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
superchunk on 02 March 2017

Yes. It is fact based on current observations. Hell, you can see evolution in our own recorded history in various animals, plants and otherwise.

I think too many people fear it breaks the foundations of their beliefs, which is silly really. There is no reason creation wasn't managed via tools and natural laws such as evolution.



Around the Network
LivingMetal on 02 March 2017
SvennoJ said:
LivingMetal said:

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.

But they are still birds.  Was a frog really a fish, and did that "fish" matured into something else rather than a frog? And many insect are born as larve.  And there are similarities in regards to DNA.  That's doesn't mean I can sprout wings. 



theprof00 on 02 March 2017
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).

How would you explain that dogs and wolves can sometimes interbreed despite being 2 different species

Or how lions and tigers can interbreed and create the hybrid, liger?



potato_hamster on 02 March 2017
LivingMetal said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

But they are still birds.  Was a frog really a fish, and did that "fish" matured into something else rather than a frog? And many insect are born as larve.  And there are similarities in regards to DNA.  That's doesn't mean I can sprout wings. 

The funny thing is, if you did sprout wings, that would actually disprove evolution, not prove it.



LivingMetal on 02 March 2017
VGPolyglot said:
LivingMetal said:

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.

That's still changing from one to another.  Again, spliting hairs.  And the irony here is that the more time you add, the more gradual it becomes, making it less noticable.



Around the Network
LivingMetal on 02 March 2017
theprof00 said:
LivingMetal said:

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).

How would you explain that dogs and wolves can sometimes interbreed despite being 2 different species

Because they are similar enough as animals.  But I also mentioned in an early post that "species" was a classification developed by man.  And like anything man made, it's subject to revision/correction.



VGPolyglot on 02 March 2017
LivingMetal said:
VGPolyglot said:

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.

That's still changing from one to another.  Again, spliting hairs.  And the irony here is that the more time you add, the more gradual it becomes, making it less noticable.

So, I'm confused here. Do you believe in evolution, or not? Was it the point about humans evolving from other species that you object to? Also, it's not really less noticeable with more time: comparing 100 years of evolution is obviously going to be show less than 1,000,000 years of evolution. However, it also depends on the environment. There is going to be more rapid change when it is more urgent in order to adapt.



ArchangelMadzz on 02 March 2017

No one needs to 'believe' in evolution, you either accept the fact or you don't.

Regardless of what you accept it's true, proven and tested.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

theprof00 on 02 March 2017
LivingMetal said:
theprof00 said:

How would you explain that dogs and wolves can sometimes interbreed despite being 2 different species

Because they are similar enough as animals.  But I also mentioned in an early post that "species" was a classification developed by man.  And like anything man made, it's subject to revision/correction.

So you believe that the dog and the wolf both appeared in nature, identical enough to be capable of breeding, but distinct in their own creation.

Ie; the wolf appeared in the northern hemisphere 30k years ago, and the dog in southern china 15k years ago, and it's just sheer coincidence that they are 99.9% genetically similar.

 

Or are you saying that the wolf showed up 30k years ago, and it just started to look and act differently over the course of time (15k years)and that dogs are actually wolves.



potato_hamster on 02 March 2017
LivingMetal said:
theprof00 said:

How would you explain that dogs and wolves can sometimes interbreed despite being 2 different species

Because they are similar enough as animals.  But I also mentioned in an early post that "species" was a classification developed by man.  And like anything man made, it's subject to revision/correction.

You act like the fact that science is self-correcting is a bad thing. The arrogance you display when you discuss things that you clearly do not understand is just laughable. No wonder evolution doesn't make any sense to you when you've even having such a hard time grasping the concept of science.

I know better than to play chess with a pigeon, so I'll excuse myself from any further conversation with you.