PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Prove for Evolution?
       what is the best prove for evolutoin.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Dino

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Deos evolotion provide hard science evidence instead of soft science evidence. the answer is no evolution has not one fact behind it. i want to hear the best fact for evolion.


-------
Dr. dino
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:51 PM on March 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are an example of someone who is too lazy, or too religiously conservative, to look for the answers yourself.  Open your eyes and read some of the mountains and mountains of  'hard science' that is out there that proves evolution.  

Then come back with an intelligent question!


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:29 AM on March 12, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution happening as biologists watch, from here:
EvolutionIn Action

"In the corner of a laboratory at Michigan State University, one of the longest-running experiments in evolution is quietly unfolding. A dozen flasks of sugary broth swirl on a gently rocking table. Each is home to hundreds of millions of Escherichia coli, the common gut microbe. These 12 lines of bacteria have been reproducing since 1989, when the biologist Richard E. Lenski bred them from a single E. coli. “I originally thought it might go a couple thousand generations, but it’s kept going and stayed interesting,” Dr. Lenski said. He is up to 40,000 generations now, and counting.
In that time, the bacteria have changed significantly. For one thing, they are bigger — twice as big on average as their common ancestor. They are also far better at reproducing in these flasks, dividing 70 percent faster than their ancestor. These changes have emerged through spontaneous mutations and natural selection, and Dr. Lenski and his colleagues have been able to watch them unfold."

There ya go, new species evolving due to spontaneous mutation and natural selection observed, tested, verified.  As demonstrated here, evolution is a fact.



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:32 PM on March 18, 2008 | IP
mrlittleguy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the above link I didn't see it mention "new species" anywhere, which seems to be the premise of your proof.

There are dogs that are more than twice as big as other dogs, but they are all still dogs.

Most wouldn't dispute that creatures will adapt to their environment, via Survival of the Fittest. What is in question is whether these adaptations , over xxx years, will produce drastically different, and/or higher, forms of life. (aka microevolution vs macroevolution)
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:41 PM on April 18, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the fundamental difference between macro and micro?

Hint: there is none. Macro is merely the aggregate of micro.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 12:46 PM on April 18, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mrlittleguy at 11:41 AM on April 18, 2008 :
Most wouldn't dispute that creatures will adapt to their environment, via Survival of the Fittest.

In other words most accept that evolution occurs, but want to call it something else.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:01 PM on April 18, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the above link I didn't see it mention "new species" anywhere, which seems to be the premise of your proof.

Yes, but any microorganisms that suddenly mutate the ability to live on a new food source would have to be a new species.  

There are dogs that are more than twice as big as other dogs, but they are all still
dogs.


And internally they are identical, they have the same organs, muscles and skeletal structure.  But microorganisms that feed on different nutrients or live in different temperature ranges are internally different from their ancestors.  They've mutated into new species.

What is in question is whether these adaptations , over xxx years, will produce drastically different, and/or higher, forms of life. (aka microevolution vs macroevolution)

And microorganisms that feed on different nutrients and live in different temperature ranges are drastically different.  The experiment wasn't designed to see if "higher" (whatever that means) forms of life would evolve.  Why are you adding this ridiculous claim to the experiment?  But would you agree that microorganisms with different metabolic pathways are different species?  If you don't agree, why not...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:15 PM on April 20, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Has life from none life been produced in the lab?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 02:33 AM on April 27, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 01:33 AM on April 27, 2008 :
Has life from none life been produced in the lab?





When, (not if), it happens, where do you hide?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:55 AM on April 27, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Has life from none life been produced in the lab?

Has God been observed magically "poofing" life into existance yet?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:57 PM on April 27, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, your links never cease to amaze me. How interesting! I know this one is old, but still.

Quote from mrlittleguy:
There are dogs that are more than twice as big as other dogs, but they are all still dogs.
I guess this has been posted before. But any search i try on the site produces no results.
Here's a bit on an experiment on silver foxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enrLSfxTqZ0

And here's the Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

Most wouldn't dispute that creatures will adapt to their environment, via Survival of the Fittest. What is in question is whether these adaptations , over xxx years, will produce drastically different, and/or higher, forms of life.
"Higher"... Creationist sure like high. But Nature doesn't know about our silly tags.

Select foxes for their tameness and you'll end up with something pretty dog-like. Select dogs for their velocity, and they'll be fast. Select them for their intelligence and in less than a million years they'll be smarter than you.

As for "high", well, in Demon's link you can see bacteria learning to group in a colony and hunt in a stack.


One such study is of Myxococcus xanthus, top, which lash their tails together and hunt in a pack. If they starve, they form a ball, above.

Learning to do this is the first step towards multicellular creatures.

Actually you can look at a human being as a complex colony, where all the cells look after each other, for the greater good of the community, ultimately for the comparative few that produce gametes. Those are the only ones that reproduce. Most of our cells relinquished their right to reproduce, or even to live, for the sake of that tiny percent of the colony (but since they have the same DNA, it doesn't hurt that much).

Solidarity, at a cellular level or at a group level, is the byproduct of hard conditions, mutual beneficial and (usually) proximity of genes. In those conditions solidarity evolves. Because groups with solidarity outperform groups with selfish individuals.

Now that human kind tends to have no clans i'm afraid we'll likely lose the genetic predisposition to solidarity. That's one of the reasons why i'm for the genetic engineering of our species. I know it's risky, but i don't see many choices.

When i was a teenager i liked to think about evolution, and imagine ways in which evolution could have shown some of the things we see today. And i confess it took me a lot of time to solve the riddle of how could a single cell evolve into, i don't know, a fish.

I was so happy when i figured it out! ^_^
Today i think it shouldn't have taken that much time.

I never got the bacterial flagellum, and the electric eel. I had to read about them (felt like cheating).

(aka microevolution vs macroevolution)
A.K.A. nonsense.

But at least their acknowledging "microevolution" (does someone know who came up with this term?) could be a step in the right direction for creationists.

Oh, i found it in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Origin of the term

Russian Entomologist Yuri Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration) first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation". The term was brought into English-speaking by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937).

Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and even fallen into disfavor amongst some scientists who prefer to speak of biological evolution as one process.

Misuse

The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


What an unnecessary term. It represents no intellectual asset.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:21 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:55 AM on April 27, 2008 :
Quote from SilverStar at 01:33 AM on April 27, 2008 :
Has life from none life been produced in the lab?




When, (not if), it happens, where do you hide?


Well even if life is made from non-life won't it require a scientists to begin and control the process.

sorry I keep typing my response within the quotations.



(Edited by oct08 12/23/2008 at 10:31 PM).
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 9:32 PM on December 21, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oct08, you quoted, but forgot to reply.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:38 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from oct08 at 9:32 PM on December 21, 2008 :

Well even if life is made from non-life won't it require a scientists to begin and control the process.



Exactly right, it's a self-organizing process.



Self-Organization in Biology

Origins of Order



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:44 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.