What do you think of evolution

Evolution (ie changes in genetic material over time observed in plants and animals, over centuries due to changes in the environment) is fact - whether you believe it or not is your choice.

Persons that don't "believe" in evolution (even though it's not a question of belief) generally do so because they believe that the Bible is literally correct (ie God, portrayed as an old man with a beard and stick, made the world in six days, around 4000 years ago).

The specifics of evolutionary processes for different species of plants, insects and mammals remains open to scientific study - a picture has been developed, but it remains open to possible revision when more information is available such is better DNA analysis.

Just because a species "evolves" does not mean that ALL its ancestors would also change. This would only happen if the "ancestors" were to die out - like the dodo.

OK lets stick with the dogs for example.

Explain to me how a wolf turns into a poodle (fluffy white or black for instance) but by the same token turns into a bull terrier ( sleek strong sturdy) neither of which bear any resemblence to wolves other than are generic in a fashion.

Tell me why the said poodles and bull terriers are not evolving into something else.

The thing about when you've been on a net forum for quite a while, as I have on this, is frankly that the same subjects come up for the fifth time or whatever. So I don't feel like going deeply into this. There are past threads if they are still there.

On dogs I can't speak from authority, but have heard many times (which I don't remember in detail now) how different breeds are .... it's in the name: breeds. They are cross-bred to be what are frankly sometimes ridiculous and unhealthy animals.

James is correct insofar as evolution exists. You can almost see it happening around you. Humans are getting taller: that kind of Californian or Aussie look is not something you'd have found a hundred years ago very much.

However, what past threads really went into is that some of us just don't think evolution is the whole answer. IMHO advanced civilisations have risen and fallen for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years, and IMHO they played very much with genetic engineering. And I also don't actually believe we descended from apes. Which is why there are no missing links.

It's not just evolution IMHO. The scientist, Luther Burbank, is documented as having grown roses with no thorns, by giving love to them; he also married something like oranges and another fruit together, creating grapefruits. This is creative and the use of consciousness to change species almost overnight.

V

OK lets stick with the dogs for example.

Explain to me how a wolf turns into a poodle (fluffy white or black for instance) but by the same token turns into a bull terrier ( sleek strong sturdy) neither of which bear any resemblence to wolves other than are generic in a fashion.

Tell me why the said poodles and bull terriers are not evolving into something else.

orangeblossom.
The wolf did not turn into a poodle. Bizarre as it may sound the poodle is a wolf, only massively altered via selective breeding. Apart from the er, how shall we put it, practical difficulties: a Chihuahua can interbreed with a great Dane and the offspring will be viable. They are the same species. On the other hand, a mating of Cheetahs and Leopards (it does occasionally happen) will produce offspring but the offspring will not be viable. They are unable to reproduce because they are now two distinct species.


Evolution!
The fact that we have evolved is beyond dispute. Walk into any museum and look at the display cabinets. The problem lies with peoples poor grasp as to what a scientific theory is. Until someone paints a better picture of how we are what we are, evolution theory is the only game in town. Goddit is not an option.

is evolution not species adapting to the every changing circumstances on this wonderful planet. was there not an article somewhere in the last couple of weeks,I forget where, that said this moth or butterfly in the last few years had been changing due to the lack of industrial pollution since the industrial revolution.

oEvolution!
The fact that we have evolved is beyond dispute. Walk into any museum and look at the display cabinets. The problem lies with peoples poor grasp as to what a scientific theory is. Until someone paints a better picture of how we are what we are, evolution theory is the only game in town. Goddit is not an option.

I like your clarification re dogs.

On evolution, "it's beyond dispute" was one side taken on earlier threads. (I'm not a fundie Christian BTW, more an esotericist.) The kind of points made on the alternative side were such as going into the myriad of fossil record gaps. It's a yawning chasm between apes and men. While evolution is one force at work, there's actually no proof that it created everything presently on Earth. In fact what previous threads came down to is that evolution causing all life-changes upon Earth is not proven, but is a theory. We weren't around to know.

I'm also open-minded on the topic of otherworldly intervention. That's a theory too.

