Enamel proving Evolution?

[Khamsin]

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.

Why is it unfortunate? It just means evolution is in the same category as the theories of gravity and relativity. They'll always be considered theories.

As far as the mechanics of evolution is concerned, do mutations occur to adapt to the environment, or is it simply that the random ones that survive tend to reproduce and the less successful ones die out?

To me, it seems adaptation is a concious change to fit the environment, whereas evolution is just a crapshoot based on statistical probability that the "good" ones will be the surviving ones, by definition.

[Mizango]

Truthfully religion should be based as theory also, because there is more evidence out there of Bigfoot than there is on any of the happenings in the bible.

Mini and I pointed out and made a lot of points that went unanswered in the "Beware the devil man" thread a few months ago. It's this all over again.


Edit: Khamsin, I like the theory concept you pointed out and agree.

[Neosutra]

I can see where this is going..

But seriously, if you are alive today and dont think humanity evolved then you are a fucking moron and I can guess with a 99.99% probability what canidate you want to run for president in 2012.

[pohibaba]

I can see where this is going..

But seriously, if you are alive today and dont think humanity evolved then you are a fucking moron and I can guess with a 99.99% probability what canidate you want to run for president in 2012.

The ignorance of this statement is awesome.

[Khamsin]

Part of me wants there to be divine beings, say three or four of them, from some nonexistent religion, to come down and just prove everyone wrong. In the event religious fanatics claim they were right anyways, the beings can say they're just regular dudes, inhabitants of M-Theory's 11th dimension and evolved from 11th dimensional apes. They constructed a super mega huge hadron collider and accidentally created us in a pocket of their universe.

In this scenario, science would be mostly correct, except the unprovable "gods" prove themselves as real but neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and that the burning bush was just their idea of a prank. That should be enough to fuck everyone up and stop the bickering.

[Vuitton]

We didn't evolve from fucking monkeys, god damnit. We just share a common ancestor.

[Mizango]

We didn't evolve from fucking monkeys, god damnit. We just share a common ancestor.

Thank you. Ive said that so much on here in the past that I just cant bring myself to say it anymore. Sadly that is the average theists argument against evolution "If we evolved from monkeys, why did they stop evolving". I've had to school people on that very quote here at work a time or fifteen.

Fucking ugh.

[Darus Grey]

Creationists created the line between macro and micro evolution to fit their agenda. It doesn't exist, they're the same exact thing and the only difference is time of observation.

Even by that made up bullshit standard, macro evolution is provable with fruit flies. You don't need to selectively breed them for very long before you create a new species that can't breed with normal fruit flies.

You have to remember that evolution will always be considered a theory.

This is another creationist Semantics game, and if you think like this, they have done their job.

In science a THEORY is not the same as colloquial use of THEORIZING. When someone says they have a theory, they technically mean they have a HYPOTHESIS. In science, a THEORY is something that has been observed, tested, and found to be as close to fact as we can discern with human means.

A THEORY is the ENDGAME of science, not the "well maybe, maybe not" stage. It's also a common misconception that Theories "graduate" to Laws. A law is reserved for consistent *observable* rules, a LAW does not attempt to explain anything, it is simply a statement of observation.

The LAW of gravity doesn't explain gravity, the THEORY of gravity does, but you know...it's probably just bullshit, it's "just a theory" afterall.

[Meresgi]

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

Screw that shit, im evolving laser eyes while you all evolve your big brains, then when the time comes ill rule over you all.

[Gadritan]

Thank you. Ive said that so much on here in the past that I just cant bring myself to say it anymore. Sadly that is the average theists argument against evolution "If we evolved from monkeys, why did they stop evolving". I've had to school people on that very quote here at work a time or fifteen.

Fucking ugh.

Who taught this monkey how to type?

[melbufrauma]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...ly-Rat-001.jpg
Lost world of fanged frogs and giant rats discovered in Papua New Guinea | Environment | The Guardian

not enough for a new thread but ill just leave this here. interesting

[Dimmauk]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...ly-Rat-001.jpg
Lost world of fanged frogs and giant rats discovered in Papua New Guinea | Environment | The Guardian

not enough for a new thread but ill just leave this here. interesting

Yeah I was reading about this today. Such an awesome find.

[kareface]

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.

Wow, you don't know jack. Why are so many people coming out in this thread and trying to pretend like they know what they are talking about.

First off, you're using the colloquial definition of theory. In the scientific community a theory represents the highest level of understanding outside of mathematics. A theory describes a process of nature, which is difference from a fact. A theory is composed of many facts that together describe said process. Even if we were to "duplicate it" it wouldn't change the fact that it's a theory. I'm not sure what you even mean by duplicate it, seeing how we have witnessed speciation in the lab and in nature so many times that there are now terms for different types of speciation. This is just moronic. If you are thinking of "scientific" laws, those terms are rather antiquated. Laws and facts can only truly exist in mathematics or natural processes that can be supported by mathematics. Outside of mathematics the highest level of understanding is theory. People like you have this misguided understanding of the word theory. You conflate the word with hypothesis because you don't understand what a theory is.

