Do you believe in evolution?

[Ace]

im catholic and believe in both my religious views and evolution

i am pretty open-minded....and i dont let people get to me about how strongly they believe in something.....

this thread was to be more open-minded in the way that it corresponds with chameleons, because chameleons have changed and adapted over time...

and i find it cool if someone would discover the "first" or "original" chamelon way back in time, and how they got their colors today

like i said, its not evolution or religion that is problem with this thread.....its about the "people" that respond to it and how they take it personally or literally, or scientifically, or abstractly, etc.....

all in all....its people that make it difficult.....IMHO i choose to believe in both....im not confused....i just made a choice that makes sense to me...people feel its to choose one or the other and stick to it to the vary end.....

Jojackson...i like the way you stated in earlier in this thread and thank you for your input to this discussion you have links that intrigue me and i thank you and others for that.....i feel enlightened

 

[jojackson]

Thats whats its all about Ace, I agree with you, and thanks for joining in. I always find the variation and nuances of others thinking most fascinating, I think the fact that we can think so individually and uniquely helps us learn and grow.
I hope this thread continues as peacefully as it has so far, Im really enjoying it.
I deny nobody their own thoughts /beleifs, regardless of mine, since thats something I value highly.

 

[Todnedo]

In short
Life began in the oceans then spread to the land leaving behind gills for lungs.
Life became intelligent to make the next jump...... to the next planet.
In time this planet will die and all of the life will die with it.
We are driven by the same force that made the fish leave the water to become a new life form in a new place.

 

[jojackson]

Tod, I find that idea rather depressing myself. In time yes, when the sun burns out and goes nova, the only other way I see it 'dying' is by our hand.
We are unique in that respect though, I agree.
Nature controls all else and all other species, I dont see an interplanetary future for goats.
Only humans have changed beyond natures control, whether this is 'natural' or simply inexplicable is a subject for another day.
This is home by any other name, perfectly suited to all lifeforms within, including me.
A few million miles closer or further to our sun and we wouldn't be here to dream of other worlds.

 

[Cainschams]

Cainschams, ive been sucked in to this one myself, please share your thoughts, just take a deep breath first and remember not everyone thinks like you. Id love to hear your thoughts mate...

Im trying to figure it out without discrediting any ones thoughts. Religious and evolutionary. Yeah, its probably way far fetched than most peoples and hard for me to go into it without just putting it simple as I did in my first post Its a clear sky tonight and Jupiter is still out. Ill see what I can muster up after I go take some pictures of celestial objects and ponder even more

 

[jojackson]

Good Idea, Im a big fan of night time skywatching myself, though I dont have a telescope,
I envy the veiws afforded those in other parts of the world, a huge cratered full moon is a glorious sight, likewise shooting stars. Im in love with the southern cross though, I marvel that its ever unchanging, just the same as I saw it as a child.
Makes me feel incredibley small and humble.
Think of me and enjoy the veiw!
Look forward to your thoughts!

 

[primestick]

I know things can "adapt" to inviroment but its not an active thing adapting is very passive, Its the "strogest survive". Like the snakes and monitors not eating the frogs... they are a R selected species, they mass produce so the population drop that hast risen yet could be due to the animals dieing off from eating frogs... the ones with smaller heads could have eaten a frog early in life and where very sick for a while thus stunting their growth... I have a bearded dragon that was neglected early in life and he is smaller than my other dragons. That dosnt mean he evolved he was just malnurished. Animals can learn not to eat something there not totaly stupid. So in that aspect of "evolution" I know it can happen, now as far as an invert becoming a vert then warmblooded and then to humans as we are now. I dont think it was possable.. Also dinisoars toand birds. Just dont see it happining.
If its true ,I want a 2 ton flying bearded dragon that eats veggies.

 

[Ace]

I know things can "adapt" to inviroment but its not an active thing adapting is very passive, Its the "strogest survive". Like the snakes and monitors not eating the frogs... they are a R selected species, they mass produce so the population drop that hast risen yet could be due to the animals dieing off from eating frogs... the ones with smaller heads could have eaten a frog early in life and where very sick for a while thus stunting their growth... I have a bearded dragon that was neglected early in life and he is smaller than my other dragons. That dosnt mean he evolved he was just malnurished. Animals can learn not to eat something there not totaly stupid. So in that aspect of "evolution" I know it can happen, now as far as an invert becoming a vert then warmblooded and then to humans as we are now. I dont think it was possable.. Also dinisoars toand birds. Just dont see it happining.
If its true ,I want a 2 ton flying bearded dragon that eats veggies.

lol....i would too...and thats because the movie jurassic park sparked my interest

hmm i dont think it relates to this topic but what about a platypus???

its is a mammal but lays eggs and i recently found out has spurs on its feet that can eject venom!!!

very few mammals can do that...that is some awsome adaptation, i just wonder how the patypus evolved???? lol

 

[Olimpia]

I know things can "adapt" to inviroment but its not an active thing adapting is very passive, Its the "strogest survive". Like the snakes and monitors not eating the frogs... they are a R selected species, they mass produce so the population drop that hast risen yet could be due to the animals dieing off from eating frogs... the ones with smaller heads could have eaten a frog early in life and where very sick for a while thus stunting their growth... I have a bearded dragon that was neglected early in life and he is smaller than my other dragons. That dosnt mean he evolved he was just malnurished. Animals can learn not to eat something there not totaly stupid. So in that aspect of "evolution" I know it can happen, now as far as an invert becoming a vert then warmblooded and then to humans as we are now. I dont think it was possable.. Also dinisoars toand birds. Just dont see it happining.
If its true ,I want a 2 ton flying bearded dragon that eats veggies.

