Evolution: The Facts

[FunK-3-FivE]

Do not reply unless you have read this ENTIRE post.

After discussing Evolution numerous times on this board, I have learned that the majority of Creationists (and even some on the Evolution side) have some outstanding misconceptions of what Evolution is. It's no wonder some Creationists don't "believe" Evolution exists. I find it rather sad that I'm seeing such extremely uneducated and ignorant posts on the board pertaining to Evolution.

So here are The Facts vs. Misconceptions;


Misconception #1: Evolution does not exist, and cannot be proven.

Fact: Evolution does exist. Biological Evolution is easily observed. This is nothing new in the scientific community however many people seem to believe evolution has never been experimentally proven. Microevolution, the evolution of micro-organisms such as microbes, bacteria and viruses and even insects has been observed in thousands of scientific studies and experiments. From bacteria evolving into new strands to become immune to anti-biotics, to insects evolving to become resistant to pesticides. Microevolution is nothing new, it's basically undergrad biology homework.

As far as speciation and macroevolution there have been observed instances of ALL types of natural speciation including:

Allopatric Speciation (Geographic), observed instances:
Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, like Komodo and Galapagos, the latter having given rise to the modern expression of evolutionary theory, after being observed by Charles Darwin. Perhaps the most famous example of allopatric speciation is Darwin's Galápagos Finches.

Peripatric Speciation (Mostly Geographic), observed instances:
* Mayr bird fauna
* The Australian bird Petroica multicolor
* Reproductive isolation occurs in populations of Drosophila subject to population bottlenecking

Parapatric Speciation (Partially Geographic), observed instances:
* Ring species
o The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
o The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California.
o The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas.
* the grass Anthoxanthum has been known to undergo parapatric speciation in such cases as mine contamination of an area.


Sympatric Speciation (Non-Geographic) observed instances:
* Salsify or goatsbeard
* Cichlids of Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika and Lake Malawi
* Xenopus laevis, an African toad


Misconception #2: Some Evolutionary Theories are unproven therefor Evolution does not exist.

Fact: This is an extremely ignorant misconception. Let me explain the difference between Biological Evolution and Evolution Theories.

Biological Evolution of ALL kinds is an observed FACT. However different scientists have come up with varying theories within Evolution to explain the origins of certain species such as our own. There are literally hundreds of these Theories on different species. They are by definition Scientific Theories, but they have not been proven. Let me remind you there are hundreds of Theories as to where our own species derived from, all of them different. These are theories within Evolution, using observed Biological Evolution as a basis for example. Do not get confused between Biological Evolution and Evolution Theories.



Misconception #3: Biological evolution occurs on an individual basis. (Example: the idea that a species can morph into another species in just one generation).

Fact: It has never been claimed that evolution could occur in this way. A basic understanding of genetics is needed to understand how evolution works.

With each generation certain traits become more dominant and others recessive, through natural selection and adaption (choice of mate, change of climate, diseases, etc). For example, if a fatal disease infects a population, the individuals who are immune to it will live. This trait will obviously become more dominant in the population as generations pass and those not immune die off. This population has adapted to become immune to the disease (those not immune died off).

Biological evolution occurs from generation to generation (not on an individual basis). This is the reason why microevolution is so readily observable, because micro-organisms go through hundreds of generations a day whilst a large mammal such as humans would take hundreds of thousands of years to go through as many generations.



Misconception #4: There is an evolutionary theory which claims man came from monkey.

Fact: No evolutionary theory has ever stated such a ridiculous thing. Such misconceptions might have derived from a popular outdated graph of an ape evolving into a man. Unfortunately it has been shown to many lay-people as a summary of evolution. It can also be to blame for misconception #3. This popular graph does not represent or summarize Evolution in any way, It was meant to be an example of just one Evolutionary Theory (and BTW meant to show a change over a span of hundreds of thousands of years).



Misconception #5: Evolution itself is up for debate.

Fact: Biological Evolution is observed FACT period (Also remember the difference between Biological Evolution and Evolution Theories). What you could argue is different Evolutionary Theories (specifically theories involving man's origin). It is evident that ignorance has caused Creationists to start claiming that Evolution altogether doesn't exist, which is quite ridiculous and out of touch with reality.

.

.

.

 

[ParkBoyz]

Do not reply unless you read this ENTIRE post.

After discussing evolution numerous times on this board, I have learned that the majority of Creationists (and even some on the Evolution side) have some outstanding misconceptions of what Evolution is. No wonder some Creationists don't "believe" Evolution exists. So here are The Facts vs. Misconceptions;


Misconception #1: Evolution does not exist.

