Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Is Evolution true?

Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.

The "Tree of Life" does depict a visual representation of how we look at ancestry, However, it has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is the key factor of evolution. The current look of the "Tree of Life" is based on the theory of evolution to some degree, however, to suggest that it is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution is absurd. Taxonomy has changed since the theory of evolution came about, but taxonomy has no influence on the theory of evolution. So, the changing of the "Tree of Life" does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 5:39:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.

The "Tree of Life" does depict a visual representation of how we look at ancestry, However, it has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is the key factor of evolution. The current look of the "Tree of Life" is based on the theory of evolution to some degree, however, to suggest that it is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution is absurd. Taxonomy has changed since the theory of evolution came about, but taxonomy has no influence on the theory of evolution. So, the changing of the "Tree of Life" does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution.

I didn't say it had anything to do with speciation, you suggested the new evidence changed the tree of life, which is certainly does. The tree of life is now the visual representation of how we view the current link to common ancestors. What is truly interesting is that you have just stated that there is no possible way new evidence in regards to where animals sit in the tree of life can falsify evolution. So if we indeed do find a croc-o-duck, we just add another branch and another unknown common ancestor and evolutionary theory is as strong as ever.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 5:54:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.

The "Tree of Life" does depict a visual representation of how we look at ancestry, However, it has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is the key factor of evolution. The current look of the "Tree of Life" is based on the theory of evolution to some degree, however, to suggest that it is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution is absurd. Taxonomy has changed since the theory of evolution came about, but taxonomy has no influence on the theory of evolution. So, the changing of the "Tree of Life" does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution.

This is priceless - the tree of life is now synonymous with evolution as animals are placed in it based on their DNA and their perceived common ancestors. There is no "some" degree - its to every degree. It is the road map of evolutionary changes and relationships.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:00:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 5:39:06 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.

The "Tree of Life" does depict a visual representation of how we look at ancestry, However, it has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is the key factor of evolution. The current look of the "Tree of Life" is based on the theory of evolution to some degree, however, to suggest that it is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution is absurd. Taxonomy has changed since the theory of evolution came about, but taxonomy has no influence on the theory of evolution. So, the changing of the "Tree of Life" does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution.

I didn't say it had anything to do with speciation, you suggested the new evidence changed the tree of life, which is certainly does. The tree of life is now the visual representation of how we view the current link to common ancestors. What is truly interesting is that you have just stated that there is no possible way new evidence in regards to where animals sit in the tree of life can falsify evolution. So if we indeed do find a croc-o-duck, we just add another branch and another unknown common ancestor and evolutionary theory is as strong as ever.

In your original post you implied that changing the "tree of life" is akin to changing the theory of evolution. You said that changing the tree of life contradicts evolution. Therefore you draw a direct link between taxonomy and speciation. You display this link again when you imply that simply finding a new species would change the theory of speciation. Speciation has nothing to do with classification. Classification is a construct which we created. We can create any number of classes and phyla with any number of categories. They are irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Just because we try and match them to some semblance of how we think they relate to each other doesn't mean that they actually relate to each other in that way. At the same time, an error in classification doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. Moving a species from the protozoa branch to the animal branch doesn't change the theory of evolution. It just means we have new evidence and now we think that cell is closer related to an animal cell. If we later change it again to a bacteria, it still doesn't have any impact on the theory of evolution/speciation.

Of course we would classify the new species and paste it on the tree. Why wouldn't we? How does finding a new species change the theory of speciation?

A truely remarkable find would be something incredibly complex dating back to an era of non-complex life (Apes during the cambrian period) That kind of discovery would totally throw evolution for a loop. However, a new species, in the correct time period, not that big of a deal to be honest.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:11:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 5:54:17 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.

The "Tree of Life" does depict a visual representation of how we look at ancestry, However, it has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is the key factor of evolution. The current look of the "Tree of Life" is based on the theory of evolution to some degree, however, to suggest that it is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution is absurd. Taxonomy has changed since the theory of evolution came about, but taxonomy has no influence on the theory of evolution. So, the changing of the "Tree of Life" does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution.

This is priceless - the tree of life is now synonymous with evolution as animals are placed in it based on their DNA and their perceived common ancestors. There is no "some" degree - its to every degree. It is the road map of evolutionary changes and relationships.

Perhaps the best way to explain this is thus:

Taxonomy (the tree of life) is being arranged to account for physiological structures/similarities, cellular structures, age of the species, molecular biology, etc...

The theory of evolution: is not impacted by the shape of the "tree of life"
It is only influenced by data pertaining directly to how speciation occurs.

In your original post you implied there was an inverse relationship; that taxonomy somehow affected the theory in evolution. While the theory of evolution affects taxonomy, changes taxonomy don't affect the theory of evolution.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:20:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 6:00:41 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:39:06 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.