V

Personally I dispute the evolution theory of any species. If all dogs have evolved why have we still got wolves and why are there so many different breeds of dog that look so totally different. e.g. big ones, small ones, furry ones,sleek ones, brown, black, etc etc. I know breeders experiment with certain breeds but I personally don't believe they are responsible for all types of dog.

Also for instance, we are supposed to have evolved from apes. Again if so, why are there still apes.

All living creatures have species groups insects, birds, cats, etc. and us humans have our species groups orientals, black, white, indians, etc.

Actually, current evolutionary theory is that we did not evolve from apes, but that we and apes shared a common ancestor many millions of years ago. We went one way and evolved, with plenty of dead-end hominids along the way (Australopithicus Aferensis and Neanderthal Man to name two) who just died out. Apes went another way.

Simples!

David:)

What do you think of evolution?

I think John Prescott and various MPs would find it very helpful.

V

I think evolution is a fact to a certain degree. But I also think that species can make an evolutionary leap quickly as the environment changes, by deep conscious intent. May be this explains missing links. Species that don't/cannot change die out.

RP

Hi venetian.
I take your point regarding the gaps in the fossil records, but it would be surprising indeed if there were no gaps. It's a wonder any living thing manages to become fossilized at all. The odds against fossilization are truly incredible.
But lets look at some quite robust records: the Burgess Shale. Half a billion years old and packed with fossils of middle Cambrian life, all beautifully preserved.

We can however look at a rather more modern example, the evolution of the horse from Hyracotherium to what we lose money on in the grand national. We have the fossil records, all fifty million years worth. It's all there, every step of the way.
The only comeback the creationists have is, (and I know you aren't one) they were planted by Satan. That answer does not cut the mustard, it's not an answer at all, it's a cop out.

As for “ otherworldly intervention”. I'm quite taken with the idea of panspermia, or cosmic ancestry. The glaring problem with the hypothesis is: how can life survive the blazing hot plunge through our atmosphere? Nonetheless, some interesting comments here.

I think evolution is a fact to a certain degree. But I also think that species can make an evolutionary leap quickly as the environment changes, by deep conscious intent. May be this explains missing links. Species that don't/cannot change die out.

RP

Hi Pixie.
“I think evolution is a fact to a certain degree.”
Pixie, that statement invites the obvious question, to what degree is it not a fact? Either evolution is a fact or it isn't, we can't have it both ways. If you feel there was another influence then could you explain what that influence is. As for “deep conscious intent.” I'm afraid you've lost me here. Can you expand on this?


Missing links? There are no missing links. This is an oft repeated canard. I'm not accusing you of fabricating it, but it's an easy one to quote without realizing it's a falsehood.
It's worth repeating: there-are-no-missing-links!


“Species that don't/cannot change die out.”

Bulls-eye! You've just beautifully summarized Darwin's entire theory in just seven words. Change/adaptation was the imperative that drove us out of the trees in the African savanna. Adapt or die. We adapted, we are still here. We are evolution in action.

It's worth repeating: there-are-no-missing-links!

Simply repeating over and over, doesn't make it so. It could be argued that some species have altered in a way that doesn't increase, but decreases, their chances of survival. So I think Victorian Darwinism is too primitive. After all, I've read that even Darwin had doubts about his own theory, believed in God, didn't know in the end of his life if all species had evolved, and, regarding humanity, was sometimes more of a Creationist.

Other doubts about the fossil record - the book does go into fossils too - are in the huge book, "Forbidden Archeology", which makes the point that literally hundreds of times completely anomalous archeological and fossil finds had been put under wraps and hushed up - because they don't go along with prevailing theories.

Theories in science are paradigms; people get brainwashed to over-believe in the current paradigms; data is hidden or ignored if it contradicts, and careers can be lost in academia if the prevailing wisdom is questioned: therefore it's "required" not to think outside the box.

V

OK lets stick with the dogs for example.

Explain to me how a wolf turns into a poodle (fluffy white or black for instance) but by the same token turns into a bull terrier ( sleek strong sturdy) neither of which bear any resemblence to wolves other than are generic in a fashion.

Tell me why the said poodles and bull terriers are not evolving into something else.