Fact: Evolution does exist. This is nothing new in the scientific community however many people seem to believe evolution has never been experimentally proven. Microevolution, the evolution of micro-organisms such as microbes, bacteria and viruses and even insects has been observed in thousands of scientific studies and experiments. From bacteria evolving into new strands to become immune to anti-biotics, to insects evolving to become resistant to pesticides. Microevolution is nothing new, it's basically undergrad biology homework.

As far as speciation and macroevolution there have been observed instances of ALL types of natural speciation including:

Allopatric Speciation (Geographic), observed instances:
Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, like Komodo and Galapagos, the latter having given rise to the modern expression of evolutionary theory, after being observed by Charles Darwin. Perhaps the most famous example of allopatric speciation is Darwin's Galápagos Finches.

Peripatric Speciation (Mostly Geographic), observed instances:
* Mayr bird fauna
* The Australian bird Petroica multicolor
* Reproductive isolation occurs in populations of Drosophila subject to population bottlenecking

Parapatric Speciation (Partially Geographic), observed instances:
* Ring species
o The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
o The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California.
o The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas.
* the grass Anthoxanthum has been known to undergo parapatric speciation in such cases as mine contamination of an area.


Sympatric Speciation (Non-Geographic) observed instances:
* Salsify or goatsbeard
* Cichlids of Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika and Lake Malawi
* Xenopus laevis, an African toad

^Not convincing to say the least, what does observed mutations and "Micro-evolution" prove? That has always been observable, even creationists support this view. As far as "speciation", those examples are pathetic. This is where arbitrary classifications can become dangerous to the naive observer, as defining a new species (that apparently leaped from one to another in a single bound) is just about as objective as defining race. There's no signifier, no astronomical separation or marker that screams out "New Species!" based on multi colored birds, mutated African toads, and different kinds of grass.. That is pathetic, how are these examples of "Macro-Evolution"? "Species" is a predefined concept based on the level of differences in different kinds of animals or describes two animals that can mate and have off spring, but it's really in the eye of the beholder, and simply just seems to enjoy consensus among biologists/evolutionists as a well defined concept/category, doesn't make it valid. A species/kind is the difference between a dog and a cat, or a tree and a flower/plant, these differences even according to the theory doesn't happen in one generation! Gross mutations however, do occur.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulties_in_defining_.22species.22_for_living_organisms

Misconception #2: Some Evolutionary Theories are unproven therefor Evolution does not exist.

Fact: This is an extremely ignorant misconception. Let me explain the difference between Biological Evolution and Evolution Theories.

Biological Evolution of ALL kinds is an observed FACT. However different scientists have come up with varying theories within Evolution to explain the origins of certain species such as our own. There are literally hundreds of these Theories on different species. They are by definition Scientific Theories, but they have not been proven. Let me remind you there are hundreds of Theories as to where our own species derived from, all of them different. These are theories within Evolution, using observed Biological Evolution as a basis for example. Do not get confused between Biological Evolution and Evolution Theories.

Please, mutation is an observed fact, don't try and impose your views on other people by spinning language around and calling a simple variation all out evolution. And ha! He admits it, finally someone admitted it! Let's go through this..

1. He admits that the explanations behind evolution are theories, but emphasizes that the mechanism is in fact real. Fair enough..

2. Where he set himself up at is by admitting this, since any sane person will also admit that Macro-Evolution over long periods of time is unobservable, therefore evolution its self has to be a theory since the mechanism can only be proven to go so far (as we can observe it directly). There are no extreme instances of observed "evolution" since we can't possibly live that long and the fossil record is unreliable.

3. Therefore evolution is a damn theory! Who ever wrote this is an idiot! Hahaha.. Literally, no rhetoric involved, when you cut to the chase and take what the guy says literally it's abundantly clear how insecure he is and how fragile his theory is.

Misconception #3: Biological evolution occurs on an individual basis. (Example: the idea that a species can morph into another species in just one generation).

Fact: It has never been claimed that evolution could occur in this way. A basic understanding of genetics is needed to understand how evolution works.

With each generation certain traits become more dominant and others recessive, through natural selection and adaption (choice of mate, change of climate, diseases, etc). For example, if a fatal disease infects a population, the individuals who are immune to it will live, and this trait will obviously become more dominant in the population as generations pass. This population has adapted to become immune to the disease (those not immune died off).

Biological evolution occurs from generation to generation (not on an individual basis). This is the reason why microevolution is so readily observable, because micro-organisms go through hundreds of generations a day whilst a large mammal such as humans would take hundreds of thousands of years to go through as many generations.

We're not interested in the aspects or rehearsed specifics of the theory, simply prove it or provide more evidence, all this guy is doing is preaching right now.. We've heard this a million times, what's new? Generation to generation my ass (I mean it's true, but not in that context), why are cells still cells then and not something else since they evolve so damn fast? Obviously they just change into a different type of cell, like other things that change with in the limits of variation.

