The four most major causes of that change are:
Natural Selection: Those individuals that best fit their environmental niche are most likely to survive and pass down their genes.
Genetic Drift: The change in gene frequencies from one generation to the next.
Gene Flow: The migration of genes from one population to another.
Mutation: The random mutation of genes that creates *new* variation in the gene pool.
Through the course of these changes, over substantial periods of time, new species arise, while others die out because they cannot adapt to new environments or they cannot compete with new species.
***
I didn't feel like going into much more detail than that. - BlaqReaper, on 08/10/2008, -9/+132"It all began 75 million years ago. Back then there was a galactic federation of planets which was ruled over by the evil Lord Xenu. Xenu thought his galaxy was overpopulated, and so he rounded up countless aliens from all different planets, and then had those aliens frozen. The frozen alien bodies were loaded onto Xenu's galactic cruisers, which looked like DC-8s, except with rocket engines. The cruisers then took the frozen alien bodies to our planet, Earth, and dumped them into the volcanoes of Hawaii. The aliens were no longer frozen, they were dead. The souls of those aliens, however, lived on, and all floated up towards the sky. But the evil Lord Xenu had prepared for this. Xenu didn't want their souls to return! And so he built giant soul-catchers in the sky! The souls were taken to a huge soul brain-washing facility, which Xenu had also built on Earth. There the souls were forced to watch days of brainwashing material which tricked them into believing a false reality. Xenu then released the alien souls, which roamed the earth aimlessly in a fog of confusion. At the dawn of man, the souls finally found bodies which they could grab onto. They attached themselves to all mankind, which still to this day causes all our fears, our confusions, and our problems."
That's my explanation at least. - cycledesign, on 08/10/2008, -7/+94In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its... mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this... Retard frog-squirrel, and then that had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you. So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
- zplot, on 08/09/2008, -9/+77Do I believe in evolution... yes. Why? Because it is based on objective research rather than blind faith, and has evidence to back it. Faith is alright as long as one recognized the difference between proven concepts and beliefs.
- inactive, on 08/10/2008, -13/+61"I do not believe that fish evolved into mammals. I do not think that it is physically/chemically possible."
And I do not believe that an entity that creates things out of nowhere is physically/chemically possible. - Exodin, on 08/10/2008, -4/+48The scientific use of the word "theory" is different than many people use it.
Science is incredibly modest, so it can appear weak in the face of the religious who are confident in their flawed religious books. - Abaddon1125, on 08/10/2008, -0/+43@biogears:
Your comment shows you have little understanding of the mechanisms of natural selection and you have a fallacy of equivocation, suggesting that the modification of a gene which dictates the length of the neck is the same as forming scissors out of iron ore.
You want to see what a mutation can do? I was born with an extra finger on each hand; an additional pinky. This finger was fully functional and worked just like the rest of my fingers. It was added by a simple mutation.
Go back to school, and get an education on evolution. - inactive, on 08/10/2008, -5/+45Actually there is demonstrable evidence of evolution across species and genus levels. It is peer reviewed, accepted, and proved adding more facts and evidence to the theory of evolution.
Endogenous retrogene insertions
What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution?
Endogenous retroviruses are a great example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance.
Kent Hovind was asked this when he called into IG.com - he had no answer.
What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?
The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.
In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.
Also, there are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.
All of this points to a common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.
Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.
Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.
The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.
How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?
An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?
What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent? - mwrl, on 08/10/2008, -2/+38Birds were once Dinosaurs, live with it.
The Earth changes and so do we. - inactive, on 08/11/2008, -5/+41For those saying "it's just a theory", please kindly stfu:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
It's a scientific fact. Get over it. - shadovvman, on 08/10/2008, -8/+38Basically, you're saying you believe evolution, but for the parts of the evolutionary process that are not yet completely explained, you propose the intervention of an arbitrary supreme being.
To my mind, that's like someone finding a can of soda on his table that he didn't place there, whereupon -- since he lives alone and his doors are locked -- he assumes pixies are responsible.
Something as yet unexplained is responsible ... but there's no reason to abandon all sense until the explanation presents itself. - inactive, on 08/10/2008, -16/+46Because Ron Paul doesn't, and I like reminding his supporters that. Thumbs down is the red one.
- inactive, on 08/10/2008, -6/+36Sure. Someone who has a BS in **Biology** and an MD and who doesn't believe in evolution lacks critical thinking skills and prefers to adhere to a religious dogma over logic and reason. I don't want someone with that kind of character flaw in charge of the country.
Of course that's not the only reason, IMO. - theexitwound, on 08/09/2008, -1/+30That pretty much sums it up.
- Exodin, on 08/10/2008, -2/+31Your book says slavery is moral.