Please re-explain this, I didn't get what you meant at all.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Unfortunately a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method often leads to an assumption that the evidence for scientific theories are not as sound as things we commonly regard as fact. What I mean by this is that the scientific method fundamentally requires that our interpretation of facts be open to adaptation as additional facts come to light. The result is that all conclusions based on these facts are theories because at no point will any amount of facts alter the fundamental scientific principle that we be prepared to alter our interpretation should the weight of evidence shift. Gravity is thus a theory, as are many other things that every day are generally regard as fact. The designation of these common principles, including evolution, as theories does not, however, change the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports their truth. Similarly, this designation does not weaken the strength of the scientific arguments for them, as much as many who do not fundamentally understand science might try to make you believe.

The notion that evolution is suspect because we have failed to artificially create a new species is unfortunately based on additional misunderstandings of scientific principles. First, the species concept is extremely controversial, even among biologists. This is because a species, regardless of the species definition one prescribes to, is simply a momentary state along a temporal continuum (a momentary piece of history, if you will) that we have attempted to define and name and it fails to depict variation, adaptation, or change/evolution. Ultimately, species designations, however, depict states of naturally occurring populations of closely related organisms. The key in understanding why we have failed to artificially create a new species is understanding that species are naturally occurring and that they are based on populations, not individuals. Artificially accelerating evolutionary change and creating a species is fundamentally not natural and changing the gene frequencies of a captive subset of a larger natural population will never constitute a new species. There are numerous examples, however, of our captive manipulation of gene frequencies and phenotypes away from their natural state, which had they occurred naturally and the frequencies of these changes propagated significantly in a wild population, could be seen as evolution toward a differentiated taxon provided certain other population dynamics criteria are met.

Perfection of design is something that is frequently cited as evidence against the theory of evolutionary processes, but the reality is that there are numerous examples of a lack of perfection, even amidst said perfection. One example is the design of the mammalian eye. The mammalian eye is actually very poorly designed and cephalopods (octopus, squid, etc.) have much more efficiently designed, but individually derived, eyes. While the mammalian eye is capable of getting the job done, it is far from perfect and its origins are clear based on its development and evolutionary relationships with other species.

A lack of intermediate forms was also mentioned as evidence against evolution, but this again is not entirely true. Our sampling of extinct taxa is far from complete, but there are many known intermediaries for many different notable transitions. This is also true of our transition from apes to our current form. As for the statement questioning why evolution has stopped for humans, I would argue quite the opposite. Simply looking at variations seen in different ethnicities of our species provides clear evidence of differential gene frequencies. Further differentiation has likely been stalled by our development of effective global transport, but left to more natural processes, the differentiation of populations is evident and would likely continue.

Evolution is a complex theory and few who do not actually study its processes in depth truly understand many of its nuances and how they function. Ultimately it is extremely well supported by scientific evidence. Many societies have strong faiths, however, many of these faiths are increasingly realizing that their faith does not preclude the accuracy of scientific principles, including evolution.

Chris

 

[primestick]

lol....i would too...and thats because the movie jurassic park sparked my interest

hmm i dont think it relates to this topic but what about a platypus???

its is a mammal but lays eggs and i recently found out has spurs on its fee that can eject venom!!!

very few mammals can do that...that is some awsome adaptation, i just wonder how the patypus evolved???? lol

I think space invaders put those on earth... or like the chupacabra was a CIA experiement that got loose lol...

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

I have a bearded dragon that was neglected early in life and he is smaller than my other dragons. That dosnt mean he evolved he was just malnurished.

Uhh you're right (although every other word is misspelled) that your bearded dragon did not evolve because not only is his smaller size not an adaptation to anything, but evolution does not happen to an individual by definition. Evolution happens to a population of animals over several generations at minimum...never to a single individual. So it really doesn't help your argument.

 

[primestick]

Uhh you're right (although every other word is misspelled) that your bearded dragon did not evolve because not only is his smaller size not an adaptation to anything, but evolution does not happen to an individual by definition. Evolution happens to a population of animals over several generations at minimum...never to a single individual. So it really doesn't help your argument.

My spelling is rushed.. i need to be reading book right now, but what im saying is the snakes in the area with the toads (have to read the links on page 4) might be smaller because they ate the toads and where not eating (sick) for quite some time... Thus learning to not eat toads and making there bodys (heads) smaller.

 

[jojackson]

Perfection of design is something that is frequently cited as evidence against the theory of evolutionary processes, but the reality is that there are numerous examples of a lack of perfection, even amidst said perfection. One example is the design of the mammalian eye. The mammalian eye is actually very poorly designed and cephalopods (octopus, squid, etc.) have much more efficiently designed, but individually derived, eyes. While the mammalian eye is capable of getting the job done, it is far from perfect and its origins are clear based on its development and evolutionary relationships with other species.