Misconception #4: There is an evolutionary theory which claims man came from monkey.

Fact: No evolutionary theory has ever stated such a ridiculous thing. Such misconceptions might have derived from an outdated picture of an ape evolving into a man. The picture itself was meant to show and explain an evolution theory at the time however it can be very misleading to people who don't understand evolution. Unfortunately it has been shown to many lay-people as a summary of evolution. It can also be to blame for misconception #3. This graph does not represent evolution, and it is meant to show evolution over an extremely large time period.

Why is this evolution puppet knocking over trivial claims?.. We know that the theory isn't about monkeys since monkeys are still here, but so-called hominids. I still don't see how this ties in as proof, this is simply text book rehearsal and repetition, he brings no new logic to his argument..

Misconception #5: Evolution itself is up for debate.

Fact: Evolution is observed FACT period, you must accept this (Remember the difference between Evolution and Evolution Theories). What you could argue is different Evolutionary Theories (specifically theories involving man's origin). It is evident that ignorance has caused Creationists to start claiming that Evolution altogether doesn't exist, which is quite ridiculous and abstract.

Haha, this guy is full of himself, evolution has always been up for debate, pretending that it is some supreme truth does not help its credibility. Now he's so desperate and lacks so much integrity in his points that he resorts to Ad Hominems against creationists and brainlessly appeals to authority with out giving any valid reasons as to why his word is gold and all opposers are just "ridiculous and abstract". The propaganda is obvious.. Think of a better way to persuade people instead attacking them for not accepting your unproven theory at face value.

 

[FunK-3-FivE]

I obviously should have also added something like...

Ignorant fucks need not reply here.

That reply was so mind-bogglingly ignorant I think my head might explode.

 

[FunK-3-FivE]

^Not convincing to say the least, what does observed mutations and "Micro-evolution" prove? That has always been observable, even creationists support this view.

It's not just mutations you fucking idiot, it's speciation and Microevolution. It proves Biological Evolution is OBSERVABLE (which is old news). Apparently a great number of creationists don't realize this has always been observable. I'm glad you agree that it is OBSERVABLE, but lets see if you really understand this...

As far as "speciation", those examples are pathetic. This is where arbitrary classifications can become dangerous to the naive observer, as defining a new species (that apparently leaped from one to another in a single bound) is just about as objective as defining race. There's no signifier, no astronomical separation or marker that screams out "New Species!" based on multi colored birds, mutated African toads, and different kinds of grass..

Line between one species and another is clearly defined, Those examples ARE SPECIATION. If you wanna attack the definition of species that is fine, I didn't just make up these examples, they are by definition speciation.

That is pathetic, how are these examples of "Macro-Evolution"?

By definition it is MacroEvolution you fucktard.

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion–noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

What's pathetic is your lack of knowledge.

It's a predefined concept based on the level of differences in different kinds of animals or describes two animals that can mate and have off spring, but it's really in the eye of the beholder, and simply just seems to enjoy consensus among biologists/evolutionists as a well defined concept/category, doesn't make it valid.

My examples meet the criteria but you're saying the very classification system is off? WOW, why don't you yourself create the Official ParkBoyz Classification System.

Please you obviously have basically no knowledge of evolution or biology, what makes you think you can smash on the very definition of species itself? LMAO!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. It's sad, really.

A species/kind is the difference between a dog and a cat, or a tree and a flower/plant,

Basic.

these differences according to the theory don't happen in one generation!

No shit.

Gross mutations however, do occur..

The evidence I provided is not a bunch of mutations my homely friend.

Please, mutation is an observed fact, don't try and impose your views on other people by spinning language around and calling a simple variation all out evolution.

You're an idiot. Evolution is an OBSERVED FACT. Downsizing this experimental data to "mutations" and "simple variations" is pitiful way to try and impose your own view.

And ha! He admits it, finally someone admitted it! Let's go through this..

Did you READ what I said? Your small brain keeps bunching up Biological Evolution and Evolutionary Theory and calling it one and the same. An obvious misconception and THE VERY REASON I POSTED THIS THREAD. Somehow you still couldn't comprehend it though.

1. He admits that the explanations behind evolution are theories, but emphasizes that the mechanism is in fact real. Fair enough..

Whoa there, the explanations behind evolution? No, BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. Are you mentally handicapped? TWO SEPARATE THINGS. Biological Evolution is the mechanism which has been OBSERVED in nature. Evolutionary Theories are separate they can range from an theorized explanation of man's origin to a theory of the origin of the universe. No, the explanations behind Biological Evolution are not Theories, LOL. You are obviously very confused.

