Not really "proof" of evolution, but interesting nonetheless: Fish raised on land give clues to how early animals left the seas (Link) <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mKxRe0hAQmg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The first fact is just wrong. There are plenty of high schoolers and undergrads running classic experiments that prove genetic information can be introduced into an organism. Nevermind the mutations that lead to additions, substitutions, deletions, etc. There are mutations on a higher level that cause chromosomal changes, leading to information being deleted (and subsequently added in other places). On top of that, a large part of molecular biology requires the use of plasmids and transposons... which literally are segments of genetic information that can be moved and conferred to organisms. Bacterial transformation is an easy-to-understand example of this happening. The second fact is not entirely accurate. There have been experiments that attempted to recreate earth's environment at or around the time life was thought to have begun (Miller-Urey in the 1950s). They were successful in building amino acids in this experiment. The prevailing theory of the origin of life relies on the RNA World Hypothesis. A recent series of experiments (Link) gives more insight to how this could be possible. It's not exactly easy to recreate the environment that existed 4 billion years ago. It is impressive that we know as much as we do on the conditions that were there, but the world was very, very different. Sterile, volatile, pH levels were different (and sensitive to change). People are trying, though. Also, regarding the transitional "leap" between species, you might want to check out gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium for a more thorough answer to your question (if you haven't already). Both theories of how evolution works represent extremes to what is probably happening.
When you make claims that scientists have faith because they think about what outcome they are hoping for, without any awareness of a thing called an hypothesis, expect snooty replies. If you want some more evolution evidence, research chromosome 2. It's some of the strongest evidence there is, and they went looking for it specifically with an hypothesis derived from evolution theory. It's really compelling evidence. They knew what they were looking for and needed to find for evolution to be true, and this was in a scientific field that didn't exist in Darwin's time (it came WAY after). The found EXACTLY what they were looking for. We have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimps have 24 pairs. The hypothesis stated that humans must have have a fused chromosome if a common ancestor had 24 pairs. They found the fused chromosome. The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories we have.
In 1952, the Miller-Urey experiment proved that you can create complex organic elements using materials and natural environments seen in nature. They were able to create mitochondira molecules (important for cell reproduction) from scratch. There was also a discovery that a meteor that fell on earth had these molecules. Even though that does not mean that we created life, it tells us that important elements of cells are produced in nature. Just recently, scientists can now create RNA molecules in a lab environment so now, the only thing left to is to make these RNA molecules self replicate which in turn, create DNA. Self replication is what makes living cells the essence for life. Scientists know it can be done and it is just a matter of time (not by faith) that we will be able to discover that formula. They are as confident as Columbus when he went out to prove that the world was not flat.
That's cool information to have. It does look like there is some evidence to support it. On a side note and different tangent, when Columbus set sail, they already knew the earth was round, and had in fact made globes. There were some folks who still believed it to be flat, but the idea that everyone thought that it was flat, or that Columbus discovered the world to be round just is just a myth which has survived for a long time.
Hell, the Romans knew the earth was round. It is not that some thought it was flat, it was that they thought everything was clustered at the top of the round earth and that a ship would fall off if it went too far down the side.
Most Medieval Scholars knew roughly the circumference of the Earth as well, by observing how long it takes for the stars to move back into place from one night to the next.
Crocodile tears? If you genuinely read a book that people who aren't frothing against evolution read (OoS, something by Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, or Stephen Jay Gould), then come out of it and said, "Hey I understand this, but I don't agree with it", then you wouldn't get half the insults you're receiving now. And you wouldn't be playing the game of hiding behind the guise of a half-witted rube who cherry-picks dumb, easily refutable, Creationist gotchas other members jump on two posts down. But oh noes, poor ol' giddy getting ganged up on is a Cross you gots to bear.
Well, you are one of the worst! Your rude behavior is all over these pages. I throw something out for discussion. I invite in those i expect to be critical. There's not much more I could do... except have you approve my threads beforehand.... which I will not do, of course. Whose up for some debate and discussion? Your final line is just plain racist. Bet your mother is proud!
Hey Giddy, I just saw a blog post that said all anti-abortionists poop out of their penises. let's debate that. It could be true. Why not be open-minded?
For his next trick giddy will refute the laws of thermodynamics. He invites you all to be critical... in a nice way.
Scientific "laws" are meant to be replaced by new paradigmatic shifts in belief systems, until the Aliens come and finally answer all our questions and give us advanced drone technology to delivery us pizza on demand in less than 20 minutes
Maybe you should've posted on a biology forum if you are really that curious about the scientific theories behind evolution, there's probably millions of peer reviewed articles on the subject and millions of people that dedicate their lives in studying it. yes for some reason you think a 5 minute long facebook video is suppose to spark some meaningly debate on the subject. are you going to post another video that debunks the the myth of gravity and have us debate it
I refuted nothing. I posted a video which, like most things, probably has some truth and some error. The debate and discussion can help categorize those things.
