{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Cultmeister:
5/25/2015 1:10:53 PM
23
I have yet to see first-hand evidence of evolution (I may have seen things 'that have evolved' yes, but not evolution itself as a process) so I am reluctant to call it a 'fact' in the strictest sense of the word, however I am confident that unbiased scientific research has been done by others which has confirmed that it does happen.
English
-
Bacteria have ben observed to evolve.
-
please read the first letter of my post.
-
We actually do observe evolution in bacteria and fruit flies, on a daily basis.
-
It's happening everywhere around us. All you have to do is look for it. Like say you have a bear raiding your bins right, it's because it's mother has probably taught it to raid bins. Behavioural evolution right there. An adaptation to an environment without any food, causing a change in behaviour.... Give it a few thousand years and bears would have hands better for opening bins lol.
-
you could probable find an experiment somewhere and do it, or better yet just come up with one on your own. you'll want to do it with bacteria though, since they seem the easiest candidates for it.
-
You haven't seen it happen because it takes a long time, much longer than your lifetime
-
not entirely true, bacteria are observed to evolve all the time.
-
I'll give you that, but I'm talking about evolution on a scale that we can easily notice such as new species of animals appearing or animals developing tails, wings and other features
-
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660
-
Adapt yes, micro evolution. We have never truly seen macro evolution. Only seen fossils that could possibly have evolved into other creatures. However, I and many scientists disagree with this "theory" because it is full of flaws. And I put theory in quotation marks because according to the scientific method, to call something a theory, you have to be able to test your hypothesis, which we can't do with evolution so it should be the hypothesis of evolution
-
Actually it's highly testable. Go talk to some biologists.
-
Would you like to point me to an experiment that tested this?
-
There's tons of experiments with bacteria. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html http://io9.com/50-000-generations-of-bacteria-prove-that-evolution-nev-1466803805
-
That's micro evolution though. I'm talking one species turning into another. I totally agree with micro evolution, adaptation. But so far no experiment has shown macro evolution, or do you have an experiment showing that too?
-
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ Its important to understand we've been actively observing evolution for a very tiny amount of time, and it takes relatively long periods of time for speciation to occur. But nonetheless, there ya go.
-
I imagine those "scientists" would be people like kent hovind.
-
I posted the list.
-
first guy is a chemist, and had little or no training in biology. second guy, though I couldn't find much on him right off the bat, seems to be in the same boat. third guy is a polish politician who may be a communist. both first and third guy are affiliated with religion, though the second guy may be. did you even bother to look those people up? you can put something in the usual ugly format and uninteresting back ground, but that doesn't make it a scientific paper. and before you say "there's more then three guys", yeah I know that. I'd expect the first few to at least have some standings for what they would say however. and come on the third one isn't even a scientist in any regard.
-
Ok first off, you can't just disregard someone's views because of religion, that's biased and if religious people did that to atheists then you would all be having a fit. And just because the other guy is a chemist does not mean his opinion can be disregarded. I'm just pointing out that not all of science agrees with evolution, it's not as accepted as people like to gelieve
-
I was making the religion connection to demonstrate that as the most probable reason for his disagreeable. for your second point, if you had your car break down, would you want an Olympic runner to look at it or a mechanic?
-
But when talking about evolution and Darwinism and old earth views, you can draw on all science to prove your point.
-
well then let's bring in nuclear physicists in too, cause why the duck not they are scientists in one field so what they say is valid for all fields.
-
*believe
