/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm curious as to why things evolve in the first place.

Evolution has been proven
Evolution by natural selection is theory.
I know Evolution is fact, i don't "believe" in it like Christians do of their God or children with their imaginary friends.

>>3117908
>Evolution has been proven
Evolution isn't a scientific law.

>>3117902
>Do you guys actually believe in evolution? Or do you just like the theory?

>>3117906
>I'm curious as to why things evolve in the first place.
As a consequence of physics.

>>3117910

>implying scientific laws are scientific laws....

nothing is proven in science, they are just guesses subject to change

>>3117914
>>Do you guys actually believe in evolution? Or do you just like the theory?
Sorry, meant to say "both".

>>3117910
We have facts (physical evidence) showing animals evolving over time. The "theory of evolution" is the explanation for these facts. That's how all theories relate to facts.

How can you believe in evolution if it's just a theory (a geuss)?

>>3117910

Spherical earth isn't a scientific law either.

>>3117919
This. If you're gonna troll with the oldest troll in /sci/, do it in the appropiate form.

Evolution explains the current evidence regarding biological diversity in a manner that makes the most sense and answers the most questions, for the time being.

A theory is just a series of observations and empirical data organized to explain a natural phenomenon. The word "law" doesn't mean something absolute either.

We can see that organisms adapt to their environments over generations through natural selection. Over a long enough time period, those animals become different from the original organism that migrated to that location.

What can you honestly disagree with about that?

I don't have to believe in something that can be and has been directly observed. It's called 'knowing.'

>>3117921

no such thing as a sphere... but a cube can look spherical from the outside if it is spinning fast enough

>>3117963

observing your pokeman evolve doesn't count, other than that, its impossible for a person to directly observe an evolve

>>3117998
>observe an evolve

Look up Lenski's experiments with E-Coli, that's pretty damn close. (Inb4 "God made them able to use Vitamin C)

>>3117990
>no such thing as a sphere
You just went full retard

Evolution is the name we have given to something that happens.

the theory of evolution is to explain how it happens,

i.e. we have seen evolution, I met him once, she was a surly yet intelligent man etc etc

god damn it you're fucking retards


there is a LAW called the
LAW OF NATURAL SELECTION

which is the mechanism for (ie EXPLAINS) the
THEORY OF EVOLUTION


in the vary same way as this:

there is a LAW called the
LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION

which is the mechanism for (ie EXPLAINS) the
THEORY OF GRAVITY


just because it's a THEORY doesn't mean it's not based on a LAW.
in fact, we use the word THEORY to mean 'a MECHANISM based on a fundamental or well-understood LAW'.


this is a semantic argument that should have been corrected and eliminated HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO


> mfw gravityisn'treal.jpg

and YES, i man

>>3118073
mad*

fuck y'all

>>3118073
No. You are the retard.

>>3118078

>>3118078

Nobody takes you seriously if that's your only answer...

Hobbits Motherfuckers.

I Guess Tolken has more evidence that Lord Of The Rings is real then Jesus.

>>3117902
OP what's the source to your pic?

OP, do you honestly believe that by disproving the theory of evolution that will make the bible correct? As if this single thing is keeping us from converting and being born again christians?
No. If you somehow disproved evolution, we'd try to find a better explanation, one that isn't a copout like god did it.

>Nobody has mentioned DNA or mutation

If you knew dick about DNA, you'd understand the whole deal about evolution.

Evolution isn't something that just magically happens, it's not like if you're born in a cold area, that you get born with more hair.

Every so often our DNA messes up, resulting in new traits. Sometimes these are good, or bad.

It seems obvious that mutations that are beneficial in an environment would allow the holder of that evolution to better survive, while unsuitable mutations would not be as likely to survive.

>Not observed evolution

Breeding dog, cats pidgeons, cattle

Nope, no obserable evolution here.

Evolution is radder than a shark with sunglasses playing a sweet-ass blues solo on a Gibson Les Paul.

Evolution is a Fact.
Belief is not required.