Edit: Darus Grey beat me to it, but I noticed after writing this -_-;

Truthfully religion should be based as theory also, because there is more evidence out there of Bigfoot than there is on any of the happenings in the bible.

This is wrong. The word you'd be looking for is hypothesis. The problem is religion can't be either a theory or hypothesis because it has to be falsifiable. If you can't prove it wrong, it isn't science.

In the event religious fanatics claim they were right anyways, the beings can say they're just regular dudes, inhabitants of M-Theory's 11th dimension and evolved from 11th dimensional apes. They constructed a super mega huge hadron collider and accidentally created us in a pocket of their universe.

Dimensional theory's aren't widely held by the scientific community. They are mostly supported by a string of mathematics and have yet to be disproven. However, the likely hood of many of them being true is a pretty far out there. There is a test that will be going on at the LHC to try and falsify string theory in the near future. We'll see how it goes.

We didn't evolve from fucking monkeys, god damnit. We just share a common ancestor.

THIS! I'm glad that someone understands. Monkies are our cousins.

Didn't birds evolve from dinosaurs? Doesn't that prove the idea that one species can become another?

Yes.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Yeah I was reading about this today. Such an awesome find.

BBC documentary on that is tonight!

[Neosutra]

The ignorance of this statement is awesome.

Oh really? So you are saying that you arent more likely to be a Palin supporter if you dont think humanity evolved?

Religious nutbag ignorance and right wing fanatic politicians go hand in hand.

[pohibaba]

Oh really? So you are saying that you arent more likely to be a Palin supporter if you dont think humanity evolved?

Religious nutbag ignorance and right wing fanatic politicians go hand in hand.

Your quote suggested that all (or at least 99.99%) of creationists would vote for Palin, if that's so she would win the 2012 election by a landslide. About 25% of eligible voters voted for President Obama, and a significant amount of those (10%?) would fall in the category of creationists. If you think a Creationist bloc couldn't do much better than that you're being silly. You like to assume that anybody that doesn't agree with you is a moronic redneck. You'd be surprised how many of these people you despise would actually agree with your politics. I'll bet you right now that Governor Palin doesn't even win the Republican nomination, so no, I don't think that most creationists are going to support her candidacy (assuming she runs, that is).

[Neosutra]

Your quote suggested that all (or at least 99.99%) of creationists would vote for Palin, if that's so she would win the 2012 election by a landslide. About 25% of eligible voters voted for President Obama, and a significant amount of those (10%?) would fall in the category of creationists. If you think a Creationist bloc couldn't do much better than that you're being silly. You like to assume that anybody that doesn't agree with you is a moronic redneck. You'd be surprised how many of these people you despise would actually agree with your politics. I'll bet you right now that Governor Palin doesn't even win the Republican nomination, so no, I don't think that most creationists are going to support her candidacy (assuming she runs, that is).

Oh, is this the part where we make up statistics?

Show me where 10% of Obama's voters are creationist. Or that there are so many creationist in america that Palin would "win in a landslide if they all voted for her". I dont really care if people agree or disgree with my politics, the fact remains that anyone that thinks humanity didnt evolve is a fucking moron. The fact remains that if you are an ultra right wing religious nutbag then you are voting for Palin, and not Obama. And I didnt suggest that Palin had a chance in hell of winning the nomination, I suggested that any idiot stupid enough to believe in creationism is probably also stupid enough to vote for Palin.

[pohibaba]

Show me where 10% of Obama's voters are creationist.

Do you honestly think it's less? The poll I remember seeing said that over 40% of the people who voted for John Kerry in 2004 said that God created humans as they are now. I was giving Obama supporters that vast benefit of the doubt.

Or that there are so many creationist in america that Palin would "win in a landslide if they all voted for her".

My point was that only 25% of the eligible voter based voted for President Obama. Do you honestly think that less than 25% of America are creationists? I think this is pretty simple logic that doesn't need any actual polls to back up, if you insist I'll look for them, but I have a feeling you'll just be embarrassed.

And I didnt suggest that Palin had a chance in hell of winning the nomination, I suggested that any idiot stupid enough to believe in creationism is probably also stupid enough to vote for Palin.

So you're assuming that most Republicans aren't creationists?

[melbufrauma]

can we please not turn this thread into politics discussion..

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

can we please not turn this thread into politics discussion..

It's a bit hard when in our society the right brought science and religion to the table of politics, so any Americans that speak of either are bound to be walked across that very short bridge