The "Tree of Life" does depict a visual representation of how we look at ancestry, However, it has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is the key factor of evolution. The current look of the "Tree of Life" is based on the theory of evolution to some degree, however, to suggest that it is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution is absurd. Taxonomy has changed since the theory of evolution came about, but taxonomy has no influence on the theory of evolution. So, the changing of the "Tree of Life" does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution.

I didn't say it had anything to do with speciation, you suggested the new evidence changed the tree of life, which is certainly does. The tree of life is now the visual representation of how we view the current link to common ancestors. What is truly interesting is that you have just stated that there is no possible way new evidence in regards to where animals sit in the tree of life can falsify evolution. So if we indeed do find a croc-o-duck, we just add another branch and another unknown common ancestor and evolutionary theory is as strong as ever.

In your original post you implied that changing the "tree of life" is akin to changing the theory of evolution. You said that changing the tree of life contradicts evolution. Therefore you draw a direct link between taxonomy and speciation. You display this link again when you imply that simply finding a new species would change the theory of speciation. Speciation has nothing to do with classification. Classification is a construct which we created. We can create any number of classes and phyla with any number of categories. They are irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Just because we try and match them to some semblance of how we think they relate to each other doesn't mean that they actually relate to each other in that way. At the same time, an error in classification doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. Moving a species from the protozoa branch to the animal branch doesn't change the theory of evolution. It just means we have new evidence and now we think that cell is closer related to an animal cell. If we later change it again to a bacteria, it still doesn't have any impact on the theory of evolution/speciation.

Of course we would classify the new species and paste it on the tree. Why wouldn't we? How does finding a new species change the theory of speciation?

A truely remarkable find would be something incredibly complex dating back to an era of non-complex life (Apes during the cambrian period) That kind of discovery would totally throw evolution for a loop. However, a new species, in the correct time period, not that big of a deal to be honest.

I didn't imply anything, all I did is state what you have stated, new evidence that contradicted old evidence changes places in the tree of life with no impact on evolutionary theory. Even if we did find cambrian fossils with apes, evolution can handle that also. As the creatures went extinct much later than what we previously thought, or apes evolved much earlier than what we previously thought - we re-index some fossils and evolution is as strong as ever.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:34:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 6:20:00 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:00:41 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:39:06 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.

The "Tree of Life" does depict a visual representation of how we look at ancestry, However, it has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is the key factor of evolution. The current look of the "Tree of Life" is based on the theory of evolution to some degree, however, to suggest that it is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution is absurd. Taxonomy has changed since the theory of evolution came about, but taxonomy has no influence on the theory of evolution. So, the changing of the "Tree of Life" does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution.

I didn't say it had anything to do with speciation, you suggested the new evidence changed the tree of life, which is certainly does. The tree of life is now the visual representation of how we view the current link to common ancestors. What is truly interesting is that you have just stated that there is no possible way new evidence in regards to where animals sit in the tree of life can falsify evolution. So if we indeed do find a croc-o-duck, we just add another branch and another unknown common ancestor and evolutionary theory is as strong as ever.

In your original post you implied that changing the "tree of life" is akin to changing the theory of evolution. You said that changing the tree of life contradicts evolution. Therefore you draw a direct link between taxonomy and speciation. You display this link again when you imply that simply finding a new species would change the theory of speciation. Speciation has nothing to do with classification. Classification is a construct which we created. We can create any number of classes and phyla with any number of categories. They are irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Just because we try and match them to some semblance of how we think they relate to each other doesn't mean that they actually relate to each other in that way. At the same time, an error in classification doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. Moving a species from the protozoa branch to the animal branch doesn't change the theory of evolution. It just means we have new evidence and now we think that cell is closer related to an animal cell. If we later change it again to a bacteria, it still doesn't have any impact on the theory of evolution/speciation.

Of course we would classify the new species and paste it on the tree. Why wouldn't we? How does finding a new species change the theory of speciation?

A truely remarkable find would be something incredibly complex dating back to an era of non-complex life (Apes during the cambrian period) That kind of discovery would totally throw evolution for a loop. However, a new species, in the correct time period, not that big of a deal to be honest.

I didn't imply anything, all I did is state what you have stated, new evidence that contradicted old evidence changes places in the tree of life with no impact on evolutionary theory. Even if we did find cambrian fossils with apes, evolution can handle that also. As the creatures went extinct much later than what we previously thought, or apes evolved much earlier than what we previously thought - we re-index some fossils and evolution is as strong as ever.

"Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious"

-----isn't that you saying that taxonomy is part of evolution?

If you're simply saying that the theory of evolution has changed taxonomy, then fine. However, that sure sounds like you're arguing that taxonomy impacts the theory of evolution....

"This is priceless - the tree of life is now synonymous with evolution as animals are placed in it based on their DNA and their perceived common ancestors. There is no "some" degree - its to every degree. It is the road map of evolutionary changes and relationships."