Fact is, the book didn't give you morals... you applied your own morals while you read it and decided to ignore the many contradictory and immoral parts. - banmaster, on 08/10/2008, -1/+30Um, opposite dude.
There were people and they created god. - Depthfunction, on 08/10/2008, -2/+30Yes, "belief" is the wrong word to use, and when someone says, "I believe in evolution" what they are doing is playing into the creationists' characterization of science as just another religion.
Science isn't a religion. What distinguishes science from faith is that science that the scientific theories and facts can stand on their own regardless of whether one "believes" in them or not. Take away belief from faith, however, and it evaporates. - Phyraxus, on 08/10/2008, -4/+32The THEORY of evolution explains how the FACT of evolution works.
The THEORY of gravity explains how the FACT of gravity works.
The THEORY of thermodynamics explains how the FACT of heat works.
Germ THEORY explains the FACT that you get sick.
The intelligent design/creationist hypothesis FAILS to explain ANYTHING. Epic fail, indeed.
Shut your mouth about our not considering your tinkerer; he has been considered and has been needed for naught. - Kestrel, on 08/10/2008, -0/+27@Frejesal - You are using the word, "theory" in the colloquial sense. The scientific meaning is VERY different. Gravity is a "theory"; its existence can not be denied yet its exact mechanisms can not (yet) be understood.
- CCSprinter11, on 08/10/2008, -3/+30I think you hit upon the main misconception plaguing the advancement of this theory: "...seen in a population, not individuals."
People need to understand that giraffes don't have long necks because one of them said, "Hey, I want to be able to eat off these high branches." It probably happened through a more morbid process in which the members of a species who couldn't reach the high branches (due to genetically programmed short necks) starved to death and gradually died off, thereby eliminating the short-neck gene(s). - etherreal, on 08/10/2008, -1/+28@JimmySpaza: Newsflash, E. Coli was observed to evolve a completely new set of genes, making it a new species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evo ... - bdbr, on 08/10/2008, -2/+29That's not the definition of scientific theory. Try Chemistry 101.
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -2/+29I don't believe in gravity either, it's clearly the work of the devil trying to pull us down into the underworld!
- rock42, on 08/09/2008, -10/+36I agree, saying you "believe" in something is, for the most part, implying that you don't have a way to explain your way of thinking. I could say that i believe that my LCD screen is a solid object, but I don't need to believe.
tldr;
You dont need to believe in evolution. It is a fact. - Sterango, on 08/10/2008, -4/+29Yes I do.
Because I'm not a moron. - inactive, on 08/10/2008, -3/+27@banmaster
And "adaptation" over several generations and mutations is indeed, "evolution." But thanks for playing. - Dimensio, on 08/10/2008, -2/+26"However, there is a word that scientists use for things they know are factual and true. It is called a Law. A law is the accepted observation of repeated experiments by numerous amounts of scientists with the same result."
You are incorrect. A scientific law is an attempt to generalize a consistent pattern of observations, typically into a mathematical expression. As an example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is an attempt to model the observation of force occurring between two objects relative to their masses and distance, however it is also known not to be "true".
"Theories can be and have been refined into laws."
This is also not correct. A theory is an attempt to explain why observations occur, while a law is an attempt to generalize observations into a predictable pattern. Theories often attempt to explain why laws are as they are. - bjornski, on 08/10/2008, -5/+28And when I see an sky-fairy come down, snap his fingers and create something new, maybe that idea would become more believable too.
- BananaStickers, on 08/10/2008, -2/+25getting an education...does that to you
- Disgod, on 08/10/2008, -2/+24JimmySpaza
You're an idiot if you think that one genus of animal can suddenly become another genus. Evolution does not work that way in the slightest. For example, the evolution of bony fish to reptiles would go like this::
First some bony fish which lived in the shallows near land would start adapting ways to utilize the additional space(land) which wasn't in use before land creatures evolved, and would start developing some primitive characteristics which you would see in amphibians, slowly over time(hundreds of thousands of years) they would develop more and more amphibian features until eventually the amphibian features would dominate a group of species. From there, a few amphibians would start to venture further and further into land, and would start developing primitive characteristics of reptiles. Much later the reptilian features would come to dominate the daughter species of the first extremely primitive reptiles. At no point in time could you say, well this generation is definitely a fish, while its offspring are definitely amphibian. There is no magical barrier between small evolutionary changes and large ones, the only reason we don't see it occurring is because it takes millions of years. These changes occurred over hundreds of thousands of generations and over millions of years.
If you accept that evolution is occurring today you have to accept that evolution has occurred for as long as there has been life. You would have to come up with some impediment which doesn't allow the accumulation of millions of small changes to equal slow large scale changes. There is none, sorry.
