Theory of Evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stann
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 93
  • Views Views 7K

Stann

please stay StevieP! <3
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,921
Reaction score
0
Points
0
View attachment 110436

I know most of this is a lot of dross but I'm at that stage in my life where I am considering all the possibilities and recently, have been looking up a lot of facts and theories online to widen my knowledge and perhaps come to a conclusion to how we came to be here. Now I have always been a believer in Evolution as I believe it has the most logic to it, me being a logical being. Yet, someone put a point across to me the other day, being "if Human's evolved from Monkey's why is there no transition point?" Basically saying why is there nothing in between Human's and Monkey's, so all of a sudden we just became Human's without transition?

Now I find the whole Big Bang theory a bit overwhelming, and would love a bit of debate, hear your beliefs. Believe this can be a great topic for debate and can lead to; life on other planets/universe, UFO's, conspiracy theories. The lot.
Here is the Theory of Evolution.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection
While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "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." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
 
Biology isn't my favourite science, physics is. But right now, the theory of evolution has the most logic and sense in it. I don't take it as a fact, but i'll take it until we develop a better theory.

I don't see why there has to be a transition point though, one day there is an ape, further down the line an ape is born with an opposable thumb, as each genetic mutation happens, the rate of which that mutation spreads increases exponentially. Eventually there is a mutation which can officially be called human.
 
I know most of this is a lot of dross but I'm at that stage in my life where I am considering all the possibilities and recently, have been looking up a lot of facts and theories online to widen my knowledge and perhaps come to a conclusion to how we came to be here. Now I have always been a believer in Evolution as I believe it has the most logic to it, me being a logical being. Yet, someone put a point across to me the other day, being "if Human's evolved from Monkey's why is there no transition point?" Basically saying why is there nothing in between Human's and Monkey's, so all of a sudden we just became Human's without transition?

There was something inbetween.

2922752524_3b1ec9923d.jpg
 
why can he not find those middle 3 guys today? i dont believe in it :S

Can't say for certain they're not out there somewhere, considering there's a lot of the planet still undiscovered.

They were the transitions between species, the evolution, why would they exist, when they had no evolutionary value? They'd evolved past monkeys, but aren't developed to human. If the transition left behind people like that, they'd become extinct.
 
Can't say for certain they're not out there somewhere, considering there's a lot of the planet still undiscovered.

They were the transitions between species, the evolution, why would they exist, when they had no evolutionary value? They'd evolved past monkeys, but aren't developed to human. If the transition left behind people like that, they'd become extinct.
then why did the monkeys not become extinct when most of them had developed into better beings?
 
Because the monkeys were competing for survival with the monkey race
 
Evolution isn't even up for debate IMO. It's fact. Yes there's some missing links, but that's acceptable, since we can't know everything.
 
Scientific Theory != Theory

In response to the picture.

Evolution isn't even up for debate IMO. It's fact. Yes there's some missing links, but that's acceptable, since we can't know everything.

It's the most plausible explanation available to us at the moment that's for sure, but to say it's fact is a bit premature.

why can he not find those middle 3 guys today? i dont believe in it :S

They can't be found because Neanderthals are extinct. As are many other intermediary species. Plenty of remains have been discovered etc.
 
Scientific Theory != Theory

In response to the picture.



It's the most plausible explanation available to us at the moment that's for sure, but to say it's fact is a bit premature.



They can't be found because Neanderthals are extinct. As are many other intermediary species. Plenty of remains have been discovered etc.
Most logical explanation but I still think theres something missing in that equation that we don't know about.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However,because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]

Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-coloured peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of this relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection.[2]
 
Evolution isn't even up for debate IMO. It's fact. Yes there's some missing links, but that's acceptable, since we can't know everything.

notice how you put IMO. well IMO Cheryl Cole is lieing naked on my bed, thats not fact
 
I do believe in the theory of Evolution and it does explain a lot of things and has SOME evidence that it may be true. But the answer is in the name. It's a theory, not fact (until proven otherwise)
 
I think a recent Futurama did it best, with a monkey constantly asking for the missing link first between monkeys and humans, then between monkeys and the afromentioned missing link etc etc and Farnsworth names them all.

Obviously I don't remember them all, but I'm a very logical person so evolution seems the most likely thing to have happened (in my opinion). I dont like thinking too much about stuff I'll never know/ dont fully understand though so

update: youtube has it all

YouTube - Futurama Professor argues evolution
 
I think a recent Futurama did it best, with a monkey constantly asking for the missing link first between monkeys and humans, then between monkeys and the afromentioned missing link etc etc and Farnsworth names them all.

Obviously I don't remember them all, but I'm a very logical person so evolution seems the most likely thing to have happened (in my opinion). I dont like thinking too much about stuff I'll never know/ dont fully understand though so

update: youtube has it all

YouTube - Futurama Professor argues evolution

I enjoyed that Futurama episode. :D It was actually quite a clever episode
 
Orgel's Second Rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.

Orgel's rule can also be used to counter creationist arguments in which often the hidden and non-provable presumption is suggested, that human intelligent planning is in general superior to trial and error strategies used by evolution.

The same principle has been given as an analogy to software developed in an evolutionary sense by group collaboration, as opposed to software built to a pre-ordained design that was created without reference to previous implementation. Although, the development is not claimed to be of the same random nature as is by evolutionary genetics.
 
Just keep in mind that it is Macroevolution that's being widely discussed and debated, not microevolution. Microevolution happens all the time, and that includes Lee's Peppered-moth example. Macroevolution creates a totally different species with natural selection, like monkey to man.
 
I do believe in the theory of Evolution and it does explain a lot of things and has SOME evidence that it may be true. But the answer is in the name. It's a theory, not fact (until proven otherwise)

Yeah, evolution is a theory. Much like gravity is a theory.
 
Last edited:
I do believe in the theory of Evolution and it does explain a lot of things and has SOME evidence that it may be true. But the answer is in the name. It's a theory, not fact (until proven otherwise)

I dont think you understand, everything in Science is called a Theory, there is evidence to back up it, and Evolution is widely accepted as fact in the Scientific community
 
Back
Top