----when you say synonymous it means they are interchangeable....I don't know how else to interpret this. Evolution is not synonymous with taxonomy, they aren't interchangeable terms. While one can be made to look like a graphic depiction of our current understanding of the theory, simply updating the tree doesn't change the theory. Thus the terms aren't synonymous.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:54:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 6:34:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:20:00 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:00:41 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:39:06 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

Prior to evolutionary theory I would have to agree, we looked at animals characterised them depending upon their visual characteristics and put them into nested heirachies. Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious as pretty much every pictorial representation of evolution uses the tree of life, or a selection of its branches to demonstrate it.

The "Tree of Life" does depict a visual representation of how we look at ancestry, However, it has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is the key factor of evolution. The current look of the "Tree of Life" is based on the theory of evolution to some degree, however, to suggest that it is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution is absurd. Taxonomy has changed since the theory of evolution came about, but taxonomy has no influence on the theory of evolution. So, the changing of the "Tree of Life" does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution.

I didn't say it had anything to do with speciation, you suggested the new evidence changed the tree of life, which is certainly does. The tree of life is now the visual representation of how we view the current link to common ancestors. What is truly interesting is that you have just stated that there is no possible way new evidence in regards to where animals sit in the tree of life can falsify evolution. So if we indeed do find a croc-o-duck, we just add another branch and another unknown common ancestor and evolutionary theory is as strong as ever.

In your original post you implied that changing the "tree of life" is akin to changing the theory of evolution. You said that changing the tree of life contradicts evolution. Therefore you draw a direct link between taxonomy and speciation. You display this link again when you imply that simply finding a new species would change the theory of speciation. Speciation has nothing to do with classification. Classification is a construct which we created. We can create any number of classes and phyla with any number of categories. They are irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Just because we try and match them to some semblance of how we think they relate to each other doesn't mean that they actually relate to each other in that way. At the same time, an error in classification doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. Moving a species from the protozoa branch to the animal branch doesn't change the theory of evolution. It just means we have new evidence and now we think that cell is closer related to an animal cell. If we later change it again to a bacteria, it still doesn't have any impact on the theory of evolution/speciation.

Of course we would classify the new species and paste it on the tree. Why wouldn't we? How does finding a new species change the theory of speciation?

A truely remarkable find would be something incredibly complex dating back to an era of non-complex life (Apes during the cambrian period) That kind of discovery would totally throw evolution for a loop. However, a new species, in the correct time period, not that big of a deal to be honest.

I didn't imply anything, all I did is state what you have stated, new evidence that contradicted old evidence changes places in the tree of life with no impact on evolutionary theory. Even if we did find cambrian fossils with apes, evolution can handle that also. As the creatures went extinct much later than what we previously thought, or apes evolved much earlier than what we previously thought - we re-index some fossils and evolution is as strong as ever.

"Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious"

-----isn't that you saying that taxonomy is part of evolution?

Try teaching the concept of a common ancestor without the tree of life. It gets used all the time. If its not part of it, it would not be a good educational tool.

If you're simply saying that the theory of evolution has changed taxonomy, then fine. However, that sure sounds like you're arguing that taxonomy impacts the theory of evolution....

"This is priceless - the tree of life is now synonymous with evolution as animals are placed in it based on their DNA and their perceived common ancestors. There is no "some" degree - its to every degree. It is the road map of evolutionary changes and relationships."

----when you say synonymous it means they are interchangeable....I don't know how else to interpret this. Evolution is not synonymous with taxonomy, they aren't interchangeable terms. While one can be made to look like a graphic depiction of our current understanding of the theory, simply updating the tree doesn't change the theory. Thus the terms aren't synonymous.

synonymous/s=8;G2;n;4;n=8;m&#601;s/
adjective
1. (of a word or phrase) having the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.
2. closely associated with or suggestive of something.

Taxonomy in its historical sense isn't associated with evolution at all. The tree of life on the other hand is closely associate with or suggestive of something - Evolution..., hence its use in probably every biology text book to illustrate commo
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:10:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 6:54:00 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:34:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:20:00 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:00:41 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:39:06 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

I didn't imply anything, all I did is state what you have stated, new evidence that contradicted old evidence changes places in the tree of life with no impact on evolutionary theory. Even if we did find cambrian fossils with apes, evolution can handle that also. As the creatures went extinct much later than what we previously thought, or apes evolved much earlier than what we previously thought - we re-index some fossils and evolution is as strong as ever.

"Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious"

-----isn't that you saying that taxonomy is part of evolution?

Try teaching the concept of a common ancestor without the tree of life. It gets used all the time. If its not part of it, it would not be a good educational tool.

Arguing from consensus is probably not the best course of action. Also, this isn't a classroom, and taxonomy wasn't being used as a tool to teach evolution. You were stating that taxonomy is part of evolution. Every biology class I've taken separates the two....I know that's anecdotal and doesn't count for much. However, the two are easily separable and distinct.


If you're simply saying that the theory of evolution has changed taxonomy, then fine. However, that sure sounds like you're arguing that taxonomy impacts the theory of evolution....