"Now, if you demand that only a naturalistic cause and process be considered, then the theory of evolution is all you have really. But, scientists really shouldn't put on scientific blinders and not consider that life MIGHT have been engineered or caused at various points throughout history."
Ok that is just ignorance of the scientific method. Science cannot comment on something that by its definition is SUPERNATURAL (aka not subject to the rules of our world). Besides evolution works without any sort of intervention of a deity, it is based on the basic laws of our universe, no need to bring in a deity. Science also demands evidence, of which, for any sort of deity or supreme being, there is absolutely none. You are suggesting that science should base itself off an unprovable, untestable hypothesis.That is the complete antithesis of what science is about. Even if there was some sort of deity guiding evolution, evolution would still be fact, science has millions of independently verified pieces of evidence which span many different fields of science. - Abaddon1125, on 08/10/2008, -2/+24"As soon as I see a car wreck (Just 1 of the thousands per year) turn a Ford into a double decker bus, this idea will become more believable."
Ladies and gentlemen, the argument from personal incredulity. - badmephisto, on 08/10/2008, -2/+24You dont "believe" or not "believe in evolution". You either reject or accept it. Please get it right
- salmonmoose, on 08/10/2008, -2/+24Car's do not self-replicate.
- Isileth, on 08/10/2008, -1/+23http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Theory has a different meaning in science.
As for evidence there are plenty of good sites and books out there for you to read up on. - anenokoji, on 08/10/2008, -6/+28Of course there is a god, do you think that millions of years ago atoms floating around would one day have the sense of humour to make you look like that?
--Emo Phillips - Stroggoth, on 08/10/2008, -1/+22Evolution is extremely probable (beyond 99%), and it qualifies as a proven theory. The huge weight of evidence, including recent genetic discoveries such as simian retroviruses hidden in human DNA that provide a complete roadmap to the evolution of genes. Evolution can also be proven with genetic simulators on computers that can solve complex problems through natural selection and random error. In other words, you can prove it works by simulation, you can prove it worked in the past with genetic history, and you have thousands of instances of it working in current time, such as antiobiotic resistance and SARS.
Saying that evolution is not believed in is similar to saying you don't believe that gravity is real. If you plan to say that, you must show instances that do not conform to the theory.
We wait for your explaination of simian retrovirus in human DNA. - punkcat, on 08/10/2008, -0/+21so many people use this elementary school definition
- bjornski, on 08/10/2008, -0/+21@joopiest
Theories can change with the addition of new info.
Dogmas can not. - inactive, on 08/10/2008, -1/+21*WHOOSH*...
- Tyrghast, on 08/10/2008, -2/+22I don't believe in the theory of gravity.
- essjay, on 08/10/2008, -2/+22Evolution is a fact. It's happened, it's reproducable, and it's undeniable (anything that's so readily reproducable can't really be argued against by any sane person, so cue the crazies). Want proof? Here - http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-b ...
That's an experiement that lead to bacteria evolving to the point where they lost some of the restrictions that effectively defined them as a species. They evolved beyond their limitations.
The only thing open to deabte is whether we, as humans, evolved. But the idea of evolution itself isn't (or at least shouldn't be) in question. - ErickStevenson, on 08/10/2008, -5/+25Umm ok, first off you we have observed evolution... and atleast it can be scientifically scrutinized... can you say the same about creationism?
- nathanww, on 08/10/2008, -4/+23I think evolution is more certain than the assertion that the sky is blue--speciation/adaption is fairly unambiguous compared to what a blind/colorblind person might say about the sky.
- ErickStevenson, on 08/10/2008, -2/+21"I think 70,000 witnesses (including scientiests and news reporters) to a phenomenon of the sun predicted by
three religious shepherd children qualifies as evidence."
What the heck was that? That's your evidence that evolution isn't real? - Lyk4n, on 08/10/2008, -4/+23Jimmy, no one on digg wants you here. Go away and take your ilk with you..
- etherreal, on 08/10/2008, -2/+20The completely improbable, over the course of billions of years is very possible.
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -2/+20Everything is a concept that man created. Gravity, light, space, time, life...
There's no absolute truth that say these things actually exist - we have merely created explanations based on our observations, testing, and logic, over hundreds of years, and these things are now regarded as "fact". Evolution would be no different, if it weren't for you damn religious nuts. - Syzothermy, on 08/10/2008, -3/+21"Anyway, about 6,000 years ago, Adam and Eve were created."
We have pottery and other artifacts from homosapiens dating around 12,000 years ago. Even then, the earth's human population was about 5 million people. -
Show 51 - 100 of 677 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is