This thread needs to be put on hold until tomjc actually read about evolution. That said, I'll contribute a little to the discussion. Notice that every person or animal born is a little different from its ancestors. Some of us are tall, others are short. Some are smarter, some are more athletic. Some When a virus spread among us, some get sick, while others are immune. When there's a drought, some are more equpped to live through it, and others die. etc. etc. While the idea of a mutant is commonly associated with drastic change in people like in the comics, or with bacterial/viral strains, you could say that every human/chimp/higher level organism are ALL mutants. Because we all have differences which either make us more likely to reproduce, or less. Evolution is all about differences among us and all living beings, and those who are more fit to survive do so. Then these reproduce, pass their genes, and finally "evolve". If you really want to question Evolution, at least understand the process at which it is accomplished.
I'm surprised one can manage to get a biology degree while spouting off common misconceptions about evolution and Creationism talking points.
I'll bite if you're serious, but those two topics does discuss your answers because everything was thrown around in there.
I'd love to know what university (and professors) you've taken those courses at. From what I've read so far in this thread, you appear to be either lazy or willfully ignorant or some sadly typical combination of the two. If you wish to know more, read more. Read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin for a start. It's an easy enough read, even for the intellectually lazy. I'm sure you'll dismiss the contents with a hand-wave or two, as that appears to be your wont, but that's fine, maybe some will sink in. Follow that up with damned near anything from Dawkins, perhaps starting with The Blind Watchmaker or The Greatest Show on Earth and then moving on to The Ancestor's Tale. Of course, you probably think Dawkins is the anti-christ, but ignore that for long enough to read his books. Objectively. Then come back here and discuss things again, this time with a just a modicum of background knowledge. Thanks.
Please read Cosmos by Carl Sagan. He explains evolution and natural selection in a beautiful, succinct way. Also, Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. I promise, you won't regret it.
this seems to be the type of evidence that supports transitional species... the difficulty that I have is wondering why not more of these "intermediate species" such as the platypus are not in existence. Someone mentioned in this forum of the lungfish, and it is peculiar to me why we only get to see the "end product" of evolution today (and I'm not talking about the H1N1 virus vs the seasonal flu). If more species such as the lungfish survived today, evolution would make more sense. You would suspect that if all of species evolved from one common ancestor, that DNA aside, there are more closely related "intermediate species" such as the platypus that we can point to and say AH-HA. instead we have these "findings" from fossils in which "authorities" have decided they are evidence for evolution and thus we believe this to be true.
You're missing the point. We don't believe it's the absolute truth. We believe it fits closest to a specified modeled and unlike religion, we don't throw empirical evidence away and declare something else the truth. Science is never the absolute truth... it's the closest to what fits in our natural world and it's ever changing. In science, there's room for the unknown or rather undiscovered... but only based on certain processes... to throw out you pre-notion and look at what fit even if goes against your beliefs.
The platypus was brought up as an example of the similarities between reptiles and mammals. But egg-laying vs. live birth isn't the only trait that changes in evolution. There are so many more lines of evidence even beyond the fossil record that you are completely ignoring. For example, redundant pseudogenes.
For the record, I believe in a possibility of a higher power, but I also believe in science. It's two prospectives of the same thing. If I were on a cliff with two sides and had to blindly jump off... a priest and scientist, both with good intentions were to tell me to jump off at opposite sides of the cliff, I would choose the scientist. Maybe god created the scientist to help me out... in which case, his creation is absolute... that means EVERYTHING that falls within the realm of science is true. I hope that makes sense.
Exactly, you can't ask the negative and assume a fact theory from that. That's called a negative fallacy. To quote the Simpsons... "this rock I have in my hands is protecting me from lions because ever since I have it, no lions have attacked me." Maybe we just don't know.
BTW, if you're asking for confirmation of your already existing beliefs, nothing here's going to change your mind.
There is one question no evolutionary scientist has been able to answer, nor any textbook. I have watched most of the documentaries on evolutionary process of the universe. However, they all stop short of addressing this simple question. Therefore, I deem is a greater leap of "faith" to believe in evolution than it is to believe in creation. So here is the every simple question, drum roll please...... Where did the original gases materalize from that eventually led to the formation the universe as we know it?
Even if science's explanation isn't good enough for "something from nothing" for you, it is faulty logic to suppose that because explanation A isn't working, that therefore explanation B must be true. Science is batting .1000 when it comes to answering questions, and if the question isn't answered yet, history tells us that eventually it will be. You also need to clean up your word choice a little, evolution vs. creation isn't a debate anymore. We know evolutionary biology exists, we know the natural selection process happens, we have proof, it's fact. We also know that creation, as written in major religious texts is untrue, life as we know it did not just pop into existence exactly as it is today, etc. You can argue, however, that "design" is true (although you will never be able to produce evidence without divine intervention), and that the universe and all the life within it was planned by some ethereal force or being, etc. but then you'll just end up falling into the trap of chasing your tail trying to explain who created the designer, then who begat the creator who made the designer, and so on and so forth. (another logic fail, as it were) If you're honestly interested in learning about the origin of the universe, dig in: <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ImvlS8PLIo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ImvlS8PLIo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I have no reason to suspect that. Species die out regularly. Even humans have only been around for a less than 1/1000th of the period that life has been evolving on this planet, and I suspect we won't be around that much longer. So species come and go, and fossilization is not necessarily a common thing either. As a result, it should be no surprise that there are a lot of gaps. But we still have a lot of data to work with, and it fits. If evolution had it wrong, it would have been discredited long ago by the scientific methods at our disposal. Yes. "Findings" and "evidence" and "authorities" give me confidence that certain theories are true. I think we can safely say that the best explanation we have for the biodiversity on this planet is Darwinian evolution. Do mysteries exist? Sure. Are there gaps in our knowledge? Sure. But there would have been many ways for evolution to have been disproved or severely discredited. Instead, all our discoveries apparently fit very well into the theory (see previously posted link) and as a result knowledgeable people (i.e. virtually all professional scientists) have high confidence in it.
