Enamel proving Evolution?

[kareface]

I'd believe that more then 10% of the people who voted for Obama are creationists. I'd wager that the number is much higher then 10 to be honest. The US is a fair margin behind the times when it comes to religious BS. Parts of the country aren't bad at all, but we have a lot of red necks "clinging to their guns and bibles" lol. Obama did get a lot of red state support.

[Talka]

The video about clades/classification/evolution was amazing. It basically took my Biology 1110 class and shrunk it down to 10 minutes. Beautiful. :D

It also explains (incredibly well) just how much scientists know. One could write a book on each one of the dozens of classifications the video listed, and that wouldn't be enough to cover all we know about those animals and their evolution. Keep in mind the video didn't even include plants or fungi. It's easy for creationists to say "Scientists don't know jack!" ... until they see just how much information goes into simply classifying animals.

[kareface]

The video about clades/classification/evolution was amazing. It basically took my Biology 1110 class and shrunk it down to 10 minutes. Beautiful. :D

It also explains (incredibly well) just how much scientists know. One could write a book on each one of the dozens of classifications the video listed, and that wouldn't be enough to cover all we know about those animals and their evolution. Keep in mind the video didn't even include plants or fungi. It's easy for creationists to say "Scientists don't know jack!" ... until they see just how much information goes into simply classifying animals.

Better yet, it only really followed the forks leading to humans. He briefly covered some of the other options, but like it was said in the video, some of those branches will fork again, and again, and become even more diverse then the path he was on. If people take the time to understand summation and the different phylogenetic trees they'll understand why evolution will never be overthrown. It really is an awesome video.

[Neosutra]

People are confusing theist with creationist. Not all theist are pure creationist (earth being 5000 years old). I don't know of any evidence to back up that many Americans supporting true creationsim.

[kareface]

People are confusing theist with creationist. Not all theist are pure creationist (earth being 5000 years old). I don't know of any evidence to back up that many Americans supporting true creationsim.

You're talking about young earth creationists. They aren't the norm. I was simply referencing people who believe a deity made man, which I believe is the traditional interpretation of creationist.

[Khamsin]

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

Did birds evolve from dinosaurs, or do they just share a common ancestor?

[alt]

Ok I know the "man didnt come from monkeys, but we share a common ancestor" thing.

But i'm not a bio major or anything even remotely close.

What is our common ancestor?

[kareface]

Did birds evolve from dinosaurs, or do they just share a common ancestor?

I'm not sure if this was sarcasm... They did evolve from dinosaurs, look up Archaeopteryx. It's one of the more well known transitional fossils.

[Kenai]

Ok I know the "man didnt come from monkeys, but we share a common ancestor" thing.

But i'm not a bio major or anything even remotely close.

What is our common ancestor?

How far back are we talking? I'd have to dig into my books or the web a bit for more specific names but iirc most mammals came from a species similar to a weasel. It evolved pretty fast so different groups spread from it in a relatively short amount of time. 280ish million years ago was the time period, but it's been a while so I might be off.

Edit: Found that quicker than I thought. Wasn't too far off either, but it seems like these guys might have been further back than you were talking.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_mo...tor_of_mammals

[kareface]

Ok I know the "man didnt come from monkeys, but we share a common ancestor" thing.

But i'm not a bio major or anything even remotely close.

What is our common ancestor?

It depends on how far back you go, it's estimated that the common ancestor between chimps and humans is around 5-7 million years ago. Australopithecus (i.e. Lucy) is one of our more recent ancestors, which is dated at 3.2 million years ago but is unlikely to be common to chimps as well. There is some debate over lucy's position in the tree. I believe by this point we'd been evolving separate from chimps for a little while. Orrorin tugenensis is the cloest I can think of in the time frame, around 6 million years old. Morotopithecus bishopi would be an example of a 20 million year old fossil primate that is starting to show human like skeletal features but is more akin to an ape. Those are the names of the fossils, not the species.

There are a ton of fossils from around 4-6 million years ago, not just of our descendants. There are many human like species that went extinct. So many so that it's been as task just to figure out all the relations. Genetics has helped a great deal with that. It's still hard to pin point a species because there are so many. Think of it like this, can you tell how much your friend aged between today and yesterday? There are so many transitions that it gets hard to make clear distinctions between one an another. It isn't until you introduce a larger time frame that changes are made clear. To make matters worse, all along the way different species were splitting off and evolving separately much like chimps, only they became extinct. Other human like species, that had music, buried their dead and cared for their elderly. They were distinctly not human, sharing almost none of our genome and evolving down a different branch.

[Blarg]

The link has a gallop poll for yec creation, other creation (god guided evolution), and naturalistic evolution from 2004

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

45% yec, 38% theistic evolution, 13 naturalistic evolution

[alt]

It depends on how far back you go, it's estimated that the common ancestor between chimps and humans is around 5-7 million years ago. Australopithecus (i.e. Lucy) is one of our more recent ancestors, which is dated at 3.2 million years ago but is unlikely to be common to chimps as well. There is some debate over lucy's position in the tree. I believe by this point we'd been evolving separate from chimps for a little while. Orrorin tugenensis is the cloest I can think of in the time frame, around 6 million years old. Morotopithecus bishopi would be an example of a 20 million year old fossil primate that is starting to show human like skeletal features but is more akin to an ape. Those are the names of the fossils, not the species.

