EMILO2STAY: still giving empty rants without proof, skulls dug up the ground prooves nothing ,show me a chimp or gorrila that has speciated into a homo habilis since the past 150year and i will believe you . humans also share 90% genes with cats, 80% with cows yet why do we not see them evolve to somthing humanoid. so the fact that we share similar genes is not a proof that man evolved from monkeys. evolution is based on faith. evolution is the creation theory for the religion of atheism.

prettyboi1989:
U knw u actually dumber dan d way u talk? Because u don't know something, u fink it doesn't exist? So because u failed at somthing u fink no other can succeed at it? Now I knw the problem of u people. Aliens exists and are known, like or not, no 1 wants the world to believe that aliens exists. Most of nasa's former employees that were involved with aliens in secret missions wind up dead almost immediately after they reveal secrets of what happened. They send people to kill them. M sure ur ignorance will not let u know that there is a place in america called area 51 whch is a base for covert operations with aliens. U can read about it if u r eager. America has been dealing with aliens since time past.
And I repeat, if u don't believe in God u can't phatom hez existence nor his power so don't try to imagine it. Hez real n he works. If many attest to the fact that something is good, its insanity that will make one ordinary person say they are all lying, so they all planned to lie about how good that thing is abi? Think dude. Its eida u believe dat God is or d devil is.

macof:

My ancestors passed education to me.

Religious men have yes! It was a priest who initiated the big bang theory.

But then let's talk about christianity in mediaeval times. How the church killed and jailed philosophers and scientist for practising, saying any knowledge outside the Bible is from the devil bla bla bla.

How many text from early scientist were destroyed and some rewritten over to hide their original notes

Evolution theory has helped improve biology, medicine and even chemistry
It is also generally a Great step in understanding our universe

macof:

Yes, the fact that we share so much genetic similarities show that our biomechanics have a common source

Are you mad? What faith?? Even pagans believe in evolution

Evolution is not creation you illiterate

GJames:
Please be specific, i need to know what good its contribution to those subjects has done to save a life or to make life easy

macof:

I already told you it's illusion. If you Stu don't get it then you need ur brain worked on

macof:

where you there when it happened?

EMILO2STAY: dont mind him, the evolution theory has not contributed any valuable thing to mankind.

EMILO2STAY: are u mad!, i should be asking u that . And yes evolutionist believe a big bang occured out of no where and formed the galaxy , was any evolutionist there when it occured? U guys propose a theory and believe in it with no proof is'nt that faith?, I have ask u to show me one primate that has evolved into human but u have not... Give an evidence of a simple life form that has evolved into a complex one. show me proof of amoeba that has evolved into a rat or a goat; if u cant pls shut up and go to sleep.

Liekiller:

First, guys, let me say that I find it a shame that this thread has turned into such a mess of spamming insults at each other and answering questions with other questions. We should not focus on insulting each other's beliefs. I repeat that evolution is NOT ANTI-RELIGION. So why do discussions on a simply biological topic invariably turn into religious fights. Believe me, even if you understand evolution (and then invariably accept it as the fact it is) it does NOT in any way need to interfere with your belief in God. The only thing that will probably happen is that you see that the bible should better be read more metaphorically and not taken word by word. And that's not a bad thing anyway.
One thing I find difficult about the "questions" being asked on here is that they are very very unspecific. I simply don't have time to write the pages and pages that would be required to answer them in a way that does them justice.

If I take this your statement as a starting point though, it is something quite specific that we can talk about. You claim that knowledge of evolution has not contributed anything to the world we live in. I strongly disagree with that. And this is why:

1) science is not business. It's not about an immediate (material) gain. It's about furthering our knowledge about how things function. Often, in the beginning, a new research field can look very "useless" to laymen. But very often it actually turns out to have a practical use as it progresses. Apart from that science is driven by the idea that it is good and important to understand the world we live in.

2) the knowledge of evolutionary processes and mechanisms has enormous practical applications. For example in medicine and agriculture. Let me just give you one of many possible examples here. Maybe you have heard that antibiotics are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics. This has led to a worrying re-emergence of diseases that were almost gone. The reason for this is an evolutionary one. Bacteria have adapted as a result of using antibiotics on them. They have changed. It is evolution in progress. Directly observable (yes!) evolution happens in organisms like bacteria because they reproduce insanely fast so that changes in the gene pool of a bacterial population occur in a time span that we ARE able to observe. So since we are dealing with an evolutionary issue here, of course we can only tackle it when we KNOW what's going on. And we do, because nowadays we understand these evolutionary processes.

EMILO2STAY: what ur talking about is micro evolution and not macroevolution which is what the argument is about, The actic fox has a dark brownish colour in summer but turns white in winter to adapt to it environment but it still remains a fox, it can never evolve into a wolf or a bear even in 3 billion years time, which is what the darwinian theory of evolution stipulates.

