Evolution: Fact or Theory? (both [mostly fact])

I talk about Evolution (for seven minutes, sorry).

BIG ASS LIST OF SHORT AND SWEET Evolution Q&A: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0

Note: most of my links are from talkorigins, an archive of articles about evolution, all of their work includes references and works cited, which you may want to also look into.

Overview of why Evolution is a fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Explanation of Evolution as both a fact and a theory, by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Examples of Observed Speciation (new species being formed, as a result of evolution): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evidence of and information about transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ (this particular site discusses human evolution, which may be of particular interest to some of you)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html

Evidence for Common descent and the abiogenesis hypothesis (that life formed from non life): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ (this page contains several additional links)

TAGS because the tags section isn't fracking working right:
theonejanitor the1janitor "the one janitor" "kevin peterson" Evolution plants animals nature amphibians "fossil record" gap "transitional fossil" philosophy earth organisms organic inorganic life formed "lifeform" science man apes evolve evolved human "human beings" monkeys neanderthals microevolution macroevolution speciation evidence god religion darwin "charles darwin" debate "origin of life" "origin of species" species fossils dinosaurs reptiles "richard dawkins" Creationism "intelligent design" proof logic "irreducible complexity" theory theories facts opinions arguments hypothesis hypotheses kent reason belief "carl sagan" "common ancestor" "common descent" abiogenesis biogenesis explanation Hovind Morality Challenge Delusion Genesis

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evol

[AthosAmo]

An African embracing the so-called "theory of evolution" is just like an African embracing Mormonism. You are willfully or unwittingly ignoring the racist origin of the lies.

I prove that macro-evolution is not scientific here /watch?v=hh7PN0Th0Eo

[the1janitor]

@AthosAmo You can't "prove" that macroevolution is 'not scientific' because we have already seen it happen with our eyes. There are countless examples of speciation occuring both in the wild and in the laboratory. Please do a little honest research on the matter.

[AthosAmo]

@the1janitor You're begging the question as to what a species is, so you are begging the question that when fly A becomes the basically-same fly B, that that is speciation instead of just more variation of the same species. Ernst Mayr's opinion on what a species is is most popular today, though not so much among botanists who see it as inadequate, which everyone who has done a little honest research on the matter knows is the case. Continued.

[the1janitor]

@AthosAmo i left a comment on your video already, but while it's difficult to conclusively define a species, there are cases where we know exactly what it is. E.g "Homo-sapien" is a species. There is no argument about that, whatsoever. the term "fly" does not refer to a specific species. "Fly" represents an order, not a species. So yes, a fly can turn into another type of fly, and we still call that speciation. That's how evolution works. A series of small changes over millions of years.

[AthosAmo]

@the1janitor According the the anti-creationism website macroevolution dotnet, Darwin said: "There is no way to escape from the admission that the hybrids from some species of plants are fertile, except by declaring that no form shall be considered as a species, if it produces with another species fertile offspring: but this is begging the question"

So even your great prophet admitted to the fact that you people (and everyone else) don't have an objective definition. Your premise is mere whim.

[the1janitor]

@AthosAmo And even if we didn't have a basic definition of a species, its clear to anyone with half of a brain that a bird is a different species than a dinosaur. And we know for a fact that birds evolved from reptiles. Unless you're arguing that birds and dinosaurs are the same species. In which case, this discussion doesn't need to continue.

[ohijustlovethisstuff]

Best-used 7 minutes of my life ever spent on this topic!

[VivaValentine]

I thought I knew a lot about evolution, but I found that really educational (especially the information about scientific theory vs. hypothesis). Thanks :)

[AthosAmo]

"[present before us;] yet if we suppose it to be done by their real internal constitutions and that things existing are distinguished by nature into species, by real essences, according as we distinguish them into species by names, we shall be liable to great mistakes."

-John Locke.

[AthosAmo]

"It is very true every substance that exists has its peculiar constitution, whereon depend those sensible qualities and powers we observe in it; but the ranking of things into species (which is nothing but sorting them under several titles) is done by us according to the ideas that we have of them: which, though sufficient to distinguish them by names, so that we may be able to discourse of them when we have them not present before us; (continued)

[AthosAmo]

@the1janitor Who said anything about "basic definition"? I'm talking about objective versus subjective. What makes Ernst Mayr's objective? Of course we all see that things as different as a bird and a dino are different types of beings, but the problem is in the EXACT parameters/frontiers/borders. John Locke agrees with me, when he said: (continued)

[AthosAmo]

@Storestyggesvendsen Oh, great prophet of atheism! You're invited to prove me wrong.