Oh dear. So much anger in this thread. Evolution is a theory, but one that makes most sense and has most evidence in its favor. Deal with it.

>>3118542
you are either a troll or a disgrace.

Really not sure how many people are trolling, but here we go.


Evolution has been observed. Natural selection is our theory as to why this happened.

Similarly:

Objects have been observed to fall towards the centre of the earth. General Relativity is our theory as to why this happens.

>>3118549
Gravity is a Fact.
Belief is not required.

Cool story troolll

Evolution is obviously fake, right guise?

I AINT EVOLVE FRUM NO MONKEY AN ANYONE WHO SAY DIFFRENLY GONNA GET DER ARSS KICKED

>>3118726

A fish that has 'learnt' to walk using it's fins

How come we can't see evolution happening. Where are the frabbits or girhinos? The burden of proof is on evolutionist, otherwise its blind faith. At least Christianity has the Bible, I don't understand evolutionist sometimes. I mean, its common sense.

>>3118764

I hope you are trolling, no one can be this stupid

Do you believe DNA exists?
Do you believe DNA can sometimes mutate?
Do you believe that some of these mutations might be beneficial to the organism?
Do you believe that these mutations can be passed onto their offspring?

If you answered yes to all of the above, then logically evolution MUST happen.

>>3118783
At least I didn't come from a monkey

>>3118811

Neither did I

>>3118814
Yeah, I don't understand these people who think we evolved from monkeys. Where is the missing link. Wouldn't monkeys have died off by now, isn't that survival of the fittest?

Evolutionists will never be able to answer that question

>>3118797
Best response ever. Will be remembering this one.

>>3118823
Nobody thinks we evolved from monkeys except idiots who do not understand evolution. Both we and "monkeys" evolved from a common ancestor, which is certainly now extinct.

>>3118342

BUMP.

Everyone should be sure that they understand this before they answer.

>>3118823
If you tried to brachiate through the trees in search of fruit, and a monkey tried to do your job, both would fuck up. Ecological niches, man.

>>3118828
>>3118823

The ascent of man drawing is completely false, there is no missing link, more like an ambiguous fork.

the most recent common ancestors of apes and men were not apes and they were not men

>>3118828
There is no evidence for this though. Again the burden of proof is on you to show me how we evolved from a common ancestor. Making stuff up doesn't qualify. Did you see it happen? Obviously not. Evolution requires more faith than the belief in God. Just look around you.

>>3117902

That picture can't be real. I'll be scared as shit of every hot chick I see now...

>>3118845

Actually there is quite a bit of morphological and DNA evidence....

>>3118847

girl has acne like a motherfucker...worst thing is, she puts on pounds of makeup, instead of going to the dermatologist for medicine, that will cure it...she's quite beautiful, actually...

>>3118823
>>3118823
my god you must be unintelligent.
and just proved that you know nothing about evolution.
almost everyone who denies it hasn't bothered to look into the theory.
whereas i looked into evolution and also spent years studying/ being involved with religious types.
religious types = i was told it happened this way so like, it did.
evolution types = huge amounts of empirical evidence which when compiled together is near impossible to deny.

why i wasted my time in this troll thread?
i don't know, immad.jpg

>>3118845
Evolution has been observed by anybody involved in breeding animals. We know it occurs. The evidence is also that humans and similar species all share traits which point to a common ancestor int the past. Fossil records also directly show certain instances of speciation.

You have never directly observed thousands of things you know to be true, doubting this would be as ridiculous as doubting that japanese people are created by birth because you have never seen a japanese woman give birth to a child.

>>3118854
Yeah but you will never know because we didn't see it happen. If evolution is true, why don't we see rabbits turning into horses? Did evolution just stop? Its more logical to believe that God created everything with a similar plan, which is what the Bible says.

>>3118847
>>3118857
Am I the only one who thinks, like most girls, she looks a lot worse with the make up on? Even accepting the acne. Always thought heavily made up girls look like boner killing clowns.