Liekiller:

bros, evolution is evolution. macro evolution just takes longer but follows the exact same mechanisms. Your example with the arctic fox... I see what you mean. But that is NOT evolution. Adaptation in evolutionary biology means something totally different. We have to go into genetics a bit to understand it. Let's say for example that the arctic ice melts over a few hundred thousand years. As there is always variation in genomes (due to random mutations), there will be foxes with a slightly darker fur for example. Or a mutation occurs that interferes with the seasonal fur change (all these things are driven by genes and can therefore be affected by random mutations). The fox does not decide which mutation is useful or not. Mutations are just THERE and lead to differences between the individuals of one species. In the changing environment with less and less ice, these said individuals could have an advantage in terms of reproduction. For example because they are less likely to be seen and eaten by other predators. If they are less likely to be eaten they are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and therefore their genes with that specific mutation will continue to exist in the next generation. Now if a higher percentage of foxes with this mutation reproduce, then over time the appearance of the entire population (or rather species) changes, beecause there is a shift in allele frequencies within the population. Oh and of course these foxes can evolve into new species. And they do. It's just that we can't "watch" this happen right before us because, as you know, it takes ages. But we do find fossils that document such gradual changes. It is also backed up by abundant other evidence. Anyway, you need to think in terms of population gene pools and not individuals magically shifting into something else. That is definitely not evolution, no. Sorry I don't have time right now to continue, but I will if anyone cares for it.

EMILO2STAY: the process of changing an organism's appearance through a series of small changes is correcty called “microevolution” and that is not what we are referring to when we write “the theory of
evolution” on this page. After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color due to environmental factors, but it is still a frog, not a fish or a lizard.

Evolutionary Ideas: Species and Speciation

In evolution, speciation is simply the process whereby a single lineage (species) splits into two lineages. In other words, new species arise from existing species. But what constitutes a species, and how does speciation occur? The following sections explain.
The biological-species concept

Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring.

Individuals can mate and reproduce with members of their own species but not with members of other species. The defining characteristic separating one species from another is that they are reproductively isolated from each other. When a speciation event occurs — when evolution results in members of one species developing into another species — that group of individuals can no longer interbreed with members of the original species.

The biological-species concept best applies to sexually reproducing animals; it doesn't adequately define what bacterial species are. In fact, defining the term species in other cases is an active area of evolutionary biology.
When one species becomes two

When new species arise from existing species, you have speciation. Here's how it works: Two different populations of the same species evolve in different ways. They become progressively more different until they are so different that they are no longer able to interbreed.

Can it be that such a thing really happens? It's clear that some people don't even like the idea of it. How do we know that the whole idea of speciation wasn't just something that Darwin concocted after a night of carousing?

Because of ring species.
Proof: Ring species

Ring species are species with these specific features:

Their habitat surrounds an area of hostile environment that they can't cross. Think about a bird species living in the lower elevations around the Himalayan mountain plateau, or a little salamander species living around the edges of California Central Valley. They can move around the edges, but they can't cross over the middle because they couldn't survive.
Neighboring subpopulations around the circle, or ring, are slightly genetically different from each other. These genetic differences can be measured.
Most neighboring populations can interbreed with each other. The populations near one another are a little different genetically, but they are still the same species and can therefore mate and produce viable offspring.
At one place around the ring, the neighboring populations can't interbreed with each other. Each population can breed with its neighbors (because neighboring populations are just a little bit different), yet all those differences add up as you go from one end of the ring to the other. The result is that, by the time you've gone all the way around the ring, the two populations on the "ends" are too different to interbreed. If it wasn't for all the populations in the middle, the two end populations would be different species.

Through the existence of ring species, scientists can say with certainty that small differences can accumulate in nature to the point that two populations of the same species can become reproductively isolated. They can actually go out and see it.

Liekiller:

You seem to simply detest the idea of that happening, for whatever reason. Anyway, here is how it DOES happen, whether you like it or not.




http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/evolutionary-ideas-species-and-speciation.html

EMILO2STAY: i understand perfectly what ur saying but this cannot be the basis for the theory of evolution. Other wise u will contradicting ur ownself. If monkeys can speciat into humans due to environmental factor , then humans can also speciat into monkeys due to environmental factor. And talking about species from common ancestor who are too different to interbreed due evolutionary changes caused by the need to adapt to new environs that is a lie! The lion and tiger are different due to there environment but can still interbreed.

Liekiller:

I find it extremely irritating that you come here to call 150 years of serious research in a number of fields that all came to the same conclusion a "lie". Your reason for this is seemingly only that you can't imagine it and you dislike the general idea. 150 years ago nobody was able to imagine that we'd fly to the moon one day and so on. I know this is different. But i think we must always be careful to not use our own very limited understanding as a general standard. We defer to those with superior knowledge in every other field, yet in biology, everybody arrogantly claims to "refute" 150 years of research by some of the most intelligent people on earth by simply calling it lies and nonsense. And all that without having even a basic understanding of genetics, for example. If you want to refute a scientific theory you will have to conduct research to falsify it. Good luck trying to refute a theory that nobody has been able to falsify so far in spite of extremely abundant research. Scientific theories can not be refuted by calling them lies, no matter how much you dislike them. I would also like to point out that "theory" in science is used in a very different sense than in daily life.