"This is priceless - the tree of life is now synonymous with evolution as animals are placed in it based on their DNA and their perceived common ancestors. There is no "some" degree - its to every degree. It is the road map of evolutionary changes and relationships."

----when you say synonymous it means they are interchangeable....I don't know how else to interpret this. Evolution is not synonymous with taxonomy, they aren't interchangeable terms. While one can be made to look like a graphic depiction of our current understanding of the theory, simply updating the tree doesn't change the theory. Thus the terms aren't synonymous.

synonymous/s=8;G2;n;4;n=8;m&#601;s/
adjective
1. (of a word or phrase) having the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.
2. closely associated with or suggestive of something.

Taxonomy in its historical sense isn't associated with evolution at all. The tree of life on the other hand is closely associate with or suggestive of so

While taxonomy may be closely associated with evolution. It doesn't work the other way around. Evolution/speciation has little to do with classification. Also, cladistic taxonomy is still widely used. Evolutionary taxonomy is now just starting to emerge. While you may have meant to tie taxonomy to evolution. You made it sound like you were tying the validity of evolution to the changes in taxonomy. That's why I called it a disingenuous comparison.

If you want to argue that taxonomy has changed because of evolution, I have no problem with that. However, it certainly didn't appear that way.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:36:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:10:14 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:54:00 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:34:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:20:00 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:00:41 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:39:06 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:23:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:15:28 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:50:20 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:06:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:06:40 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

It's a common statement. It's usually made by people who don't understand the complexity involved. If you look up "fossilization" you'll quickly realize how perfect the conditions have to be for preserving a specimen have to be so perfect that it's impossible to get a complete fossil record.

However, fossils are no longer the only evidence we have of speciation. We're getting better at tracing DNA through time and are actually re-writing the "Tree of Life" as we're getting more molecular evidence and links.

It's really a fascinating time for evolutionary biologists as there is so much data and evidence coming in now from different disciplines.

This is what I love about evolution, we can get completely different evidence that contradicts what we previously believed to be true, we do some pruning and grafting on the tree of live, and yet the theory remains rock solid. Its the theory that just keeps on giving

Gingerbread-man.....that is a terribly disingenuous rebuttal....You should know that the "Tree of Life" belongs to a branch called Taxonomy and isn't part of the theory of evolution. Taxonomy deals with classifying organisms; it has nothing to do with speciation. It's tied to evolution only in that it visually shows similarities between certain organisms. However, it doesn't speak to the process of speciation at all.... The recent influx of molecular evidence we are getting actually strengthens the theory of speciation via the process of evolution.

I didn't imply anything, all I did is state what you have stated, new evidence that contradicted old evidence changes places in the tree of life with no impact on evolutionary theory. Even if we did find cambrian fossils with apes, evolution can handle that also. As the creatures went extinct much later than what we previously thought, or apes evolved much earlier than what we previously thought - we re-index some fossils and evolution is as strong as ever.

"Now DNA is the trump card on where things are placed. The tree of life doesn't just try to show similarities, it attempts to display the geniology and common descent of all life. To say it isn't part of evolution is truely disengenious"

-----isn't that you saying that taxonomy is part of evolution?

Try teaching the concept of a common ancestor without the tree of life. It gets used all the time. If its not part of it, it would not be a good educational tool.

Arguing from consensus is probably not the best course of action. Also, this isn't a classroom, and taxonomy wasn't being used as a tool to teach evolution. You were stating that taxonomy is part of evolution. Every biology class I've taken separates the two....I know that's anecdotal and doesn't count for much. However, the two are easily separable and distinct.

If arguing from consensus is probably not the best course of action, why do scientists do it? Are you honestly telling me the "tree of life" - and not taxonomy which existed well prior to evolutionary thought is not closely linked to the evolutionary theory and common descent. So in none of those biology classrooms you never had pictures of a variety of horses, primates, etc all changing to extant forms.


If you're simply saying that the theory of evolution has changed taxonomy, then fine. However, that sure sounds like you're arguing that taxonomy impacts the theory of evolution....

"This is priceless - the tree of life is now synonymous with evolution as animals are placed in it based on their DNA and their perceived common ancestors. There is no "some" degree - its to every degree. It is the road map of evolutionary changes and relationships."

----when you say synonymous it means they are interchangeable....I don't know how else to interpret this. Evolution is not synonymous with taxonomy, they aren't interchangeable terms. While one can be made to look like a graphic depiction of our current understanding of the theory, simply updating the tree doesn't change the theory. Thus the terms aren't synonymous.

synonymous/s=8;G2;n;4;n=8;m&#601;s/
adjective
1. (of a word or phrase) having the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.
2. closely associated with or suggestive of something.

Taxonomy in its historical sense isn't associated with evolution at all. The tree of life on the other hand is closely associate with or suggestive of so

While taxonomy may be closely associated with evolution. It doesn't work the other way around. Evolution/speciation has little to do with classification. Also, cladistic taxonomy is still widely used. Evolutionary taxonomy is now just starting to emerge. While you may have meant to tie taxonomy to evolution. You made it sound like you were tying the validity of evolution to the changes in taxonomy. That's why I called it a disingenuous comparison.

