Enamel proving Evolution?

[melbufrauma]

Molecular Decay Of Enamel-specific Gene In Toothless Mammals Supports Theory Of Evolution

"Biologists at the University of California, Riverside report new evidence for evolutionary change recorded in both the fossil record and the genomes (or genetic blueprints) of living organisms, providing fresh support for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."

[Tyr]

General question in the debate of evolution -- are there people that think evolution in its entirety does not exist, or "is part of some liberal agenda," or something of that nature?

My understanding, at least the only point of contention I see, is regarding "human evolution." Am I missing something?

Human evolution meaning, strictly speaking, humans "evolved" from monkeys, as opposed to humans being "created." I don't want to get into a religious debate, and I apologize for potentially opening the door for one, but even "human evolution" can exist if we conceive of adaptation as a form of evolution. Then again, I'm no biologist, so I may be obfuscating some terms.

[Mayareira]

Evolution does exist(in my opinion, that is) and its more complicated than monkeys evolving into humans.

Even if you go with the theory of "creation", earlier humans are much different from what/where we are today. So the process of later adaptation is a part of the evolution, imo.

Some people deny it completely but when you ask their opinion about the life, all they can come up with is a religious book. In that sense yes, there are people that denies it completely.

[Blarg]

Most creationists claim there is micro evolution (like the different kinds of dogs can change but they are all still dogs) but not macro evolution where one species becomes another.

[scrockstar]

Macro evolution is something that cannot be scientifically proven (note that I said "proven"), so a lot of creationists jump all over it. While there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests that macro evolution is at least possible if not probable. Yet it is unlikely that it will ever be scientifically proven.

In my mind the odds are high that within the next 25 years there will a new theory that surpasses the current theory of evolution, or at least it will look very different from our current understanding of evolution.

Also don't forget that it is ridiculous for us as humans to think that we'll ever to able to fully understand all of the forces that are at work in our universe. It could very well be that evolutionists and creationists are both "wrong" and the "real" answer is simply not knowable to us.

[Khamsin]

Also don't forget that it is ridiculous for us as humans to think that we'll ever to able to fully understand all of the forces that are at work in our universe.

Why would it be ridiculous? If we can't comprehend it now, we'll just evolve bigger brains so we can understand it later.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Macro evolution is something that cannot be scientifically proven (note that I said "proven"), so a lot of creationists jump all over it. While there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests that macro evolution is at least possible if not probable. Yet it is unlikely that it will ever be scientifically proven.

In my mind the odds are high that within the next 25 years there will a new theory that surpasses the current theory of evolution, or at least it will look very different from our current understanding of evolution.

Also don't forget that it is ridiculous for us as humans to think that we'll ever to able to fully understand all of the forces that are at work in our universe. It could very well be that evolutionists and creationists are both "wrong" and the "real" answer is simply not knowable to us.

You're actually a fucking moron, it has been "proven." This middle of the road bullshit doesn't fly kiddo, stop being ignorant.

Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds


It's called science mufuckaaaaaaa~

[Skjie]

General question in the debate of evolution -- are there people that think evolution in its entirety does not exist, or "is part of some liberal agenda," or something of that nature?

My understanding, at least the only point of contention I see, is regarding "human evolution." Am I missing something?

Human evolution meaning, strictly speaking, humans "evolved" from monkeys, as opposed to humans being "created." I don't want to get into a religious debate, and I apologize for potentially opening the door for one, but even "human evolution" can exist if we conceive of adaptation as a form of evolution. Then again, I'm no biologist, so I may be obfuscating some terms.

The problem is "evolution" has become a loaded word.

[Blarg]

Ya, macro has been proven already but the creationists keep shifting what they choose to define macro evolution as while also denying any science done in the last 20 years.

[kareface]

Macro evolution is something that cannot be scientifically proven (note that I said "proven"), so a lot of creationists jump all over it. While there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests that macro evolution is at least possible if not probable. Yet it is unlikely that it will ever be scientifically proven.

In my mind the odds are high that within the next 25 years there will a new theory that surpasses the current theory of evolution, or at least it will look very different from our current understanding of evolution.

Also don't forget that it is ridiculous for us as humans to think that we'll ever to able to fully understand all of the forces that are at work in our universe. It could very well be that evolutionists and creationists are both "wrong" and the "real" answer is simply not knowable to us.

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about what you're talking about. Scientists have largely disregarded terms like micro and macro evolution. Use of them is generally limited to creationists and laymen. Macro-evolution as you call it is a fact, it's otherwise known as speciation. It's the theory of evolution that's open to debate. Common ancestry has been proven, the only debate that is on going in the scientific community is nuances regarding the process. Debates over punctuated equilibrium vs. genetic drift. Where some species fall in the nested hierarchy. Our understanding of evolution is greater then our understanding of many other fields that no one questions. It's agreed upon in the scientific community that evolution will likely never be unseated by a different theory. There is too much evidence in support of evolution, many other scientific fields rely on evolution being true to even exist. They would fall apart if the theory was false in some fundamental way.

If you want to actually read several proofs of "macro-evolution" I'd point you to a post I made a few months ago. I'd read through before posting about something you clearly don't have any understanding of.

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/75180...ml#post2800238

Even if you don't take the time to read the post, please watch this video (one contained in the post). It's one of my favorite taxonomy videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

[Colenzo]

Birds are quite the interesting species of animal. Look how crazily they evolved!

[Howard Roark]

those are the whitest teeth I've ever come across

[Slapper]

Evolution is the force that ties every aspect of biology together. If evolution is wrong then Biology is wrong, and if bio is wrong then i've wasted 4 years of my life

[Acturus]

And now for a question posed purely out of ignorance of the subject:

What is the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?

[kuronosan]

And now for a question posed purely out of ignorance of the subject:

What is the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?

There isn't so much a difference in theory as there is in definition. Evolution is the gradual change of one species, over time, by adapting to its environment or surroundings in order to better survive. Adaptation in itself is just a change in which an organism either becomes partially or totally tolerant of a stimulant.

Evolution generally deals with larger, relative changes over time while adaptation is usually a more immediate change.

That being said, this argument is retarded. Micro-evolution would still lead to macro-evolution after a great deal of time. By our own classification system, whales are mammals. You want to tell me that isn't evolution on a grand scale, or do you want to tell me God intended to make whales virtually identical to fucking people?

Nah. I guess monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. We have Adam, they have Adam the Chimp.

[Acturus]

Thank you for the elaboration.

or do you want to tell me God intended to make whales virtually identical to fucking people?

It does give a new insight to "made in His own image," doesn't it?

[kuronosan]

Yes, God really made Adam from the beginning... then pulled a rib from him to make Eve. They were the first two humans, and, since incest is wrong, somehow managed to populate the entire earth with human beings from reproduction.

[Mizango]

There is more proof of Evolution than there is of God.

[Mizango]

Doubt lol.

[sephir]

You have to remember that evolution will always be considered a theory. There may be conclusive evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt to prove that it occured but unless it can be duplicated - it will remain a theory.

It is unfortunate that although we may know conclusively that something occured but still consider it a theory (which makes it seem like it is still being debated). That being said evolution being "proven" is not the proper form. More evidence towards evolution is scientifically correct, it cannot be proven until it is duplicated in an experiment. Yes yes I am the Scientific-Grammar Nazi.