Liekiller:

I find it extremely irritating that you come here to call 150 years of serious research in a number of fields that all came to the same conclusion a "lie". Your reason for this is seemingly only that you can't imagine it and you dislike the general idea. 150 years ago nobody was able to imagine that we'd fly to the moon one day and so on. I know this is different. But i think we must always be careful to not use our own very limited understanding as a general standard. We defer to those with superior knowledge in every other field, yet in biology, everybody arrogantly claims to "refute" 150 years of research by some of the most intelligent people on earth by simply calling it lies and nonsense. And all that without having even a basic understanding of genetics, for example. If you want to refute a scientific theory you will have to conduct research to falsify it. Good luck trying to refute a theory that nobody has been able to falsify so far in spite of extremely abundant research. Scientific theories can not be refuted by calling them lies, no matter how much you dislike them. I would also like to point out that "theory" in science is used in a very different sense than in daily life.

EMILO2STAY: 150yrs ko ,150yrs ni. Dont attach emotions to this bring up facts. Let me quot one of your statements which i called lies .

''Here's how it works:
Two different populations of the
same species evolve in different
ways. They become progressively more different
until they are so different that
they are no longer able to
interbreed''.
i gave proof after i called them lies today we have ligers, tigons , leopons. All these are product of different species from same ancesto r. So my friend you can see with me that 150yrs of the evolution theory prooves nothing.

EMILO2STAY: the process of changing an organism's appearance through a series of small changes is correcty called “microevolution” and that is not what we are referring to when we write “the theory of
evolution” on this page. After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color due to environmental factors, but it is still a frog, not a fish or a lizard.

Liekiller:

Yeah, we have lions and tigers and the offspring from their interbreeding? Sooooo? That does NOT IN THE LEAST disprove evolution. Firstly, they don't interbreed in the wild. These are artificial settings. Secondly, they do not breed succesfully (yes, that's a keyword in this context. But: offspring are sterile and short-lived). Thirdly: it simply means that they have not diverged far enough yet to be unable to breed. http://163.16.28.248/bio/activelearner/19/ch19intro.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_02.html
I'm sorry to say, but this is arrogant of you. You really think anyone can pop up out of nowhere with some random examples they don't even understand properly and then think this disproves 150 years of work of some of the smartest people on earth? Seriously?

davien: let me ask you a question,what do you understand is a species?

EMILO2STAY: hahahaha...u said sooo?, sooo means i just proved u wrong. Today we have the pitbull, rotweiller dogs which is a product of artificial breeding; what about the geep, most live long and are fertile. pls do stop attaching emotions to this, bring facts not emotions and baseless assumption.

Liekiller:


Abeg, read the articles that explain how this does NOT disprove evolution

EMILO2STAY: of course it does from ur statement above, the truth of the whole matter is that Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as ascientific explanation of origins. Give a single proof where speciation has been observed to the level where two different population of common ancestor are unable to interbreed?.

GJames: In much of the scientific and educational community today, evolution is the main view given for the origin of life and the universe. I want to believe this but can't due to the following reasons:
1. The teaching of evolution is not truly scientific. According to science, all conclusions must be based on indisputable evidence. The evidence must come from experiments that can be duplicated or repeated over and over with the same end results. However, no experiments could test and prove assumptions like the ''big bang'' theory, nor can it be proven that living things developed gradually from the simplest to the most complex forms( this point defies the second law of thermodynamics that describes how physical matter tends toward disorder-not higher order-as it changes.)
2. Change and development will occur within various species. For example, we occasionally see new developments or mutations within species. But there is no evidence, not even in earth history or fossil records which supports the theory that one kind of living thing ever evolved from another kind.
3. The order of the solar system cannot happen by chance. Lets say there's an explosion and out of it came the Sun, the Stars, the nine planets with their natural satelites (e.g. Moon). These planets decided on their own to revolve in elliptical orbit arround the Sun in anti-clockwise direction (except Neptune).
I can't consider these things and still believe in evolution, this is like having faith in human theory. I am a baby Christian who knows very little about his religion, but i would rather believe in a God i know nothing of than to believe i evolved from an Amoeba. Lets discuss this. Mod abeg frontpage

Psylas: Evolution is the mechanism God used to create things

EMILO2STAY: define speciation?

Kay17: I think the pivotal point of evolution is mutation. As long as mutation is accepted, the remainder of evolution follows and is easier to understand.

Mutation is well proven in microorganisms. Viruses such as ebola have being known to mutate into other strains. Same with tuberculosis. Once an organism mutates, it becomes a different from its parent organism. The uniqueness I believe is a consequence of additional information.