If you want to argue that taxonomy has changed because of evolution, I have no problem with that. However, it certainly didn't appear that way.

As evolution is a fact, I don't think you can find anything that will shake its validity. Its a very accommodating theory.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:40:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

Well there are artifacts but they don't help the cause. Many of them (eg those of bacteria, sharks, mosquitoes, leafs) are similar to species existing today evolutionists come up with 'evolutionary stasis' as an excuse.

I think a more stronger objection to the theory is the fact that there are limits to variation as evidenced in many cases of breeding: cows, horses, flowers, cabbages, dogs etc have been intensively bred for various qualities and yet nothing truly novel has resulted.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 10:56:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:40:16 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

Well there are artifacts but they don't help the cause. Many of them (eg those of bacteria, sharks, mosquitoes, leafs) are similar to species existing today evolutionists come up with 'evolutionary stasis' as an excuse.

I think a more stronger objection to the theory is the fact that there are limits to variation as evidenced in many cases of breeding: cows, horses, flowers, cabbages, dogs etc have been intensively bred for various qualities and yet nothing truly novel has resulted.

That argument isn't a good refutation either though. Human influenced selective breeding hasn't been around for very long. The evolutionary time scales are much longer than humans have been around, so domesticated, selective breeding hasn't had time to produce reproductive isolation (the definition of a species). It's therefore an unfair critique of the theory of evolution.

You are criticizing it by a timescale that it itself says isn't enough to produce speciation.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 12:05:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:56:12 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:40:16 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

Well there are artifacts but they don't help the cause. Many of them (eg those of bacteria, sharks, mosquitoes, leafs) are similar to species existing today evolutionists come up with 'evolutionary stasis' as an excuse.

I think a more stronger objection to the theory is the fact that there are limits to variation as evidenced in many cases of breeding: cows, horses, flowers, cabbages, dogs etc have been intensively bred for various qualities and yet nothing truly novel has resulted.

That argument isn't a good refutation either though. Human influenced selective breeding hasn't been around for very long. The evolutionary time scales are much longer than humans have been around, so domesticated, selective breeding hasn't had time to produce reproductive isolation (the definition of a species). It's therefore an unfair critique of the theory of evolution.

You are criticizing it by a timescale that it itself says isn't enough to produce speciation.

We wouldn't want observation to get in the way of a robust theory. So if new evidence from the fossil and DNA record cannot refute evolution, and a lack of obervational evidence cannot refute it. Is there anything you can think of that would?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 12:27:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 12:05:23 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:56:12 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:40:16 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

Well there are artifacts but they don't help the cause. Many of them (eg those of bacteria, sharks, mosquitoes, leafs) are similar to species existing today evolutionists come up with 'evolutionary stasis' as an excuse.

I think a more stronger objection to the theory is the fact that there are limits to variation as evidenced in many cases of breeding: cows, horses, flowers, cabbages, dogs etc have been intensively bred for various qualities and yet nothing truly novel has resulted.

That argument isn't a good refutation either though. Human influenced selective breeding hasn't been around for very long. The evolutionary time scales are much longer than humans have been around, so domesticated, selective breeding hasn't had time to produce reproductive isolation (the definition of a species). It's therefore an unfair critique of the theory of evolution.

You are criticizing it by a timescale that it itself says isn't enough to produce speciation.

We wouldn't want observation to get in the way of a robust theory. So if new evidence from the fossil and DNA record cannot refute evolution, and a lack of obervational evidence cannot refute it. Is there anything you can think of that would?

There are plenty of things that could refute evolution. If there weren't it wouldn't be a falsifiable theory and thus wouldn't be very scientific....

The most obvious being someone discovering complex structures before the precursors were in place. Finding a fully evolved eye in a fossil dating back to a time before eyes would definitely put a lot of strain on the theory. Since part of the theory is that complex structures evolve from simple structures. If you found a complex eye during a time when other animals only have a pigment spot you couldn't really argue that this structure evolved from a simple form, as the next generation of eyes is supposed to only be slightly more complex. The next step should have been a pigment cup. Finding a lense, retina, etc... would fly in the face of that hallmark of evolution.

Complete discordance between phylogenies based on morphology/fossils and on DNA. While individual genes can show discordance by lateral transfer"rotifers, for example, have incorporated into their genome from DNA from very unrelated organisms, and this is also common for bacteria. But lateral transfer of genes, as opposed to their direct descent from parent to offspring, is relatively uncommon. So, for example, if we sequenced the genome of a blue whale and found that on the whole the species was more closely related to fish than to mammals, we"d have a serious problem for the theory of evolution.