As has been said, varieties of dog have been brought about by artificial human breeding - so not a good example for debating evolution.

When different varieties of dog interbreed they invariably revert to the 'mongrel' or feral dog which looks more like an African wild dog than a pedigree pooch.

Hi Pixie.
“I think evolution is a fact to a certain degree.”
Pixie, that statement invites the obvious question, to what degree is it not a fact?

To be pedantic, evolution is not a 'fact' it is a widely held and supported 'theory'

There is no scientific argument to totally refute the creationist view that 'it was all made by God in such a way as to fool unbelievers into their opinions'
I personally believe in a pattern of biological development from common ancestors but also think the Darwinian dogma, especially in its Dawkinsite version, is certainly not the full answer.

I think the real interesting question is how/why life began, once you get to the level of multicellular creatures it's not surprising that small random changes accumulated into new species, but how those creatures actually arose from 'chemical soup' is way beyond us right now.......

I think the real interesting question is how/why life began, once you get to the level of multicellular creatures it's not surprising that small random changes accumulated into new species, but how those creatures actually arose from 'chemical soup' is way beyond us right now.......

Naaa, nothing can't not come from nothing and it can't never've stopped coming. And what's more, everything comes out of nothing at the same time as coming out of everthing. It's crazy!

Norbu

Naaa, nothing can't not come from nothing

Is it possible that there's one too many negatives in that statement, Norbu?

I think there are 2 basic issues with evolution:

- people in general have difficulty in understanding large numbers, and the times involved are very large numbers.

- there is general confusion between Darwinism and evolution. Although Datwin was the father of what we call evolution, there has been a lot of research.

Do we need to worry about missing links? I don't think so, the fossels we have are just needles in a haystack. There's far more we don't know, than we do know, the key is sample size. The sample size of finds we have thus far is small and really only allows generalisations.

If you really want to know about evolution and understand its capabilites, look at the life cycle of the virus. They are the evolutionary masters.

Myarka.

Is it possible that there's one too many negatives in that statement, Norbu?

Nope!

What I mean is this: There are two principles out of which everything emerges.

The first is that some things come out of nothing and the second is that things come of of causes and conditions.

We can see see cause and effect operating all around us but some things just can't be explained by preceding causes and conditions. What is the first cause? What is the cause for consciousness?

It seems that almost infinite iterations of simple processes result in unimaginable complexity. There is just no way you could predict the emergence of the heart beat from it's building blocks yet alone predict consciousness looking at sequences of base pairs on a string of DNA. Reductionism just doesn't add up.

Existence is a mix of determinstic events and indeterministic events. The fact is there is no other way for things to be or to have come into existence. They have to come from nothing and they have to come from something both at the same time. Possibility is limitless yet cause and effect operate in a consistent manner most of the time. Uncertainty is built into the fabric of the universe. If it weren't there wouldn't be anything in the first place.

I hope I'm making a bit more sense now. Although I somehow doubt it!

Norbu

Simply repeating over and over, doesn't make it so. It could be argued that some species have altered in a way that doesn't increase, but decreases, their chances of survival. So I think Victorian Darwinism is too primitive. After all, I've read that even Darwin had doubts about his own theory, believed in God, didn't know in the end of his life if all species had evolved, and, regarding humanity, was sometimes more of a Creationist.

Other doubts about the fossil record - the book does go into fossils too - are in the huge book, "Forbidden Archeology", which makes the point that literally hundreds of times completely anomalous archeological and fossil finds had been put under wraps and hushed up - because they don't go along with prevailing theories.

Theories in science are paradigms; people get brainwashed to over-believe in the current paradigms; data is hidden or ignored if it contradicts, and careers can be lost in academia if the prevailing wisdom is questioned: therefore it's "required" not to think outside the box.

V

I have never repeated anything over and over! I was emphasizing the fact that there no gaps in the fossil records.

“So I think Victorian Darwinism is too primitive. After all, I've read that even Darwin had doubts about his own theory, believed in God, didn't know in the end of his life if all species had evolved, and, regarding humanity, was sometimes more of a Creationist.”

Can you cite this?

