By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do You Accept Evolution as a Fact?

 

Do you believe in evolution?

Yes 657 75.69%
 
Mostly, some things are questionable. 74 8.53%
 
No 99 11.41%
 
Not really, but some could be true. 38 4.38%
 
Total:868
Flilix said:
LivingMetal said:

No.  Unless it's been observed and tested in a controlled environment with consistant results, it's not science.  Not fact.  Now, we've seen variations of animals within a type (however you want to define it) of animal such as a variety of dogs or a variety of cattle, but no one has ever seen a dog turn into a cow.  The evolutionary theory doesn't dictate that cows came from dogs, but you get my principle here without havign to split hairs.  Are there mutations, yes.  But no one has seen an animal turn into another animal.  There are even too many gaps in the fossil records to support it as fact/science.  The fossil record is just "arranging stuff" based on paradigm.

How do you define a species?

That's a good question because "species" is a means devised my human kind to differentiate types or kinds of animals.  As I mentioned early, splitting hairs doesn't do any one any good becuase it establishes un-needed strawmen.



Around the Network

This is evolution. Why are people still ignorant about it?



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

LivingMetal said:
Flilix said:

How do you define a species?

That's a good question because "species" is a means devised my human kind to differentiate types or kinds of animals.  As I mentioned early, splitting hairs doesn't do any one any good becuase it establishes un-needed strawmen.

Well, I'd define a species as a male/female equivalent that can breed.



Peh said:

This is evolution. Why are people still ignorant about it?

It is evolution, but it's still a dog. 



LivingMetal said:
Flilix said:

How do you define a species?

That's a good question because "species" is a means devised my human kind to differentiate types or kinds of animals.  As I mentioned early, splitting hairs doesn't do any one any good becuase it establishes un-needed strawmen.

If only there was say... a scientific definition, so you didn't have to make this up as you went along... ohh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

See if you're going to try to poke holes in Evolution, you have to understand the meaning of the terms they are using and use those terms the the correct manner.



Around the Network
potato_hamster said:
LivingMetal said:

That's a good question because "species" is a means devised my human kind to differentiate types or kinds of animals.  As I mentioned early, splitting hairs doesn't do any one any good becuase it establishes un-needed strawmen.

If only there was say... a scientific definition, so you didn't have to make this up as you went along... ohh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

See if you're going to try to poke holes in Evolution, you have to understand the meaning of the terms they are using and use those terms the the correct manner.

That's fine, but no one has yet to observe one kind of animal changing into another no matter how you slice is as I just pointed out (spliting hairs).



I believe the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best theory we have so far that explain the facts of similarities and differences between species when taking into account their environment, anatomy and genome.

A theory is not a fact, but an explanation of facts. For it to be a fact, it needs to go through the empirical scientific method; observation. Since evolution takes an incredible amount of time, we have yet to observe an species evolve before our own eyes. That said, the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection is probably the strongest theory there is thanks to the great amount of evidence that supports it. At this point, I think the only thing preventing it of being a fact is a technicality



LivingMetal said:
potato_hamster said:

If only there was say... a scientific definition, so you didn't have to make this up as you went along... ohh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

See if you're going to try to poke holes in Evolution, you have to understand the meaning of the terms they are using and use those terms the the correct manner.

That's fine, but no one has yet to observe one kind of animal changing into another no matter how you slice is as I just pointed out (spliting hairs).

If you expect to see "one kind of animal changing into another" in a sense that you want to see generation after generation after generation of change until you see one animal that doesn't look anywhere close to the original animal then you do not understand evolution at a basic level.



LivingMetal said:
SvennoJ said:

You could use google https://www.google.ca/search?q=evolution+observed&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=tU24WOjmJITXjwSV-pSQDQ

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

I've seen some of these examples.  But birds are still birds, moths are still moths, toads are still toads, etc.  It's the ability to adapt to survive within their DNA structure.

There are plenty flighless birds, frogs start out as fish, caterpillars become butterflies. All species share a lot of the same DNA. DNA for a wing is very similar to DNA for a fins or a limb. There are plenty species that don't neatly fit into kindergarten classification. Species definition is a problem onto itself as there are no neat boundaries. For example Mesodinium chamaeleon crosses the boundary between plants and animals.



LivingMetal said:
potato_hamster said:

If only there was say... a scientific definition, so you didn't have to make this up as you went along... ohh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

See if you're going to try to poke holes in Evolution, you have to understand the meaning of the terms they are using and use those terms the the correct manner.

That's fine, but no one has yet to observe one kind of animal changing into another no matter how you slice is as I just pointed out (spliting hairs).

Evolution doesn't work like that. It's not like there's a clear shift into a new species. Instead, it's gradual change that becomes more noticeable when you compare a longer timespan.