A general lack of genetic variation in species. Evolution depends on genetic variation. If most species had none, they couldn't evolve. However, the universal efficacy of artificial selection (I"m aware of only three lab experiments that failed to show a response to such breeding experiments), shows that genetic variation is ubiquitous in nearly all species.

Rabbits with feathers could also disprove evolution. There are animals with a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features, such as echidnas, and there are fossils with a mixture of bird and reptilian features, such as the toothy archaeopteryx. However, no animals have a mixture of mammalian and bird features.

Direct observation of macroevolution is a not a good criticism of the theory of evolution however. The time scales required don't allow for direct observation. The theory itself outlines this and thus it's not a valid critique.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:53:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 12:27:38 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/11/2015 12:05:23 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:56:12 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:40:16 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

Well there are artifacts but they don't help the cause. Many of them (eg those of bacteria, sharks, mosquitoes, leafs) are similar to species existing today evolutionists come up with 'evolutionary stasis' as an excuse.

I think a more stronger objection to the theory is the fact that there are limits to variation as evidenced in many cases of breeding: cows, horses, flowers, cabbages, dogs etc have been intensively bred for various qualities and yet nothing truly novel has resulted.

That argument isn't a good refutation either though. Human influenced selective breeding hasn't been around for very long. The evolutionary time scales are much longer than humans have been around, so domesticated, selective breeding hasn't had time to produce reproductive isolation (the definition of a species). It's therefore an unfair critique of the theory of evolution.

You are criticizing it by a timescale that it itself says isn't enough to produce speciation.

We wouldn't want observation to get in the way of a robust theory. So if new evidence from the fossil and DNA record cannot refute evolution, and a lack of obervational evidence cannot refute it. Is there anything you can think of that would?

There are plenty of things that could refute evolution. If there weren't it wouldn't be a falsifiable theory and thus wouldn't be very scientific....

The most obvious being someone discovering complex structures before the precursors were in place. Finding a fully evolved eye in a fossil dating back to a time before eyes would definitely put a lot of strain on the theory. Since part of the theory is that complex structures evolve from simple structures. If you found a complex eye during a time when other animals only have a pigment spot you couldn't really argue that this structure evolved from a simple form, as the next generation of eyes is supposed to only be slightly more complex. The next step should have been a pigment cup. Finding a lense, retina, etc... would fly in the face of that hallmark of evolution.

If this occurred it would not falsify evolution. The story would read something like this.... Complex eye found previously unknown species that lived in the XXX period. This suggests that the evolution of sight occurred much earlier than previously thought and a scientists and paleontologists are now eager to find its yet un known undiscovered ancestors. It also gives further weight to the belief that eyes have evolved multiple times as this structure is not like anything we see in extant creatures etc etc.

Complete discordance between phylogenies based on morphology/fossils and on DNA. While individual genes can show discordance by lateral transfer"rotifers, for example, have incorporated into their genome from DNA from very unrelated organisms, and this is also common for bacteria. But lateral transfer of genes, as opposed to their direct descent from parent to offspring, is relatively uncommon. So, for example, if we sequenced the genome of a blue whale and found that on the whole the species was more closely related to fish than to mammals, we"d have a serious problem for the theory of evolution.

Fast breaking news.....Evolutionist have mapped the Genome from Blue Whales and have found that they are more closely related to fish than to their land locked cousins. Previously it was thought that whales evolved from land dwelling mammals that gradually migrated to the sea but DNA evidence have conclusively established that they have in fact developed their mammalian traits convergantly directly from their fishlike ancestors. This new understanding has now resolved the speculation of how whales had migrated back to the sea.

A general lack of genetic variation in species. Evolution depends on genetic variation. If most species had none, they couldn't evolve. However, the universal efficacy of artificial selection (I"m aware of only three lab experiments that failed to show a response to such breeding experiments), shows that genetic variation is ubiquitous in nearly all species.

Even if there was a lack of genetic variation is species, this wouldn't preclude evolution as just like we cannot refute macro evolution through observation, the same would apply here - we just need more time - it is the magic ingredient that makes the impossible possible.

Rabbits with feathers could also disprove evolution. There are animals with a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features, such as echidnas, and there are fossils with a mixture of bird and reptilian features, such as the toothy archaeopteryx. However, no animals have a mixture of mammalian and bird features.

Birds have two eyes, mammals have two eye, they are both warm blooded, they both sometimes lay eggs, they both have four "limbs", sometimes they both have fins and flippers. They already share lots of common features - why would feathers be such an issue - and if it is we can always pull out convergent evolution to explain how they have come up with the same solution to the same problem in different trees.

As you said yesterday we would add another branch to the tree of life, add another unknown common ancestor and everything is peachy once more.

Direct observation of macroevolution is a not a good criticism of the theory of evolution however. The time scales required don't allow for direct observation. The theory itself outlines this and thus it's not a valid critique.

Ahhhh, the magic of time once again. It happens too slowly for us to see it, but when it does happen it happens too quickly and over a small population base to leave much trace.