“Other doubts about the fossil record - the book does go into fossils too - are in the huge book, "Forbidden Archeology",”

That wouldn't be Michael A. Cremo would it?
The guy who says modern humans have lived on the earth for thousands of millions of years? The consensus among learned academics is: he's a nutter.

If someone has a counter to Darwin's theory of evolution, then they should publish it a peer reviewed journal. Not a thousand page unreadable yarn. If there ever was a book fit for burning then this is a prime candidate.

“which makes the point that literally hundreds of times completely anomalous archeological and fossil finds had been put under wraps and hushed up - because they don't go along with prevailing theories.”

Can you cite that?

“Theories in science are paradigms;”

You keep using the word paradigms. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

"people get brainwashed to over-believe in the current paradigms; data is hidden or ignored if it contradicts, and careers can be lost in academia if the prevailing wisdom is questioned: therefore it's "required" not to think outside the box.”

“over-believe “

What?

venetian :
The world is a smaller place now, facts can easily found via the internet. You are just a few keystrokes away. Look, listen and learn. The fact that we have evolved is not written in stone, nor is it written on water. It's printed on paper. The facts are available for all to see. In public libraries.

To be pedantic, evolution is not a 'fact' it is a widely held and supported 'theory'

muzone.
The fact of evolution is beyond dispute.

"Evolution!
The fact that we have evolved is beyond dispute. Walk into any museum and look at the display cabinets."

"There is no scientific argument to totally refute the creationist view that 'it was all made by God in such a way as to fool unbelievers into their opinions'"

Science doesn't work that way. There is no scientific argument to totally refute the existence of the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy.

I personally believe in a pattern of biological development from common ancestors but also think the Darwinian dogma, especially in its Dawkinsite version, is certainly not the full answer.

Define the word "dogma". In Dawkinsite terms.

I think the real interesting question is how/why life began, once you get to the level of multicellular creatures it's not surprising that small random changes accumulated into new species, but how those creatures actually arose from 'chemical soup' is way beyond us right now....

"I think the real interesting question is how/why life began,"

Forget the why's and concentrate on the how's. There is no why.

Nope!

What I mean is this: There are two principles out of which everything emerges.

The first is that some things come out of nothing and the second is that things come of of causes and conditions.

We can see see cause and effect operating all around us but some things just can't be explained by preceding causes and conditions. What is the first cause? What is the cause for consciousness?

It seems that almost infinite iterations of simple processes result in unimaginable complexity. There is just no way you could predict the emergence of the heart beat from it's building blocks yet alone predict consciousness looking at sequences of base pairs on a string of DNA. Reductionism just doesn't add up.

Existence is a mix of determinstic events and indeterministic events. The fact is there is no other way for things to be or to have come into existence. They have to come from nothing and they have to come from something both at the same time. Possibility is limitless yet cause and effect operate in a consistent manner most of the time. Uncertainty is built into the fabric of the universe. If it weren't there wouldn't be anything in the first place.

I hope I'm making a bit more sense now. Although I somehow doubt it!

Norbu

That is one fabulous word salad.

All living creatures have species groups insects, birds, cats, etc. and us humans have our species groups orientals, black, white, indians, etc.

Just a clarification that all humans of all races belong to one species, Homo sapiens.

Masha

muzone.
The fact of evolution is beyond dispute.

:rollaugh:

If evolution was beyond dispute, then why do a significant proportion of the worlds people not subscribe to it......

Science doesn't work that way. There is no scientific argument to totally refute the existence of the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy.

As far as I know there isn't a scientific theory needed to explain these phenomena

If as you say, evolution is proven beyond dispute, why are you not able to convince everyone without equating the viewpoints of creationism and darwinism with childrens stories ??

Forget the why's and concentrate on the how's. There is no why

Why not.........

:nature-smiley-008:

To be pedantic, evolution is not a 'fact' it is a widely held and supported 'theory'

muzone.
The fact of evolution is beyond dispute.

The whole point of a forum such as this is usually to dialogue. You seem to merely wish to state how right you (believe) you are; there is no dialogue; everyone else is "wrong". So there's not much point in engaging.

You don't know your science. Any real scientist knows that evolution is a theory. Hence, disputable, to whatever degree, great or tiny.

