Evolution - is it real?

[otolith]

MYOB said:

There are no "facts" that are utterly conclusive that we descend from sea life. There are theories on it. I don't have to conform to your views!

Be tolerant of different views please! I have mine and you have yours.

Can you run through the detail of how you disagree with the evidence?

[deckster]

MYOB said:

There are no "facts" that are utterly conclusive that we descend from sea life. There are theories on it. I don't have to conform to your views!

Be tolerant of different views please! I have mine and you have yours.

You are entitled to your own opinion; you are not however entitled to your own reality.

And even then, your opinion is not the same as the opinion of an entire scientific community, backed up with meticulously reviewed research and undisputable evidence. We do not have to be tolerate of views that are obvious garbage.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MYOB said:

There are no "facts" that are utterly conclusive that we descend from sea life. There are theories on it. I don't have to conform to your views!

Be tolerant of different views please! I have mine and you have yours.

I am tolerant of your views. I wouldn't dream of punching you in the face because you're just plain wrong, unable or unwilling to examine the evidence, and completely deluded. I don't want you imprisoned, or even gagged.

But tolerance isn't respect. Your denial of the scientifically bloody obvious is utterly ridiculous, and is thus fair game for ridicule. As you yourself said, I have mine and you have yours. My view is that you're an idiot.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

deckster said:

We do not have to be tolerate of views that are obvious garbage.

We actually do. We don't have to respect them, but we have to tolerate them.

[Toltec]

MYOB said:

There are no "facts" that are utterly conclusive that we descend from sea life. There are theories on it. I don't have to conform to your views!

Be tolerant of different views please! I have mine and you have yours.

I think you will have to let us know what criteria you consider necessary for something to be a conclusive fact?

[Nimby]

MYOB said:

There are no "facts" that are utterly conclusive that we descend from sea life. There are theories on it.

You still don't appear to understand what a theory is in the scientific sense.

[deckster]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

deckster said:

We do not have to be tolerate of views that are obvious garbage.

We actually do. We don't have to respect them, but we have to tolerate them.

You are right. I will leave my original post intact, but I retract that bit.

[budgie smuggler]

MYOB said:

There are no "facts" that are utterly conclusive that we descend from sea life. There are theories on it. I don't have to conform to your views!

Be tolerant of different views please! I have mine and you have yours.

Hold on though, I just gave you a bit of evidence. Are you saying it's not valid?

I'm not having a go, I just don't understand your position.

[anonymous-user]

seefarr said:

Is this about Jesus? Because, and I'm sorry I had to be the one to break it to you but..... he's not real.

And neither is Santa.

Careful the police will caution you for saying Santa doesn't exist

[JuniorD]

JohnnyJones said:

Have we done this?

Evolution is a theory. If it happened / happens then where are all the ‘half way’ animals? It’s not just the missing link between us and the monkeys that’s missing is it, there are thousands. Where are walking fish, bald birds or whatever. And if the theory is wrong then what’s the alternative?

There are loads of bald birds

https://blog.nature.org/science/2015/11/16/move-ov...

(this link *does not* show ladies with hairless clams)

[NMNeil]

Many have mentioned Darwin and his most well known book, but what of the lesser known "The Descent of Man" (1871). Darwin shows the facts of our continuing evolution on how many traits we still have, but that became redundant as we evolved.
Tails, wisdom teeth, ear muscles, the appendix and body hair spring to mind.
Robert Ernst Eduard Wiedersheim published "The Structure of Man" in 1893. This was an anatomy text where a total of 86 organs were described as "Organs having become wholly or in part functionless, some appearing in the Embryo alone, others present during Life constantly or inconstantly. For the greater part Organs which may be rightly termed Vestigial."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

[Munter]

NMNeil said:

Many have mentioned Darwin and his most well known book, but what of the lesser known "The Descent of Man" (1871). Darwin shows the facts of our continuing evolution on how many traits we still have, but that became redundant as we evolved.
Tails, wisdom teeth, ear muscles, the appendix and body hair spring to mind.
Robert Ernst Eduard Wiedersheim published "The Structure of Man" in 1893. This was an anatomy text where a total of 86 organs were described as "Organs having become wholly or in part functionless, some appearing in the Embryo alone, others present during Life constantly or inconstantly. For the greater part Organs which may be rightly termed Vestigial."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Nah. That just proves how st God is at design.

[wisbech]

MYOB said:

There are no "facts" that are utterly conclusive that we descend from sea life. There are theories on it. I don't have to conform to your views!

Be tolerant of different views please! I have mine and you have yours.

Earliest signs of life in the sea are billions of years before signs of life on the land. Seems pretty conclusive to me, unless you think that life started completely independently on land. In which case the fact that both land and sea life use the same basic biochemical processes would be an extreme coincidence. I.e. photosynthesis is the same, ATP cycle is the same.

[V8LM]

Interesting pre-print studying the Sars-CoV-2 receptor binding domain and evolving it in vitro with selection for binding affinity. The ‘evolved’ mutants include both the UK and SA variant.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.06...

Edited by V8LM on Saturday 9th January 08:46

[durbster]

I would suggest anyone who believes nature has been designed looks at how a dog drinks water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DycN6dydg

There's no way that was planned. It's a ridiculous solution.

[67Dino]

wisbech said:

MYOB said:

There are no "facts" that are utterly conclusive that we descend from sea life. There are theories on it. I don't have to conform to your views!

Be tolerant of different views please! I have mine and you have yours.

Earliest signs of life in the sea are billions of years before signs of life on the land. Seems pretty conclusive to me, unless you think that life started completely independently on land. In which case the fact that both land and sea life use the same basic biochemical processes would be an extreme coincidence. I.e. photosynthesis is the same, ATP cycle is the same.

At the risk of adding further complexity, there were some (not widely accepted) theories that man evolved as an aquatic ape, living along shorelines. It’s a neat explanation for why we uniquely amongst apes have no body hair, swim so effectively, and are strongly attracted to being by the water.

Unfortunately, over the last 10 years increasing numbers of studies seem to suggest Homo sapiens didn’t tidily evolve in a linear way, but is quite a complex mix of different species from several locations, which rather undermines the theory. Shame though, as I rather like the idea. Explains why we like sushi too.

[M5-911]

durbster said:

I would suggest anyone who believes nature has been designed looks at how a dog drinks water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DycN6dydg

There's no way that was planned. It's a ridiculous solution.

I would actually call it very ingenious and brilliant more than ridiculous.
Read this article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/scien...

[durbster]

On this theme, I love this series of videos where a person tried to create an evolution simulator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOFws_hhZs8

Obviously it's software so has to have defined parameters in order to work, but I think it's a great illustration of how a large number of random mutations can eventually lead to an effective solution, and removing the ones that didn't do enough to survive increases the rate of improvement.

[Nimby]

wisbech said:

Earliest signs of life in the sea are billions of years before signs of life on the land.

We may be dealing with a YEC, so that argument won't wash.

[Castrol for a knave]

M5-911 said:

durbster said:

I would suggest anyone who believes nature has been designed looks at how a dog drinks water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DycN6dydg

There's no way that was planned. It's a ridiculous solution.

I would actually call it very ingenious and brilliant more than ridiculous.
Read this article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/scien...

This is a famous experiment, which has been replicated by others since. It works with e-coli, but the results can be extrapolated outward.

Fascinating stuff..

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-...