Is Evolution Observable?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2016, 05:35 AM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
We have true examples of divergent evolution as a result of intelligent design.

Imagine, if you will, an attempt to cross-breed a Kenworth semi with a Smart car. The results would be viable.

Now, imagine two species of dog, both bred from the original wolf stock. This would be the Great Pyrenees, over 200 pounds of dog, breeding with a tea-cup Chihuahua.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 09:02 AM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(28-04-2016 05:35 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  We have true examples of divergent evolution as a result of intelligent design.

Imagine, if you will, an attempt to cross-breed a Kenworth semi with a Smart car. The results would be viable.

Now, imagine two species of dog, both bred from the original wolf stock. This would be the Great Pyrenees, over 200 pounds of dog, breeding with a tea-cup Chihuahua.

I don't know which picture would be funnier. The one with the male chihuahua on a ladder or the one with the female chihuahua's eyes bugging even further out of her head.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
28-04-2016, 09:15 AM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(28-04-2016 09:02 AM)Fireball Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 05:35 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  We have true examples of divergent evolution as a result of intelligent design.

Imagine, if you will, an attempt to cross-breed a Kenworth semi with a Smart car. The results would be viable.

Now, imagine two species of dog, both bred from the original wolf stock. This would be the Great Pyrenees, over 200 pounds of dog, breeding with a tea-cup Chihuahua.

I don't know which picture would be funnier. The one with the male chihuahua on a ladder or the one with the female chihuahua's eyes bugging even further out of her head.

Eyes would be the only thing sticking out of her forehead. Ohmy
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
29-04-2016, 02:01 AM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
Is Evolution Observable?

Yes.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/r...ral-pests/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-04-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(03-02-2014 11:20 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You tell me. Shy



Well technically this is an example of artificial selection.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2016, 09:48 AM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(03-02-2014 11:15 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  And the creationist says, . . . "....but it's still a fish." . . . . or "....but it is still a virus." They really get hung up on "the crockoduck" concept.

The Creationist argument against evolution is really a classic textbook example of the strawman argument.

Creationists can never seem to understand that evolution occurs in populations of species, not individuals, over generations, not spontaneously, and occurs because of selective pressures in the organism's environment, not by chance. In addition the microevolution vs macroevolution arguments are not true. Both are examples of evolution in action; its just that macroevolution is taking place over many generations, not just a few.

A good example of evolution in action that we see in everyday life is the flu shot. A new formulation is required every year because flu strains evolve and adapt to external pressures. So too is the phenomenon of drug resistant 'superbugs', which are evolving to develop a resistance to the external pressures of the misuse of antibiotics like pennicillin.

An analogous argument to the creationist argument against evolution would be:

"People claim helicopters can fly because they were bewitched to do so by little, green, magical animals called avioids. But we have never seen an avioid in real life nor have we seen one bewitch a helicopter to make it airworthy. Therefore helicopters cannot fly."

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
26-04-2017, 12:27 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
Hello, I joined this site after a religious person confronted me in a debate asking for observable evidence of evolution, if I wasn't able to provide one his position was basically that it proved that evolution was false. I say, the theory says it's basically not observable, so it's unfair (maybe a even a logical fallacy?) to use that against it. My response was below. All comments are welcome!

Darwinian evolution is by definition a slow and gradual process by which a species adapts to its surroundings through genetic variation and environment pressures over successive generations. Quoting Darwin: "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." So, the theory itself basically says its not observable to a human in its lifetime, so it's unfair to use that argument against it. Whether or not its 'observable' shouldn't be the basis on which it is judged as true or false, as probable or improbable. The theory can explain so much about our observations of nature. Sure it's technically not an objective fact, hence why it's called a theory, but it's more probable than all other explanations. Just like you can't directly 'observe' an electron, scientific theories can predict properties/behaviours of electrons and use that to explain observations of electricity in nature or in a lab. So again, whether or not something is directly observable or not shouldn't be the basis on which it is judged as true or false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 12:42 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
It is absolutely insane that we have had over a century of Darwin, religion also had it's ass kicked in the Scope's Monkey Trial, discovery of DNA that backs it up and moron's are still in denial of this scientific FACT.

YES we do observe evolution, it is why scientists have to come up with a new flu vaccine every year because the DNA from generation to generation changes from flu season to flu season.

Any fucking moron who says we cannot observe it has been lied to and delusional or is flat out lying because they don't like it conflicting with their old book of myth.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 01:36 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(26-04-2017 12:27 PM)gkamps Wrote:  Hello, I joined this site after a religious person confronted me in a debate asking for observable evidence of evolution, if I wasn't able to provide one his position was basically that it proved that evolution was false. I say, the theory says it's basically not observable, so it's unfair (maybe a even a logical fallacy?) to use that against it. My response was below. All comments are welcome!

Darwinian evolution is by definition a slow and gradual process by which a species adapts to its surroundings through genetic variation and environment pressures over successive generations. Quoting Darwin: "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." So, the theory itself basically says its not observable to a human in its lifetime, so it's unfair to use that argument against it. Whether or not its 'observable' shouldn't be the basis on which it is judged as true or false, as probable or improbable. The theory can explain so much about our observations of nature. Sure it's technically not an objective fact, hence why it's called a theory, but it's more probable than all other explanations. Just like you can't directly 'observe' an electron, scientific theories can predict properties/behaviours of electrons and use that to explain observations of electricity in nature or in a lab. So again, whether or not something is directly observable or not shouldn't be the basis on which it is judged as true or false.

Holy shit I forget this thread existed, hell I didn't even know I started it.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 02:10 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(26-04-2017 12:27 PM)gkamps Wrote:  Hello, I joined this site after a religious person confronted me in a debate asking for observable evidence of evolution, if I wasn't able to provide one his position was basically that it proved that evolution was false. I say, the theory says it's basically not observable, so it's unfair (maybe a even a logical fallacy?) to use that against it. My response was below. All comments are welcome!

Darwinian evolution is by definition a slow and gradual process by which a species adapts to its surroundings through genetic variation and environment pressures over successive generations. Quoting Darwin: "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." So, the theory itself basically says its not observable to a human in its lifetime, so it's unfair to use that argument against it. Whether or not its 'observable' shouldn't be the basis on which it is judged as true or false, as probable or improbable. The theory can explain so much about our observations of nature. Sure it's technically not an objective fact, hence why it's called a theory, but it's more probable than all other explanations. Just like you can't directly 'observe' an electron, scientific theories can predict properties/behaviours of electrons and use that to explain observations of electricity in nature or in a lab. So again, whether or not something is directly observable or not shouldn't be the basis on which it is judged as true or false.
the·o·ry
ˈTHirē/
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: