How we know that evolution is real

[Chinballs]

Spoiler

I think you'd be interested to know that at least in terms of human evolution there are actually very few missing links, in fact there are numerous transitional specimens that we've found over the course of the two hundred odd years or so of palaeontology.

That's not to say that skepticism is a bad thing, but sometimes things like transitional species fly under the radar because its often that a palaeontological find doesn't make news unless its easily sensationalised.

As for macro evolution not being studied, the trouble with that is the sheer amount of time it would take for macro evolution to take place, while this might seem like an unfalsifiable hypothesis I see little reason to believe that animals and plants would evolve any differently from single celled organisms that we have seen evolving, or viruses for that matter.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0C606FE36BEDAC75

[YT]KnJX68ELbAY&index=1&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC[/YT]
[YT]IzuKlZf1qXU[/YT]

I would strongly recommend these playlists by AronRa, who is actually a scientist himself. Sometimes they can be hard to follow if you're not immediately familiar with the material he is talking about, but there are a lot of claims made about evolution that are (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the science.

I think you would find them interesting if you're into that sort of thing.

Thanks, I will definitely check those links.

My grudge, btw is not with rational, educated people such as yourself. But rather with the surprisingly large clump of people who seem to have a need for us to know everything and attack any form of skepticism if it's not a mainstream opinion.

For an example I had a guy lecturing me for over an hour, on why logically there is absolutely 0% chance that there ever have existed an alien species more advanced than our own in this universe. The issue I take with that is the bold claim of imaginary knowledge we have.

I'd say knowledge is best served with a cold pint of humble, and I think history supports that statement.

 

[RightKnee]

Too bad its just a theory.

We've known for thousands of years how we came to be, I don't need some scientist who created some theory a couple hundred years ago tell me something false.

Not even going to read the article. Evolution is bullshit.

gravity is also just a theory..

 

[AndyMaBobs]

Thanks, I will definitely check those links.

My grudge, btw is not with rational, educated people such as yourself. But rather with the surprisingly large clump of people who seem to have a need for us to know everything and attack any form of skepticism if it's not a mainstream opinion.

For an example I had a guy lecturing me for over an hour, on why logically there is absolutely 0% chance that there ever have existed an alien species more advanced than our own in this universe. The issue I take with that is the bold claim of imaginary knowledge we have.

I'd say knowledge is best served with a cold pint of humble, and I think history supports that statement.

Yeah I completely agree, I personally believe in evolution because I've never heard an argument against it that wasn't a misrepresentation. As for that guy lecturing you over aliens, I think you have to be pretty deluded to think that in a universe as huge as ours, which we've barely explored, that there's 0 chance of advanced life. It's almost arrogant in a way to think you'd be that special.

 

[JDragon]

My grudge, btw is not with rational, educated people such as yourself. But rather with the surprisingly large clump of people who seem to have a need for us to know everything and attack any form of skepticism if it's not a mainstream opinion.

There is nothing wrong with skepticism, it is actually at the core of scientific thinking. The problem arises when people use the very essence of the scientific process - it's almost always incomplete and imperfect - to debunk established evidence as 'false' and introduce religious belief sets that do not belong into the discussion. Religion is not falsifiable and therefore unscientific.

It doesn't work at all on a micro scale... Hence the completely different theory is being used for that. But laws of physics are laws of physics, either they are complete or they are wrong -imo. (scientists may disagree )

Well, many theories have limited applicability. That does not make them false, it just means they cannot be generally applied.

Also, I'm skeptical to evolution not because of the bible, rather because of the holes in the theory, like missing links etc.

In fact, there is no general hole in the theory, but there is still missing evidence for some transitions. However, this 'missing link' thing can also be continued ad infinitum. Imagine evolution as a straight line with dots on the line; you can always say that you need more evidence for the space between two of those dots. So religiously motivated skepticists may never be satisfied.

Furthermore I recently got educated by a gentleman in the mayberry that macro evolution has never been observed. Aka, we have never witnessed a new species coming into existance.

The Galapagos Finch says otherwise. Of course, you may be tempted to say "But this is only microevolution!!1!" then I tell you that a) both Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales and b) the Galapagos Finch example exactly did what you said in your second sentence - we have witnesses a new species coming into existence.

In short, attributing some sort of divine truth to the theory of evolution is a stretch to say the least.

Religious folks are looking for truth. Scientists are looking for ways of describing reality.

