Evolution: Is it Real? Answers from Biologists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nenad
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the topic of evolution, specifically whether humans evolved from other species, and the implications of this belief. Participants explore various viewpoints on the evidence for evolution, the definitions of scientific theories, and the intersection of science and personal beliefs.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that there is no doubt among the scientific community that humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes, while others express skepticism about this claim.
  • One participant questions why other species could evolve but not humans, prompting further exploration of beliefs and evidence.
  • Another participant emphasizes the distinction between evolution as a fact and the theories explaining how it occurred, noting that evolution can be observed in various species.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of evolution as merely a theory, with some participants arguing that scientific theories have a different meaning than colloquial usage.
  • Several participants highlight the importance of evidence, including fossil records and genetic similarities, while others maintain that personal beliefs, particularly religious ones, influence their acceptance of evolution.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of scientific theories, with some participants clarifying that a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation rather than an unproven idea.
  • Some participants challenge the notion that humans did not evolve from apes, arguing that humans are classified as apes and fit within that definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the topic of human evolution. Some firmly support the idea of evolution, while others question its validity based on personal beliefs.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying interpretations of scientific evidence and the definitions of evolution and theory. Participants also express differing levels of acceptance regarding the relationship between scientific findings and personal beliefs.

  • #31
We have observed speciation take place, both in the lab and in nature. We have seen one species become two, through nothing more than natural processes. Given that this is the case, we can at least that these species we have observed coming into existence were not created. Given this fact, scientific induction dictates that this is the method by which all species come into existence.

When we observe speciation, it is the result of duplication of genetic information or the shuffling of information that is already there. Therefore, scientific induction dictates that this isn't the method by which all species come into existence.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
Wait a second. Explain this a little better. Because we have observed new species come into existence through wholly natural processes, scientific induction dictates that the rest were created? There's a middle step or two in this argument that you aren't revealing. What is it?
 
  • #33
Nereid said:
'gravity': fact "apples fall" (for example)
'theory of gravity': Newton, Einstein etc (BTW, the latter is a very good theory, in the sense that there are no good experimental/observational results which are inconsistent with the theory)
This is not really a criticism, but merely a remark:
I'm not a physicist, but isn't the current idea that gravity actually doesn't exist, but is just a result of curvature of spacetime? Gravity is therefore not a fact, but a theory, and in this case a wrong theory. That the apple falls is also not a fact, but an observation in my opinion.

See it is not easy to talk about facts. Because facts could well not be facts at all, although they might seem so.

I found this link quite useful on the matter of proof:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
O Great One said:
Nenad,
Evolution is a fairy tale and everybody posting on this board knows it. It is the one theory that is accepted by scientists that has no support. Notice how everybody says that evolution is a 'fact' supported by mountains of evidence. This is what you say when you have no support.

Fossil record
homology
genetic relationships between species
observed speciation events
etc
etc

what do you mean by no support?

Did you know that there is not a single creationist paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Do you know why? (the answer is not: conspiracy)
 
  • #35
spuriousmonkey said:
This is not really a criticism, but merely a remark:
I'm not a physicist, but isn't the current idea that gravity actually doesn't exist, but is just a result of curvature of spacetime? Gravity is therefore not a fact, but a theory, and in this case a wrong theory. That the apple falls is also not a fact, but an observation in my opinion.

I hope I don't side-track the thread, but I felt it right to clarify some points here:

1) Gravity is the apparent attraction between objects. Spacetime curvature is an explanation for what causes this apparent attraction.

2) That is the role of theories vs. facts. The fact is that there is an apparent attraction between objects. The theory is what explains the cause of this attraction (i.e. how it works). The fact is that there is a variety of life today, and there wasn't always. The theory is what explains why this is the case (again, how it works).

See it is not easy to talk about facts. Because facts could well not be facts at all, although they might seem so.

3) Facts are always facts, but sometimes we might take things for fact that are not actually fact...that's why it's such a good thing that science doesn't deal much in facts ("fact" having the scientific definition of a readily observable phenomenon that is beyond reasonable doubt), but in theories ("theory" having the scientific definition of an explanation of a "fact").
 
  • #36
This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).

thanks
nautica
 
  • #37
O Great One said:
Nenad,
Evolution is a fairy tale and everybody posting on this board knows it.

I'm sorry to shatter your illusions, O Great One, but we all appear to be ignorant of this revelation.

It is the one theory that is accepted by scientists that has no support. Notice how everybody says that evolution is a 'fact' supported by mountains of evidence. This is what you say when you have no support.

And what would we say if there WAS support for a theory ? Perhaps we would call it a fairy-tale.

Well, in that case, the theories of Gravitation (which is used for building spacecraft ), Electromagnetics (used for building light bulbs and computers), Hydrostatics (used for building ships and oil rigs), Structural Mechanics (for building houses), are all fairy-tales...as is Pharmacology, (based on principles shared with Evolution theory) which saves lives daily, and gets rids of an occasional pain in the neck.

Ogreat One...Please tell us how you avoid walking into trees, when you roam this planet with your eyes closed ?
 