Good Argument and great post, though I think this part is only relevant to ones subjective idea of 'perfection', as I said to Olympia.
Sure the mammal eye might be better, but a goat does not need to be able to spot an ant 500 yards away, its food doesn't run or hide and its eye position/ vision is nicely suited to spotting predators, why improve on what works.

but what im saying is the snakes in the area with the toads (have to read the links on page 4) might be smaller because they ate the toads and where not eating (sick) for quite some time... Thus learning to not eat toads and making there bodys (heads) smaller.

Why and how would learning not to eat toads (which isnt the case anyway) make there gape smaller? If they didnt eat the toads theres no need to change. Incidentally the species is a frog eater.
I believe the field scientist and biologist who studied the said populations over generations would disagree with you. Again, your talking about individual animals, not species as a whole. Their gape is smaller due to subtle genetic change, no mystical effort to shrink on the part of the individual or any number of individuals sick or otherwise. What you suggest is that an animal/s are able to modify their own genes by conscious choice and effort? Others will say the genes mutated at random (co-incidentally) and by a process of natural selection (smaller gaped snakes surviving to pass on their genes, larger gaped snakes eating toads and dying and over generations eliminating the propensity of 'large gape' genes from the gene pool since a dead snake wont breed.
What they dont explain is the correlation between the introduction of this new variable (toads) and the sudden (in evolutionary terms) mysterious mutation that so co-incidentally produced snakes with a smaller gape. 70 or so yrs is the blink of an eye.
Why didn't the snakes of said species simply die out, at least in the affected range?

 

[ChameleonRave]

My answer is yes. Short and simple. just yes.

 

[Dupontman2]

My answer is yes. Short and simple. just yes.

Good answer! Mine is NO! From pond scum to everything there is now! NO!!

 

[Monties1982]

Perfection of design is something that is frequently cited as evidence against the theory of evolutionary processes, but the reality is that there are numerous examples of a lack of perfection, even amidst said perfection. One example is the design of the mammalian eye. The mammalian eye is actually very poorly designed and cephalopods (octopus, squid, etc.) have much more efficiently designed, but individually derived, eyes. While the mammalian eye is capable of getting the job done, it is far from perfect and its origins are clear based on its development and evolutionary relationships with other species.

Whether or not you consider then mammalian eye to be perfect, it is still irreducibly complex. When photons hit the cells of the retina they activate a chain action, rather like a domino effect. The first of these domino pieces is a molecule called "11-cis-retinal" that is sensitive to photons. When struck by a photon, this molecule changes shape, which in turn changes the shape of a protein called "rhodopsin" to which it is tightly bound. Rhodopsin then takes a form that enables it to stick to another resident protein in the cell called "transducin."Prior to reacting with rhodopsin, transducin is bound to another molecule called GDP. When it connects with rhodopsin, transducin releases the GDP molecule and is linked to a new molecule called GTP. That is why the new complex consisting of the two proteins (rhodopsin and transducin) and a smaller molecule (GTP) is called "GTP-transducin-rhodopsin."But the process has only just begun. The new GTP-transducin-rhodopsin complex can now very quickly bind to another protein resident in the cell called "phosphodiesterase." This enables the phosphodiesterase protein to cut yet another molecule resident in the cell, called cGMP. Since this process takes place in the millions of proteins in the cell, the cGMP concentration is suddenly decreased.How does all this help with sight? The last element of this chain reaction supplies the answer. The fall in the cGMP amount affects the ion channels in the cell. The so-called ion channel is a structure composed of proteins that regulate the number of sodium ions within the cell. Under normal conditions, the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell while another molecule disposes of the excess ions to maintain a balance. When the number of cGMP molecules falls, so does the number of sodium ions. This leads to an imbalance of charge across the membrane, which stimulates the nerve cells connected to these cells, forming what we refer to as an "electrical impulse." Nerves carry the impulses to the brain and "seeing" happens there.

 

[jojackson]

Thankyou M,
if only we understood a minute fraction of how things work in life, I dont see how anyone could still convince themselves thats all sheer coincidental fluke, random chance.
Such incredible complexity in something we take for granted, and its an incredibly big world!
Our Ignorance breeds arrogance of equal scale.

 

[Ace]

Thankyou M,
if only we understood a minute fraction of how things work in life, I dont see how anyone could still convince themselves thats all sheer coincidental fluke, random chance.
Such incredible complexity in something we take for granted, and its an incredibly big world!
Our Ignorance breeds arrogance of equal scale.

if only compassion and understanding were that great of a scale

 

[melric]

I believe in both. Human's may not have evolved in characteristically, but we have evolved on cellular, and knowledgeable level. Evolution involves change to better suit our environment. Think about it, were able to survive many known diseases that people hundreds of years ago could not. Our forefathers immunity has been passed down to us through our dna, as well as the means to create vaccines and and cures. We've evolved our brains far more than any other living being on the planet. Enough said.