So if it can't be falsified......is it scientific?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 4:43:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:53:26 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/11/2015 12:27:38 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/11/2015 12:05:23 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:56:12 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:40:16 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:

There are plenty of things that could refute evolution. If there weren't it wouldn't be a falsifiable theory and thus wouldn't be very scientific....

The most obvious being someone discovering complex structures before the precursors were in place. Finding a fully evolved eye in a fossil dating back to a time before eyes would definitely put a lot of strain on the theory. Since part of the theory is that complex structures evolve from simple structures. If you found a complex eye during a time when other animals only have a pigment spot you couldn't really argue that this structure evolved from a simple form, as the next generation of eyes is supposed to only be slightly more complex. The next step should have been a pigment cup. Finding a lense, retina, etc... would fly in the face of that hallmark of evolution.

If this occurred it would not falsify evolution. The story would read something like this.... Complex eye found previously unknown species that lived in the XXX period. This suggests that the evolution of sight occurred much earlier than previously thought and a scientists and paleontologists are now eager to find its yet un known undiscovered ancestors. It also gives further weight to the belief that eyes have evolved multiple times as this structure is not like anything we see in extant creatures etc etc.

Complete discordance between phylogenies based on morphology/fossils and on DNA. While individual genes can show discordance by lateral transfer"rotifers, for example, have incorporated into their genome from DNA from very unrelated organisms, and this is also common for bacteria. But lateral transfer of genes, as opposed to their direct descent from parent to offspring, is relatively uncommon. So, for example, if we sequenced the genome of a blue whale and found that on the whole the species was more closely related to fish than to mammals, we"d have a serious problem for the theory of evolution.

Fast breaking news.....Evolutionist have mapped the Genome from Blue Whales and have found that they are more closely related to fish than to their land locked cousins. Previously it was thought that whales evolved from land dwelling mammals that gradually migrated to the sea but DNA evidence have conclusively established that they have in fact developed their mammalian traits convergantly directly from their fishlike ancestors. This new understanding has now resolved the speculation of how whales had migrated back to the sea.

A general lack of genetic variation in species. Evolution depends on genetic variation. If most species had none, they couldn't evolve. However, the universal efficacy of artificial selection (I"m aware of only three lab experiments that failed to show a response to such breeding experiments), shows that genetic variation is ubiquitous in nearly all species.

Even if there was a lack of genetic variation is species, this wouldn't preclude evolution as just like we cannot refute macro evolution through observation, the same would apply here - we just need more time - it is the magic ingredient that makes the impossible possible.

Rabbits with feathers could also disprove evolution. There are animals with a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features, such as echidnas, and there are fossils with a mixture of bird and reptilian features, such as the toothy archaeopteryx. However, no animals have a mixture of mammalian and bird features.

Birds have two eyes, mammals have two eye, they are both warm blooded, they both sometimes lay eggs, they both have four "limbs", sometimes they both have fins and flippers. They already share lots of common features - why would feathers be such an issue - and if it is we can always pull out convergent evolution to explain how they have come up with the same solution to the same problem in different trees.

As you said yesterday we would add another branch to the tree of life, add another unknown common ancestor and everything is peachy once more.

Direct observation of macroevolution is a not a good criticism of the theory of evolution however. The time scales required don't allow for direct observation. The theory itself outlines this and thus it's not a valid critique.

Ahhhh, the magic of time once again. It happens too slowly for us to see it, but when it does happen it happens too quickly and over a small population base to leave much trace.

So if it can't be falsified......is it scientific?

Of course there are ways to be an apologist in the face of overwhelming evidence for any theory.....There are still people defending string theory even after the Higgs Boson.

Your arguments seems to be that just because you can raise an apologist argument for a theory means it isn't falsifiable. However, in science you would have to provide proof of said complex organ to have existed in a more primitive form prior to the more complex form. If you can't, your apologist argument wouldn't stand.

You see Christian apologist still argue for the literal truth of the flood and of a 6000 year old universe......is that a stance held by most theologians though? Are they well supported arguments in the face of our current understanding of the universe? If the kinds of evidence mentioned above would be discovered, the apologist arguments you offer would not have the necessary scientific support to be taken serious and would be considered as founded in reality as a 6,000 year old universe. You're apologist responses would be poorly reasoned in the context of the theory and would be immediately challenged on that basis.

The complex organ issue was one proposed by Darwin directly. He stated:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin1859, pg. 175].

Biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" [Ridley2004, pg. 66]. This is because mammals, according to current scientific analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth.

As far as the time thing goes. A lack of genetic variability would not be resolved by time. In fact it would be worsened by time. Mutations and sexual recombination would increase variability thus, having low variability would be counter intuitive.

Feathers on mammals would be a problem because the common ancestor for mammals and birds is too far down the line for mammals to have feathers as residual structures. Feathers are very complex and specialized "hairs". There is no reproductive benefit for mammals to evolve feathers separately. It defies the reproductive fitness portion of the theory.