>>3118872
Bottom pic looks like photoshop not makeup. Pixels, many shoops in my time, etc.

>>3118870
Pokemans is a fun game.

>>3118863
>>3118870
See my post.

No way you are anything other than a troll, even christians are not this slack jawed.

Here's a thought experiment: If I placed a vehicle next to the edge of a cliff, approaching it too slow a speed for anybody to see it moving, are you telling me it would never fall off because nobody can directly observe it moving? Are you that unintelligent?

>>3118823

We didn't evolve from monkeys, moran. We share a common ancestor with apes. That common ancestor has since died out

It's like saying "If America was created by Europe, why are there still Europeans"

>>3117902
>Believing in evolution
I seriously hope none of you are hopeless enough as to do this.

>>3118870
See:
>>3118863
> why don't we see rabbits turning into horses?

If you lived for thousands of years, you certainly would see the descendants of animals look different from their ancestors over time. The scale is too long for us to observe in nature.

Here. Post this in every evolution thread and save the time of writing a long and involved post.

>>3118898

You read my mind

>>3117902

that pic from a youtube vid or something?

sauce

>3118857
Acne is a result of food/enviroment/smoking... Dermatology is as stupid as makeup (but they dont get it)

>>3118896
Fun fact:
>If horses go extinct, rabbits may fill their niche. Eventually the might evolve the same beneficial feats as horses.
Rabbits evolve into horses.

>>3118895
Exactly. We do not believe in a scientific theory. Or at least no scientist should. We accept them on a provisional basis since the current theory will inevitably be disproved. As for the fact of evolution, it is a direct consequence of believing that what we experience is an objective reality.

>>3118907
Depends what you count as a horse, but you know what I mean. Although yeah, that is entirely plausible, given millions of years.

>>3118908
>objective reality
Oh god dont get me started.

>>3118908

We do not believe it, we do however support it

>>3118903
>sauce
Here's where I found it. Credit, as far as I'm aware, is to Abb3w. There are even some quibbles in the thread over details of the points listed by mamoru further down, but they amount to details that the image glosses over somewhat in its efforts to simplifying the points (Which, really, works better when you're making something like this because paragraphs of text over details quickly enters tl;dr territory for most people)
http://www.fark.com/comments/4892119/The-nine-most-controversial-scientific-finds-of-2009-Well-contr
oversial-if-youre-a-creationist

>>3118633
oh yeah? how can you tell you're not just seated in a big ascending elevator?

faggot.

>>3118950
How can i tell that you exist

Belief is simply the taking of something to be true, as in: I believe it is 4 o clock. Or, i believe i am not currently on fire.

Faith is the taking of something to be true without any sort of proof. As in: I have faith i am chosen by god, or i have faith in my brother getting me to the hospital safely even though hes drank five pints of guinness.

Scientists obviously believe evolution happens. Its scientific fact and we have ridiculous amounts of evidence for it. Saying do you believe in evolution is about the same as saying do you believe in gravity.

Scientists dont have faith in evolution, because we have prood. unfortunalty nowadays people tend to get faith and belief mixed up though theyre subtly different.

Evolution is not a theory. The theory part of 'the theory of evolution' comes from the mechanism to how it happens. Natural selection being the primary mechanism.

>>3118957
>Saying do you believe in evolution is about the same as saying do you believe in gravity
You can be serious
>Evolution is not a theory
oh wait, you are. let me laugh harder

And that 'proof' is circumstantial. Part of the reason its just a theory

>>3117918
>Evolution has been observed by anybody involved in breeding animals.
WRONG, Jane, you ignorant slut.
We can select for mutants, true. But a dog is still a dog is still a dog.
You can take sperm from a male chihuahua and inseminate a Great Dane bitch, and you'll get puppies.

To prove evolution, you need to genetically create a new species - something man has not succeeded in doing.

>>3118943

>quote wrong post
>sage

Shit nigga what are you doing?

>>3118968
I used to think like that too, until I saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Now I just don't give a fuck, and when I'm asked in public if I believe in evolution I say yes and ask for no follow up questions.