  • #38
nautica said:
This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).

thanks
nautica

Is the divergence from Canis lupis to Canis familiaris good enough for you? There are examples that were not the result of artificial selection, but I still think domestic animals are the most obvious answer to this question.

If you want speciation events that were not the results of breeding by humans, look at these: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
 
  • #39
When we observe speciation, it is the result of duplication of genetic information or the shuffling of information that is already there. Therefore, scientific induction dictates that this isn't the method by which all species come into existence.
loseyourname said:
Wait a second. Explain this a little better. Because we have observed new species come into existence through wholly natural processes, scientific induction dictates that the rest were created? There's a middle step or two in this argument that you aren't revealing. What is it?
The way I read it, there was some starting point - a base set of genetic information - and some evolution has proceeded from there. It is a misunderstanding of what is happening in evolution and ignores (among other things) 4 billion years of fossil records. It sounds like a variation of the "micro-evolution but not macro-evolution" argument.

The evidence is so overwealming though that all anti-evolution arguments eventually reduce to the "deceitful God" hypothesis: God created the universe and the Earth 4,000 years ago and it only looks like its older than that.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
nautica said:
This maybe a bit off topic. But, could someone give me some specific examples of speciation in nature, which have been observed. (preferrably in the animal kingdom).

thanks
nautica
I believe in a recent article of Scientific American, there was actually an article about how some scientists in some south western state were observing 1 specie of fly begin to speciate. It was something like the 2 populations wouldn't actively seek out mating with one another, when a male from population 1 bred with a female from population 2 the offspring was infertile, and when a male from population 2 bred with a female from population 1 there was no offspring...

I'll try to dig it up and post about it.
 
  • #41
wasteofo2 said:
I believe in a recent article of Scientific American, there was actually an article about how some scientists in some south western state were observing 1 specie of fly begin to speciate. It was something like the 2 populations wouldn't actively seek out mating with one another, when a male from population 1 bred with a female from population 2 the offspring was infertile, and when a male from population 2 bred with a female from population 1 there was no offspring...

I'll try to dig it up and post about it.

Great, let me know when you find it.

Nautica
 
  • #42
loseyourname said:
Is the divergence from Canis lupis to Canis familiaris good enough for you? There are examples that were not the result of artificial selection, but I still think domestic animals are the most obvious answer to this question.

If you want speciation events that were not the results of breeding by humans, look at these: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Great info!

Thanks
Nautica
 
  • #43
Did you know that there is not a single creationist paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Do you know why? (the answer is not: conspiracy)
People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm

I'm curious, in all of the speciation events that we have observed, has the daughter species ever been physically different from the parental species that it broke off from? Or are they physically identical?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
O Great One said:
People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm

I'm curious, in all of the speciation events that we have observed, has the daughter species ever been physically different from the parental species that it broke off from? Or are they physically identical?

Here we have an example of Canis Lupus (mother species)
http://clem.mscd.edu/~shultzj/ccsc2002/wolf.jpg

Here we have an example of Canis Familiaris (daughter species)
http://www.filhotesonline.com.br/shi_tzu.jpg

Keep in mind, one reason that this is one of the few examples of an observed speciation where the daughter species looks immensely different from the mother species is that the idea of Evolution was introduced within the last half milenia, and speciation can take millions of years unless there are catastrophic events. I'm sure there are other examples of less extreme nature where we have observed physical differences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
O Great One said:
People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.

funny...nice-paying jobs in science...

HAHAHAHA.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm 34, make 1300 euro a month. Have no insurance, no pension, no car, no home (just a single room).

Yeah. I am in science for money. It is obvious. I only publish on evolution because I am afraid to lose my job.
 
  • #46
Mentat said:
3) Facts are always facts, but sometimes we might take things for fact that are not actually fact...that's why it's such a good thing that science doesn't deal much in facts ("fact" having the scientific definition of a readily observable phenomenon that is beyond reasonable doubt), but in theories ("theory" having the scientific definition of an explanation of a "fact").

I think they call these 'things' observations.
 
  • #47
CyrusMcC said:
There is no proof that Humans and Apes "evolved" from a common ancestor. We weren't there to see it!

Direct observation is nice when you can get it, but it is not a absolute requirement (e.g., physicists can't see subatomic particles directly, forensic scientists don't witness murders directly, paleontologists have never seen a living dinosaur, astronomers have never seen the sun's core).

There is proof of evolution (including direct observation of small-scale speciation events) in all of the fossils, genetics, etc. The amount of individual evidences like that add up to a very robust explanation. If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith.

As for as I know you cannot disagree with me when I say that evolution is a theory.

We don't. We're debating what that means.

Also theories can never be proven true or false. Every science professor in my college career has told me that.

Theories can be proven false. That is actually a requirement of science (that theories are falsifiable). If we find a 3 billion year old human skeleton, then the theory would be in real trouble.

But you are correct that theories (explanations) are never 100% proven. But there are degrees of reliability/accuracy/etc. which can be recognized.

