Thread: Evolution Proven?

For a long while, I have sat on the fence. Nothing I had seen really struck me as the theory of evolution being true. I thought it was a good theory, but that there were too many holes to solidify it as fact. Maybe it comes from my religious background, or the fact that biology teachers stayed away from talking about human evolution, whatever the reason I feel like I have wasted so much time not understanding this very basic, very blatant, obvious truth!

I truly pity those still in denial and now understand the anger some have toward people who try to fight evolution! This kind of revelation should be experienced by everyone! If you, like me, are convinced for the first time by the video in the link below, It will truly give you a feeling that must be similar to the feeling Pythagoras felt when he said "Eureka!"

I still say there may be some sort of outside influence pushing evolution toward intelligent life, but I whole-heartily accept the theory of evolution as of today.

For those of you still in doubt, you must watch this video!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...KqzMGpBA&hl=en

It should totally rock your world view unless you have entirely closed your mind to the truth.

Especially pay attention to the part where the bonobo understands one of the researchers and what she is saying and learns how to start his own fire not by being trained, but rather by watching what others have done and trying it for itself.

All the evidence of evolution out there and this is what convinces you o.O

Cute apes though.

Edit: It's actually an amazing video for people interested in behavioral biology. Nice find.

I know, I know, I was so slow in accepting it! All the evidence out there and I still didn't want to believe it, This video is what it took for me mainly because of my upbringing which basically taught me that we humans were somehow special and smarter because we are modeled off of a higher being. The transition has been a slow one, but this video was enough for me!

I think it just goes to show the reason it is so hotly debated! I think as long as people like these researchers continue to make new findings more and more people will be forced to either keep ignoring it or change their long standing beliefs.

In the end, the truth will inevitably win.

As for the video, there are many groundbreaking videos coming out from those TED meetings, and from many many different subjects as well.

The Bonobo is heavily endangered though, it's kind of disturbing that there is a bush trade in eating those guys. I couldn't eat an animal that can play pacman.

That is sickening! People like that should be considered cannibals! Probably explains what happened to some of the other hominid species that have evolved as far as the bonobo in the past, our ancestors probably ate the ones our proto-human ancestors couldn't procreate with.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

it's kind of disturbing that there is a bush trade in eating those guys.

Just so happens I started a thread to examine why:

Is homo floresiensis a person?

Originally Posted by SuperNatendo

I know, I know, I was so slow in accepting it! All the evidence out there and I still didn't want to believe it, This video is what it took for me mainly because of my upbringing which basically taught me that we humans were somehow special and smarter because we are modeled off of a higher being.

This is an interesting observation. I haven't looked at the video, but I am quite confident that no revelation about the intellect of our primates cousins would have had any effect on my view of evolution. The difference lies in the point you make about upbringing.
I acquired my solid understanding and acceptance of evolution through the palaeontological evidence amongst invertebrates such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites. Only later did I learn that the embryological, developmental (and these days the genetic) evidence is even more thorough and convincing.
It does illustrate why convincing creationists may be so difficult - much of the time we are simply talking past one another.

I've always believed in evolution, and it has always made sense to me. But I've seen so many educated people - including engineers and lawyers - who are skeptical of it that I'm beginning to wonder why. I mean, if people of such calibre are skeptical, maybe the established doctrine is wrong. This would be the first time it's happened.

Originally Posted by LegalEagle

I've always believed in evolution, and it has always made sense to me. But I've seen so many educated people - including engineers and lawyers - who are skeptical of it that I'm beginning to wonder why. I mean, if people of such calibre are skeptical, maybe the established doctrine is wrong. This would be the first time it's happened.

Don't you feel this falls to a person 'religious' belief, opposed to science understandings. Ben Stein, is no dummy in many fields, including several degrees in Economics and Finance, but has a documentary recently released 'Expelled' no intelligence allowed, which is pure creationism...

Being educated in law and engineering doesn't really mean you have more understanding of biology than any other high school graduate. The genetic and developmental evidence is most compelling but is hard to understand for most people without specialized educations in biology.

I know that, but, if so many educated people are skeptical of the established doctrine of evolution, and they're very smart people, then I begin to wonder if the established doctrine is the correct one.

But the experts are essentially unanimous in their support of the theory. It's easy for an educated person to have misconceptions about an academic subject that lies outside their occupation and experience, and it's similarly easy to assume that an educated person's intelligence transcends disciplines, which is often (and I'd say usually) not the case.

i believe evolution is exactly how richard dawkins put it: ..."non-random survival of randomly varying replicators..."

plain and simple. you see evolution occuring even today. look at bateria reacting to antibiotics. administer antibiotics. if all bateria aren't killed, then there will be some that survive due to natural resitance to the antibiotic. they replicate, and poof, you have a new generation that is distinctly different and "fitter" than the previous one.

evolution is survival of the fittest. the fittest are the ones who propogate the species through natural genetic mutation and adaptation.

next thing i'll hear otherwise is that the universe is 10000 years old.

The most cogent true story of evolution IMO is the tale of the Peppered Moth (biston betularia) in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

In a nutshell: Before the Industrial Revolution, the common form of the peppered moth was the pale variety. The dark-variety moths were at a disadvantage because they were not well camouflaged and their predators could easily spot them. But during the Industrial Revolution, everything becamed blackened with soot. Now the dark moths were better camouflaged than the pale moths – with the result that dark moths became more common than pale moths! However, when people became green-conscious and anti-pollution laws were brought in, the countryside became cleaner again – and, lo and behold, the pale moths started becoming more common again!

The peppered moth is an example of how natural selection favours certain phenotypes but doesn't actually show evolution since the black/white phenotypes still existed before the application of the selective pressure of polution killing the lichen.

No, what matters is the frequency of the alleles. The black/white phenotypes may have been previously present, but now there are far more black alleles in the population then there used to be. That frequency change is evolution.

Originally Posted by paralith

No, what matters is the frequency of the alleles. The black/white phenotypes may have been previously present, but now there are far more black alleles in the population then there used to be. That frequency change is evolution.

No that change in frequency is natural selection, which is a necessary part of evolution, but evolution requires new traits to enter a population. No new trait is introduced in the pepper moth example. It is compelling evidence of how the introduction of a new trait can become dominant in a population, but it doesn't prove evolution.

Edit: realizing now that you're talking about the geneticist definition of evolution which is changed in allele frequency.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by paralith

No, what matters is the frequency of the alleles. The black/white phenotypes may have been previously present, but now there are far more black alleles in the population then there used to be. That frequency change is evolution.

No that change in frequency is natural selection, which is a necessary part of evolution, but evolution requires new traits to enter a population. No new trait is introduced in the pepper moth example. It is compelling evidence of how the introduction of a new trait can become dominant in a population, but it doesn't prove evolution.

Edit: realizing now that you're talking about the geneticist definition of evolution which is changed in allele frequency.

It's not just the geneticist definition. The peppered moth example is most certainly an example of evolution no matter how you cut it. The introduction of new traits is not required before a gene frequency change can be called evolution.

Originally Posted by paralith

It's not just the geneticist definition. The peppered moth example is most certainly an example of evolution no matter how you cut it. The introduction of new traits is not required before a gene frequency change can be called evolution.

Ya I was using the popularist definition of evolution which pertains to macro-evolution, which is really the only part of evolutionary theory that fanatics can disagree with.