 

[JDragon]

As for that guy lecturing you over aliens, I think you have to be pretty deluded to think that in a universe as huge as ours, which we've barely explored, that there's 0 chance of advanced life. It's almost arrogant in a way to think you'd be that special.

This. The milky way contains between 100 and 400 billion stars, with some estimates up to 1 trillion. The fucking milky way!!!

Kornreich used a very rough estimate of 10 trillion galaxies in the universe. Multiplying that by the Milky Way's estimated 100 billion stars results in a large number indeed: 100 octillion stars, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or a "1" with 29 zeros after it. Kornreich emphasized that number is likely a gross underestimation, as more detailed looks at the universe will show even more galaxies.

The number is so crazy it's almost impossible to come up with comparisons. If every gram the earth weighs was a star - every fucking gram! - you would still need the mass of 20 earths to get the equivalent.

Or in other words: We are 7 billion humans on earth. For every single human being, there is not a star that carries your name. There are 10 quadrillion stars for every single one of you. Yes, you, too!!

So you take 20k breaths a day. Let's assume you have a life expectancy of 85 years. Even if you visited one star in each single breath of your life, you would only have visited 0.000000004% of all stars that are EXCLUSIVELY YOURS when you die. In fact, you would have to live until you are 2 trillion years (!!!!!!!!) to visit all stars that are yours and yours only. In other words, you'd have to live about 150x longer than the universe is thought to have existed up to now.

Thinking that this vastness is empty and populated only by us humans is pretty naive. It has nothing to do with wishful thinking on my part, I'm not sure I want to encounter alien life and I am entirely sure we will never make contact considering the distances that would be between civilizations.

 

[Chinballs]

Well, many theories have limited applicability. That does not make them false, it just means they cannot be generally applied.

My line of thinking here is that above is evidence that we've only discovered bits and pieces regarding the truths of of the laws the govern our universe. That's probably obvious but I'm not a scientist.

Einsteins dream of a unifying theory is what I would call real laws of physics.

In fact, there is no general hole in the theory, but there is still missing evidence for some transitions. However, this 'missing link' thing can also be continued ad infinitum. Imagine evolution as a straight line with dots on the line; you can always say that you need more evidence for the space between two of those dots. So religiously motivated skepticists may never be satisfied.

Well I'm not gonna be that guy that will demand evidence ad infinitum. But if we have, let's say four spicies that are linked to support this. And you find tons of bones and other archeological findings for species 1, 2 and 3, yet not even a pinky from number 4, than that is worth taking into consideration. I don't know if this is still the case or how accurate my parallel is atm.

The Galapagos Finch says otherwise. Of course, you may be tempted to say "But this is only microevolution!!1!" then I tell you that a) both Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales and b) the Galapagos Finch example exactly did what you said in your second sentence - we have witnesses a new species coming into existence.

I won't argue this. I was lectured recently by another sherdogger in the matter so my knowledge is kinda meh, will read up though.

Religious folks are looking for truth. Scientists are looking for ways of describing reality.

And hipsters reinforce popular opinions (oh the irony) =) Overall I don't really disagree with you.


also

This. The milky way contains between 100 and 400 billion stars, with some estimates up to 1 trillion. The fucking milky way!!!

Yea I tried telling this guy, but I was met with autopilot kind of arguments. He kept interrupting and dismissing anything I said without consideration, more intent on winning the argument then actually having it.

 

[MindTravel]

A really nice list of why evolution is how we got here, with actual easy to understand examples - the breeding of domesticated animals, the bacteria.

It will not be easy enough to be understood by those whose supernatural beliefs have shaped their worldview.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

This kind of shit is the reason people think you religious guys are insane...

Catholicism is the true religion and they believe in evolution. So you speak from ignorance.

 

[AndyMaBobs]

[YT]-7NL48kRH3A&feature=youtu.be[/YT]

 

[ripskater]

I cannot prove to you that God exists and you cannot prove to me that macro evolution exists (Changing from one kind of animal to another kind of animal like a dog into a rhinoceros)

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I cannot prove to you that God exists and you cannot prove to me that macro evolution exists (Changing from one kind of animal to another kind of animal like a dog into a rhinoceros)

Do you think that centuries of selective breeding can produce dogs from Wolves?

 

[JDragon]

I cannot prove to you that God exists and you cannot prove to me that macro evolution exists (Changing from one kind of animal to another kind of animal like a dog into a rhinoceros)

It's obvious you are not interested in a serious discussion given your signature.