Otherwise, it's just a Theory that attempts to “explain how life is today,” but that does not necessarily mean that's how it is.

Well, ok. I invite you to dive into the scientific literature and judge for yourself how much the evidence presented is worth.
 
  • #48
O Great One said:
Evolution is a fairy tale and everybody posting on this board knows it.

You're crossing a line. Your debate of the ideas is welcome but do not start slandering all the members here.

It is the one theory that is accepted by scientists that has no support.

Simply ridiculous. You may reject the explanation for the data (e.g., common descent) or the interpretation of the data (e.g., age of a fossil), but you can't seriously deny that any data exists (e.g., the fossil itself).
 
  • #49
O Great One said:
People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm

An anecdote that quotes a nameless source.

I'm curious, in all of the speciation events that we have observed, has the daughter species ever been physically different from the parental species that it broke off from? Or are they physically identical?

Would it surprise you to know that cabbage, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts were all derived from a single wild plant species? (yes, that's artificial selection...the point is that species can change form)

Small changes can be observed in small time frames. Big changes require longer time frames. People don't live long enough to observe the degree of evolution you're concerned about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
O Great One said:
People want to keep their nice-paying jobs so they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.cyan.qc.ca/catacombes/Elephant%20LivingR.htm

Hah ! George Caylor in a Conservative Christian Nut whose single-minded aim is to preserve and propagate all the "great thruths" as revealed by The Book.

Stunts like this only take away any credibility to your arguments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
Good to see that you're back posting in PF Mentat!
:biggrin: :smile: :-p :approve:
 
  • #52
This might be slightly OTT but it is within the same general area (I trust).

Looking at the proposed process of how eukaryotic cells developed from prokaryotic cells (or at least the one described at: http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/students/w96/joshbond/symb.htm )
how supportive have experiments been of this hypothesis (or set of hypotheses), in particular, the inclusion (or at least use) of the prokaryotic DNA by the host cell?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Nereid said:
Good to see that you're back posting in PF Mentat!
:biggrin: :smile: :-p :approve:

Thanks, it's good to be back.
 
  • #54
JD said:
This might be slightly OTT but it is within the same general area (I trust).

Looking at the proposed process of how eukaryotic cells developed from prokaryotic cells (or at least the one described at: http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/students/w96/joshbond/symb.htm )
how supportive have experiments been of this hypothesis (or set of hypotheses), in particular, the inclusion (or at least use) of the prokaryotic DNA by the host cell?

Mitochondria, plastids, and centrioles are all known to have their own genomes, which are not related to the genome of the host cell. It is composed of a single, circular DNA molecule, as are prokaryotic genomes. They also possesses their own tRNA and ribosomes with which to transcribe and translate their genes. The sensitivity of these ribosomes is much the same as the sensitivity of ribosomes in prokaryotes, rather than those of its eukaryotic host. The sequencing of the genes for SSU rRNA (small subunit ribosomal RNA) indicates that plastids are descended from cyanobacteria and that mitochondria are descended from alpha proteobacteria. The evidence for this is all but conclusive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.
 
  • #56
russ_watters said:
The evidence is so overwealming though that all anti-evolution arguments eventually reduce to the "deceitful God" hypothesis: God created the universe and the Earth 4,000 years ago and it only looks like its older than that.

There is no such thing as an anti-evolution argument. For an argument to be sound, it has to have all true premises. Nothing an anti-evolution (or pro-Christian-God) "argument" puts forth as its premises is true, it's all faith based bull****.
 
  • #57
Phobos said:
If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith.


Err?
 
  • #58
Averagesupernova said:
We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.

lol. No we aren't.
 
  • #59
Averagesupernova said:
We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.
If anything, the data suggests that those with lower 'intelligence' are more successful - they have more offspring than those of 'higher intelligence'. IIRC, the government of Singapore was so concerned about this that they launched a program - costing millions - to get bright young people to marry and have children. It failed.

But, as it was based on a false premise, it doesn't matter anyway.
 
  • #60
aychamo said:
There is no such thing as an anti-evolution argument. For an argument to be sound, it has to have all true premises. Nothing an anti-evolution (or pro-Christian-God) "argument" puts forth as its premises is true, it's all faith based bull****.

Funny, my dictionary doesn't define "argument" that way. You may disagree with the arguments presented by Creationists, as I do, but those proffering it are usually doing so with honest intent. Regardless, you're argument of the ideas is welcome here, but not statements like that which are simply fuel for a flame war.

Err?

lol. No we aren't.

If you are going to post, please include some content.
 

Similar threads

Evolution and preservation of endangered animals
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Is the 'Randomness' of Evolution Really Random?
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
12K
How are ancestors classified in a cladistic system?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
COVID The Evolution of the SARS-COV-2 virus
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
9K
Investigating Neanderthal Intelligence Through Artifacts
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Do biologists agree on a definition of "species"?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Human Evolution-Bacteria Conjugation
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Is Evolution Slowing Down Due to Protective Mechanisms Against Mutations?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Book Review: The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
DNA barcodes and genetic diversity in humans
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K