2. Where he set himself up at is by admitting this, since any sane person will also admit that Macro-Evolution over long periods of time is unobservable,

Of course over long periods of time it's unobservable, but the examples of speciation I provided were OBSERVED in a LIFETIME. Do you understand this? Do you understand what Macro-Evolution is?

therefore evolution its self has to be a theory since the mechanism can only be proven to go so far (as we can observe it directly).There are no extreme instances of observed "evolution" since we can't possibly live that long and the fossil record is unreliable.

Once again you're confusing Biological Evolution with Evolution Theory and it's rather frustrating. The Evolution that has taken place in the past and like you said we couldn't possibly live that long to observe it, this we can obviously only THEORIZE on. Evolution has been OBSERVED numerous times, just because it is observed on smaller organisms does not mean it doesn't exist, it's fucking OBSERVABLE... do you understand that?

3. Therefore evolution is a damn theory! Who ever wrote this is an idiot! Hahaha.. Literally, no rhetoric involved, when you cut to the chase and take what the guy says literally it's abundantly clear how insecure he is and how fragile his theory is.

Theory? You're a fucking idiot, let me try to explain this is simple terms...

BIOLOGICAL Evolution IS FACT it is OBSERVABLE. We THEORIZE on how our OWN species has evolved in the past. Two separate things. Just because Evolution is only observable with smaller organisms DOES NOT mean Evolution in itself is not real (thats absurd), IT IS OBSERVABLE... Do you understand that? I don't mean to confuse you my homely friend.

We're not interested in the aspects or rehearsed specifics of the theory, simply prove it or provide more evidence, all this guy is doing is preaching right now..

I've been providing evidence, but you're a mental midget who can't comprehend what I'm explaining to you. YOU YOURSELF ADMITTED MICROEVOLUTION IS OBSERVABLE. But because of your blatant misunderstandings I'm convinced you don't even know what Microevolution is. And I already provided evidence of Speciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Observed_instances

We've heard this a million times, what's new? Generation to generation my ass (I mean it's true, but not in that context),

Do you understand how genetics works? Why can't you comprehend this? Understanding dominant and recessive traits really is elementary level stuff here as far as genetics.

why are cells still cells then and not something else since they evolve so damn fast?

Well you could THEORIZE that the ones which did evolve are no longer cells. LOL.

Obviously they just change into a different type of cell, like other things that change with in the limits of variation.

HAHA what kinds of cells are you talking about? If you wish to argue speciation I already provided evidence of it (which is when you decided "Species" must be a loose term).

We know that the theory isn't about monkeys since monkeys are still here, but so-called hominids.

If you could fucking READ the reason I included this is because there are Creationists who seem to believe the theory is about man coming from monkeys. Thank you Mr. Obvious, and BTW there are HUNDREDS of Theories, not just one. Once again your ignorance is nothing new.

I still don't see how this ties in as proof, this is simply text book rehearsal and repetition, he brings no new logic to his argument..

That paragraph wasn't meant to be proof of anything you illiterate fuck this is not an Evolution vs. Creationism debate. I'm going over ignorant misconceptions many people have (and some you obviously have as well).

Haha, this guy is full of himself, evolution has always been up for debate, pretending that it is some supreme truth does not help its credibility.

HAHA what? Did you read the post? Of course Evolutionary THEORIES are always up for debate, not BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. That's the fucking point you confused idiot.

Now he's so desperate and lacks so much integrity in his points that he resorts to Ad Hominems against creationists and brainlessly appeals to authority with out giving any valid reasons as to why his word is gold and all opposers are just "ridiculous and abstract".

You're so lost on the subject, I'm embarassed for you. See the above, once again if you wish to argue Evolutionary Theories that's fine but you're lost, this is the wrong place. STOP CONFUSING BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION with EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES. I know it's hard to comprehend, but just try.

The propaganda is obvious.. Think of a better way to persuade people instead attacking them for not accepting your unproven theory at face value.

Wow you're a fucking idiot. If you did actually read my entire post then I'm sorry but I can't help you. My intent was to clear up some confusions about Evolution, and obviously it confused you even more. Your main misconception is #2, go back and reread.

 

[ThaG]

why are cells still cells then and not something else since they evolve so damn fast?

ParkBoyz, I honestly feel sorry for you

what's your IQ score? Do you even pass 80 points?

I've rarely seen so much ignorance and stupidity in one person....

 

[ThaG]

BTW there are observed examples of evolution in humans

For example, exceptionally high number of Europeans have mutations in the CCR5 chemokyne receptor which confer resistance to HIV and other viruses and this is thought to be due to the selective pressure provided by plague epidemics in the middle ages (which were actually viral diseases similar to Ebola and not bubonic plague)