Everybody in this world differs, and inevitably people crop up on this or many other forums who simply want to stamp their feet and cry "I am right! Listen to me!" Their ears are blocked, however, so it's a waste of time trying to discuss. You wouldn't have to change your ideas or tune: just discuss more open-mindedly. Lord, you don't appear willing to.

I'm afraid you do repeat yourself over and over. That evolution, you strangely believe, is not a theory but a "fact". I think you mean that it's a widely-held theory? It is a fact that there's a theory.

The world is a smaller place now, facts can easily found via the internet. You are just a few keystrokes away.

If you believe the internet has brought only "facts" to our doorstep, that we should believe all we find on it, LOL, and it's not also got not an unbounded amount of hogwash, you're the only person I know of who believes so. :p

V

Unfortunately, because of members being unable to properly identify quotes, I am now totally lost as to who is saying what and to whom. Venetian, whom are you addressing please in your post above?
Whatever.
I'd just like to point out however that although the point of forums such as HP may well be to dialogue (is it?), what usually happens is that most people come on and state what they believe. We might occasionally ask that the odd IMO or even IMHO gets thrown in, but mostly it's 'This is what I believe therefore this is what is.' It's surely not a problem, V? You yourself have been known to proclaim yourself right and the others wrong in many a thread. We all do it. Don't get snappy about it. The thread is fine and would be interesting if only I, a bear of little brain, could get my head around it all. As it is, I don't have strong feelings either way about evolution versus creationism. It's just a simple miracle to me and that's enough.
xxx

The thread is fine and would be interesting if only I, a bear of little brain, could get my head around it all. As it is, I don't have strong feelings either way about evolution versus creationism. It's just a simple miracle to me and that's enough.
xxx

As I understand it:

There is a strong body of evidence from fossil record and DNA studies that there are many species of plant/animal that are now extinct but which bear strong links to modern plants/animals.

The development of new species (evolution) takes place over such a large period of time that we don't actually see these changes happening (except in species such as bacteria & insects whose life cycles are much shorter than other species)

Most evolutionary theories are based on the principle that random changes in a species DNA (mutations) which make it more suited to it's environment (and therefore more able to reproduce) are accumulated through interbreeding (commonly referred to as 'survival of the fittest') and eventually these small changes give rise to a new species which is distinct from it's ancestors.

I think that the viewpoint that 'we're here and that's all that matters' is a very good one but also acknowledge that to investigate philosophically, scientifically or spiritually the origins and development of life can be a useful exercise, both in helping to more fully understanding our 'place in things' and increasing the pool of human knowledge.

However, for the process to maintain any dignity and 'worth' it is beholden upon people to respect each others viewpoint and not adopt an adversarial approach - many things in science which have been held as 'undisputable facts' are now known to have been incorrect, and similarly many aspects of spiritual and mystic wisdom which have been dismissed as 'rubbish' are now thought to have a significant and positive place in our lives.

I have studied and practised 'hard science' for about 30 years and the more I look the more I see that the only real boundaries between science and, for want of a better word, mysticism are the words used and the rituals/processes adopted........

....all IMO of course

:nature-smiley-008:

Hey, … I’m gonna kick back and contemplate what I’ve read in this thread…

I’ve got my Higgs-Boson Flask with me guys;

…err anyone for a cup of ‘Elan Vital’?

.

Unfortunately, because of members being unable to properly identify quotes, I am now totally lost as to who is saying what and to whom. Venetian, whom are you addressing please in your post above?

Hi Sunanda. I was out and unable to get online for hours, so didn't see that I'd missed an endquote. It's now corrected.

(I would comment - that it's endlessly difficult to extract quotes from posts when typefaces or sizes and colours are changed. When you click on "quote", what comes up in your reply box is often nigh-indecipherable. I did my best, and had to go before checking the post. )

V

Unfortunately, because of members being unable to properly identify quotes, I am now totally lost as to who is saying what and to whom.

Oh, I see, looking back. It was actually Boson Higgs who hadn't put an endquote on his quote of Muzone. So my quote of the whole was hard to follow. I've now put in Higgs's missing endquote. This is in post 25.

V