>>3118968

Fuck off, you unbearable troll

>>3118968
That is wrong. We have seen new species develop. Some in wild populations and other in controlled environments. You are going to have to come up with something better.

>>3118968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhagoletis_pomonella

suck it faggot.

>>3118968

Wolves, foxes, and coyotes can't fuck.

>>3118976
...well, quoting the wrong post was entirely my bad.

If you're expecting me to bump this thread with my inane commentary, you're giving me a lot more credit than I'm worth.

>>3118613
finger-raised-err-nothing.jpg

>>3118992
>We have seen new species develop. Some in wild populations and other in controlled environments.
Name one.

>>3119037
see
>>3119006

>>3119037

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Take your pick

>>3119037
Status:
[x] - told
[ ] - not told

>>3119055
>>3119050
>>3119006
The apple maggot is just another breed of hawthorne maggot. They are both interbreed-able and can eat the other fruit, but have specialized slightly for the new fruit. Also, each one is not distinct from many other kinds of flies as a species, not just being one new breed of one, but one new breed of an ever growing list.

So, new species that are actually new species and not just "a breed that eats a slightly different fruit", seen any?

>>3119093

From the link I provided before

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

That's the first example, of which there are many

>>3119103
If a breed or mutation incapable of breeding with the originals is all that's required to make a new species, then I guess we've found a couple. At least as you define them.

>>3119093

Species is a term which doesnt totally depend on whether or not the creature can breed to create fertile young. Lions and tigers are different species, but they can sometimes create fertile young. Humans and neanderthals bred despite being different species, and in fact some humans still have neanderthal DNA.

There is no direct cut off point where one thing becomes another species.

As complete prood of evolution however, i will provide a perfect example. Meet Archaeopteryx, the first bird.

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

>>3119050
> Take your pick
All right. But you asked for it.

>Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes
>These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.
Change in behavioral patterns due to a change in environmental cues.
NOT genetic shift.
NOT mutation selection.
NOT evolution.

Really, you're going to have to do better than 40 year-old data that you found on Google. Feel free to try again.

>>3119123
NOW we are getting somewhere! An argument over what constitutes a species! How can we say we found a new one, when we cannot yet decide on what a new one is.

>>3117902

No one has sauce on this pic?

>>3119129
Glad you could refute a single point from that source, but you might find there are quite a few more point there.

OH YEAH?
OUR ANCESTORS ARE ALIENS OR RATHER INTERGALACTIC TRAVELERS. TOO BAD THEY LEFT US HERE AGES AGO AND NOW WE CAME TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE ARGUING OVER THIS.
If you really want to know how we came to be, I'd say ask the aliens.

>>3119458

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man

>>3119132

The very fact that there is no cut and dry definition of species is perhaps the most compelling evidence of evolution. Life is a spectrum,not "specially created and divided into kinds".

Definition of species, courtesy of Oxford dictionary

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/species?view=uk

Biologya group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

>>3118968

For all of you who claim that evolution is not true since we have not observed one species evolve into another: we actually have according to this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html))
.

But that still doesn't mean that evolution is proven. Nothing in science is ever proven to be 100 % true or false -- when a scientist have a theory that is supported by evidence the theory is not taken to be a fact, rather a probable explanation for what happens. And when other theories are not supported by evidence, the scientist doesn’t claim that explanation to be 100 % false, just (very) unlikely to be true.

So where does that leave us in this debate? We have a religious “theory” that is based on ancient scriptures which are full of bullshit that contradict evidence and whenever a believer is confronted with the contradiction, the answer is that it is not meant to be read literally, but allegorically or whatever. The other theory is actually backed up by a lot of evidence and therefore it is much more likely that evolution is a better explanation than what the bible gives.

I know you are not convinced (I am attacking your core believes and values – the very foundation you’ve built your life on). But imagine you’re debating a believer in norse mythology. He could use the exact same arguments as you are (against Christianity) and you could not prove him wrong.