There are a ton of fossils from around 4-6 million years ago, not just of our descendants. There are many human like species that went extinct. So many so that it's been as task just to figure out all the relations. Genetics has helped a great deal with that. It's still hard to pin point a species because there are so many. Think of it like this, can you tell how much your friend aged between today and yesterday? There are so many transitions that it gets hard to make clear distinctions between one an another. It isn't until you introduce a larger time frame that changes are made clear. To make matters worse, all along the way different species were splitting off and evolving separately much like chimps, only they became extinct. Other human like species, that had music, buried their dead and cared for their elderly. They were distinctly not human, sharing almost none of our genome and evolving down a different branch.

Hmm interesting. I saw a Discovery Channel about a new find somewhere about a Hobbit like species that may have been related to us. It was something of a big semi-recentish find. Where does that fit in?

[kareface]

Hmm interesting. I saw a Discovery Channel about a new find somewhere about a Hobbit like species that may have been related to us. It was something of a big semi-recentish find. Where does that fit in?

I wouldn't know as I haven't heard of it before. I'm always weary of entertainment based science shows and networks. They have a tendency to fudge details or ignore things. I watched a program talking about scientists building a time machine and they never once in the program mentioned that only a few interpretations of general relativity would allow for it. It's not a commonly held idea in the scientific community. I think programs like this are dishonest because it poorly represents the scientific community. The average American won't know how to filter widely held and fact supported theories from more fringe interpretations or plain nut jobs. That's not to say the program you saw was one of them, I wouldn't know. It is possible to time travel into the future tho, you would just need to be moving really really fast.

Edit: A thought popped into my head. I wonder how long it would take to safely accelerate to 95% the speed of light. (i.e your body not getting crushed by g-force)

[pahnphoenix]

even though i know the "debate" outside of science re: evolution is just a political sham (someone's getting money/power from it), and i know that people often think with propaganda rather than reason... so it's generally pointless to post rational stuff in response to such a debate... and no one's really debating in this thread, just choir preaching... but (paragraph break coming b/c intro sentence was so long)

what always weirds me out about people saying evolution "can't be proven" is the strange mistake they make about onus. i'm not saying the old "evolution answered creationism" line, i'm saying that as long as biologists clearly define evolution with a range of ways that it could happen, the burden of proof in the debate is clearly on anti-evolutionists to show why this stuff wouldn't/didn't happen.

i mean, we have genes. we have genetic mutation. we have selection pressures. this isn't *evidence* of evolution, this is *cause* for evolution. evolution is the *effect* of shit that observably exists. framing it the former way just seems to get it wrong... if you disbelieve in evolution, you can't just say "prove it," you have to refute it in principle.

imagine if engineers framed their debates/thoughts in the "let's call causes 'evidence' and get skeptical," way.

"hey, this building is going to fall down, look at X, Y, Z."
"well that's one theory, and X, Y, Z certainly confirms the theory. we won't know until it actually falls down though."

it's also related to a lot of bad philosophizing people do after they read/hear about david hume and their mind gets blown (and they become cartesian skeptics, which is weird). you emphatically DO NOT turn the keys in your car out of blind "it worked yesterday, it should work today," faith. you have some principled reasons to believe that turning a key will turn on the car; if it doesn't turn on the car, you're not like "well, i guess induction failed," or "shit, keys don't turn cars on anymore!" you're like "what the fuck is wrong with my car?" you either know why the key turns on the car (the mechanism), or you know/know of people who do. it would take a lot to convince you that putting keys into ignitions and turning them "turns out" to not start cars.

if the principle behind evolution is sound, it requires no proof. the onus is on whoever disbelieves in evolution to show that wizards intervened and stopped evolution (or to show that the principles aren't sound of course).

edit: p.s. hat tip to you if you get why it's weird that people read david hume and become cartesian skeptics. you can sigh with me if you've seen like 10,000 1st year philosophy students have that fucking happen to them.

[Kerberoz]

Did birds evolve from dinosaurs, or do they just share a common ancestor?

It's widely accepted that modern birds are the descendants of theropods. Most other dinosaur types were simply wiped out.

[kareface]

The link has a gallop poll for yec creation, other creation (god guided evolution), and naturalistic evolution from 2004

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

45% yec, 38% theistic evolution, 13 naturalistic evolution

I don't think that poll is accurate. Mainly because it didn't make a distinction between non-evolution creation myths and young earth creationists. Most of the theists I've talked with don't realize that the bible suggests the world is only 6000 years old. I would be willing to bet that YEC are a minority compared to people who simply believe that god made man in his image. The only way you can gauge the age of the earth using the bible is the genealogy. This is something that only the more hardcore subscribe to or are even aware of. When I talk with a theist I've never debated before the first thing I ask is how old do they think the earth is because it opens the door to so many other faults. This is just my subjective experience, I might have just been subject to a poor sampling.

[Shojin]

The link has a gallop poll for yec creation, other creation (god guided evolution), and naturalistic evolution from 2004

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

45% yec, 38% theistic evolution, 13 naturalistic evolution

13% for naturalistic evolution is a pretty disturbingly low amount

[Neosutra]

Yes that is pretty disturbing.

[Blarg]

I don't think that poll is accurate. Mainly because it didn't make a distinction between non-evolution creation myths and young earth creationists.

What do you mean by non evolution creation myths that isn't yec? Something like the earth is old but humans were created as is without evolution? I think the 3 options make up the majority of the opinions so I don't know how much those numbers would change.

[Altariel]

I think the 3 options make up the majority of the opinions so I don't know how much those numbers would change.

Plenty of people that hold very self-contradictory beliefs about the subject though. If you ask "do you believe in evolution?" and "do you believe in a god that created mankind?" I would assume that a sizeable chunk of Americans would answer yes to both questions. If pressed many of these people might concede that we did evolve but they "believe in belief" or think that society will somehow collapse without belief in god or just don't want to deal with the social stigma of being an atheist.