A quick note on observation
While macroevolution is not observable, microevolution is and, in fact, is well documented. So it's not like direct observation isn't possible. It's just the insistence of observable macroevolution is an impossible standard. Speciation in life forms with short reproductive cycles (a few days per generation) has been directly observed.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 3:20:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

There's loads of evidence for it...
-"Lucy" and other findings that clearly show the transition from other species to humans
-Similarities in DNA between living things
-Other remains of ancient species
-Similarities of organisms in the embryonic stage
-Breeding of any type of plant or animal
-Analysis of fossil layers that evidences transition from one species to another
You can call me Mark if you like.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 9:58:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:56:12 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:

That argument isn't a good refutation either though. Human influenced selective breeding hasn't been around for very long. The evolutionary time scales are much longer than humans have been around, so domesticated, selective breeding hasn't had time to produce reproductive isolation (the definition of a species). It's therefore an unfair critique of the theory of evolution.

It isn't. If the theory of evolution is true one would expect far more plasticity and chimera in organisms_there aren't.


You are criticizing it by a timescale that it itself says isn't enough to produce speciation.

False. Talkorigins has a comprehensive list of observed speciation which refutes your point.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 4:17:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ye of so little faith.... Wings have evolved more than once, as have eyes and the nervous systems of jelly fish. It is not a big ask for feathers to do the same. Apparently there isn't a good reason why the evolved in the first time - so it shouldn't be a stretch of the imagination for them to happen again. If they did it would just strengthen evolutionary theory once again as it gives a great example of convergent evolution.

Evolutionary study is always throwing up weird and wonderful things that were not predicted and that often raise more questions than they answer - but it never stops evolution from being fact.

Apologies that I was unable to come up with more evidence for your hypotherical events....perhaps if the character limit was higher we might have been in luck.

If you read about lots of evolutionary discoveries they do in fact read like apologists arguements, new evidence is found that contradicts earlier understanding....so we change our understanding, tinker around the edges so that anything is possible and the theory remains rock solid.

In the mid 1900's Kelvin proposed that the earth was only around 100 million years old - then he revised that by more than half and it stuck for three decades. The lengthening of the known age of the earth has not in any way upset evolution. As evolution is never constant - it is all about change, so any new novel thing that we find just demonstrates how novel the changes within evolution are.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 5:15:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Darwinian evolution is a historical hypothesis, likely based on ideological assumption. It has nothing to do with the scientific method.

It is simply a historical hypothesis that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps.

In other words, it requires non-occurring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection for it to work as advertised.

Non-occurring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then it is basically invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.
Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly. In order to invent and build up complex biological systems.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process of supernatural selection repeats ad infinitum, until somehow 90%+ of the same species lacking those supertiny advantage disappear suddenly with no trace.

Lets go over this post:

At 2/12/2015 3:20:18 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:49:42 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Ive personally been told Evolution isn't true because there isnt any artifacts or proof of it. What's your thought?

There's loads of evidence for it...
-"Lucy" and other findings that clearly show the transition from other species to humans

Right. A few skull fragments that is reconstructed to a skull solely from imagination, and chimpanzee-looking hips that cannot support bipedal locomotion reconstructed to look like human hips. Right.

I also find the upright-walking evolution kinda hilarious. Quadrupeds run faster than man by a factor of four or five. Imagine running 50 miles per hour, wouldn't that be better than catching prey and avoid predators?
The cracker are the just-so stories explanations. One explanation is that males could be able to carry more groce- er. I mean food. Thus, the females went "watta man!!!", and sexual selection almighty picked the far slower mode of transportation for better grocery-carrying. Viola! Upring-walking evolved, no mechanical or scientific explanation needed for these kind of just-so stories. The best part is that carrying more food would entirely change the skeletal design, genetic code, and brain function of a species.

An other explanation is that the ones who are more upright could have more efficient sex, so they eventually outnumbered the far faster cousins... After all, one more baby can make all the difference.

-Similarities in DNA between living things

Species are biochemically connected; they need each other to feed, they drink water, they live in the same planet. So?
Also, aren't mice supposed to have 98% similar DNA to humans? How does the tre- er. I mean convoluted bush, branch look like? Primates to mice to hominids?

-Other remains of ancient species

Like how individual species show virtually no change even after hundreds of millions of years, and species that disappear in extinction events for different species to appear suddenly?

-Similarities of organisms in the embryonic stage

And what does that signify?
Please don't tell me you are referring to Haeckel's falsified theory based on fraudulent and faked images (that are still used today) in order to grasp for a connection.

https://pigeonchess.files.wordpress.com...

http://www.rationalconclusions.com...

-Breeding of any type of plant or animal

Yes, I believe the inner working of variations and genetic inheritance have been described by Gregor Mendel. How does this point at multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence arising from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps?

-Analysis of fossil layers that evidences transition from one species to another

Restatement of previous point. I would be interesting in knowing what evolutionary forces exactly are involved in the just-so stories.