 

[ripskater]

Do you think that centuries of selective breeding can produce dogs from Wolves?

yes

 

[UpaLoompa]

Well I'm not gonna be that guy that will demand evidence ad infinitum. But if we have, let's say four spicies that are linked to support this. And you find tons of bones and other archeological findings for species 1, 2 and 3, yet not even a pinky from number 4, than that is worth taking into consideration. I don't know if this is still the case or how accurate my parallel is atm.

Discussions about fossil missing links are always a bit odd, for several reasons. Micro- and macro-evolutionary processes are demonstrable even without fossil evidence. Molecular evidence is in many ways far more compelling and far more informative. Taxonomic and phylogenetic relationships are pretty much entirely based on molecular information rather than morphology and fossils these days. We also can date divergences with molecular information. The problem with fossil based dating for when divergences occurred is that fossilization is actually quite rare. When a fossil first turns up in the record tells you that divergence (or whatever) occurred by that point but doesn't tell you that's when it occurred--though predictably fossils fall about in the center of many molecular clock estimated ranges.

The rarity with which fossils show up is also something people don't seem to appreciated. Even though we've found millions of fossils, including lots of "transitional" fossils, there will never ever be a complete fossil record. Most living things don't fossilize and most fossils aren't found. Expecting a complete fossil record is absurd. What the fossil record does is provide validation.

Moreover, the whole silly "gaps" type argument you're making about fossils fails to realize how these gaps come about. They're entirely artificial in that they're based on our perceptions rather than anything real. For example, we've been able to predict for a long time that humans shared an ancestor with the other apes (chimps). Darwin even predicted with no fossil evidence that this ancestor would be located in Africa. For a long time, people criticized this gap because there was no evidence of a species that appeared "transitional" between humans and other great apes. When the first Australipithicus were found, paleontologists and physical anthropologists held it out and said "See, here's that missing link we were expecting and we even found it where we'd predicted!". Then what happened is that moron religious fundamentalists said "But wait, where's the "transitional species" between that specimen and humans and between that specimen and the common ancestor with chimps?". Then more specimens are found and the argument continues for the simple reason that it is impossible to have a complete fossil record and that the number of "gaps" increases geometrically relative to the number of specimens.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Do you think that centuries of selective breeding can produce dogs from Wolves?

Sure. Years of selective breeding can produce something after it's own kind.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I cannot prove to you that God exists and you cannot prove to me that macro evolution exists (Changing from one kind of animal to another kind of animal like a dog into a rhinoceros)

Ignoring the idiocy of expecting to see a dog turn into a rhino, we have and we do regularly observe macro-evolution. We also have abundant evidence that it occurs.

Observations of macro-evolution (assuming you mean speciation) are observed via actually occurrences of hybrid and polyploidic speciation. We also regularly observe the occurrence of allopatric genetic divergence.

Evidence for the occurrence is present in fossils, molecular, and other forms of data.

You're simply wrong.

 

[ripskater]

Ignoring the idiocy of expecting to see a dog turn into a rhino, we have and we do regularly observe macro-evolution. We also have abundant evidence that it occurs.

Observations of macro-evolution (assuming you mean speciation) are observed via actually occurrences of hybrid and polyploidic speciation. We also regularly observe the occurrence of allopatric genetic divergence.

Evidence for the occurrence is present in fossils, molecular, and other forms of data.

You're simply wrong.

We have not observed one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal. Two dogs mating will always get a dog and so on.

 

[UpaLoompa]

We have not observed one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal. Two dogs mating will always get a dog and so on.

Ignoring your complete ignorance of biology, we have observed one species turning into another. You're flat out incorrect. Speciation has been observed.

In fact, it happens pretty commonly both naturally and artificially.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Ignoring your complete ignorance of biology, we have observed one species turning into another. You're flat out incorrect. Speciation has been observed.

Kind =/= Specie. In fact there is that whole "specie problem" when it comes to defining when one specie ends and the other begins to begin with.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Kind =/= Specie. In fact there is that whole "specie problem" when it comes to defining when one specie ends and the other begins to begin with.

Yes, defining a species is problematic (which actually makes it amusing to see creationists talk about macro-evolution). Despite those issues, there are clear observations of speciation. You are simply incorrect in asserting it hasn't been observed.

That's all ignoring the fact that directly observing the occurrence of speciation isn't necessary to infer speciation. We have mountains of evidence for its occurrence both in our lineage and in everywhere else its been looked for.