www.ditl.org

I forget his name but in the 1830s I think there was an alternative theory to evolution. That traits are passed to their offspring based on usage. Its similar but the example the guy used was garaffes stretch their necks to reach high branches so their offspring have slightly longer necks.

But that theory has been pretty much disproved. Otherwise two one armed people would have a one armed baby.

Monroe wrote:I forget his name but in the 1830s I think there was an alternative theory to evolution. That traits are passed to their offspring based on usage. Its similar but the example the guy used was garaffes stretch their necks to reach high branches so their offspring have slightly longer necks.

That is evolution. It's a different model to Darwin's natural selection, but it is still evolution. Indeed, evolution isn't merely a theory, even in the scientific sense of a proposed mechanism that has made predictions that have been found to be accurate - it's irrefutable fact. The fossil record shows a series of incremental changes to species as time progresses. The mechanism of natural selection may be open to debate but evolution isn't, any more than the statement that the sun doesn't appear at night is open to debate.

Captain Seafort wrote:...The mechanism of natural selection may be open to debate but evolution isn't, any more than the statement that the sun doesn't appear at night is open to debate.

Well said, Seafort.

That's pretty much it. We know evolution to be true. We can trace the lineage of all sorts of creatures through fossils. We can observe it first-hand in labs around the world. Saying evolution never happened is simply sticking your head in the sand and ignoring all the evidence.

Nickswitz wrote:I have no problem with this... What's the problem with not thinking evolution is a viable theory, I personally don't think of evolution as one, and as America is largely, well, 'God-fearing' that may be why so few believe in evolution...

Really, what scientific problems do you have with this theory?

We can trace the lineage of all sorts of creatures through fossils.

So what. That would happen even with creation. We can trace the lineage of cars, that doesn't mean they evolved without intelligent interference.

We can observe it first-hand in labs around the world.

Really. AFAIK, the only thing we've seen is single celled bacteria develop into another form of single celled bacteria. That as big a revelation as people changing color over generations. We haven't seen a bacteria develop into a protozoa.

stitch626 wrote:So what. That would happen even with creation.

So it's irrefutable proof of evolution. The only possible dispute is over the mechanism.

We can trace the lineage of cars, that doesn't mean they evolved without intelligent interference.

We also have evidence of human involvement in car design, whereas we have no such evidence of any supernatural involvement in evolution. We also have evidence that mutations occur between generations. Given that natural selection is supported by scientific evidence, while the presence of a supernatural entity is not, the Razor favours natural selection. If at some point in the future a prediction of natural selection is directly contradicted (such as the sudden appearance, fully-formed, of biological features that an animal's evolutionary tree has demonstrated no previous evidence of) then we might have to think again, but until then natural selection is the simplest theory that fits all known facts.

stitch626 wrote: So what. That would happen even with creation.

So it shows that clearly no creature alive today - humans included - existed in their present form tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago. They all changed over time to become what we see now. Thus evolution did happen.

stitch626 wrote:We can trace the lineage of cars, that doesn't mean they evolved without intelligent interference.

Except we know that cars must have had a designer, because they are artificial constructs and cannot propogate -and thus change- on their own.

The same does not hold true for living creatures. They are organic structures, and are capable of propogating -and thus changing- on their own. There is no proof whatsoever that any sort of higher power has any involvement in the process. All fossils and all current creatures easily fall into line with the predictions of evolution. If there were some sort of higher power guiding the process, you'd expect to see unusual leaps that wouldn't happen naturaly. Since we don't, the only possibly conclusions are that the creator is for some reason following the guidelines of evolution itself, or that there is no creator.
Needless to say, going by Occam's Razor the latter possibility is the far more logical one.

stitch626 wrote:Really.AFAIK, the only thing we've seen is single celled bacteria develop into another form of single celled bacteria. That as big a revelation as people changing color over generations. We haven't seen a bacteria develop into a protozoa.

That's like saying evolution must be false because we haven't seen a reptile turn into a bird. Evolution doesn't just happen in an instant. It takes thousands of years for there to be any major changes.

stitch626 wrote:AFAIK, the only thing we've seen is single celled bacteria develop into another form of single celled bacteria.

Indeed, that's more or less what we've seen. And that's evolution. One organism (or micro-organism in this case) changing over time.
You've undoubtedly heard of various strains of bacteria developing immunities to cures that used to work perfectly against them, right? That's evolution.

stitch626 wrote: So what. That would happen even with creation.

So it shows that clearly no creature alive today - humans included - existed in their present form tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago. They all changed over time to become what we see now. Thus evolution did happen.

stitch626 wrote:We can trace the lineage of cars, that doesn't mean they evolved without intelligent interference.

Except we know that cars must have had a designer, because they are artificial constructs and cannot propogate -and thus change- on their own.

The same does not hold true for living creatures. They are organic structures, and are capable of propogating -and thus changing- on their own. There is no proof whatsoever that any sort of higher power has any involvement in the process. All fossils and all current creatures easily fall into line with the predictions of evolution. If there were some sort of higher power guiding the process, you'd expect to see unusual leaps that wouldn't happen naturaly. Since we don't, the only possibly conclusions are that the creator is for some reason following the guidelines of evolution itself, or that there is no creator.
Needless to say, going by Occam's Razor the latter possibility is the far more logical one.

stitch626 wrote:Really.AFAIK, the only thing we've seen is single celled bacteria develop into another form of single celled bacteria. That as big a revelation as people changing color over generations. We haven't seen a bacteria develop into a protozoa.

That's like saying evolution must be false because we haven't seen a reptile turn into a bird. Evolution doesn't just happen in an instant. It takes thousands of years for there to be any major changes.

stitch626 wrote:AFAIK, the only thing we've seen is single celled bacteria develop into another form of single celled bacteria.

Indeed, that's more or less what we've seen. And that's evolution. One organism (or micro-organism in this case) changing over time.
You've undoubtedly heard of various strains of bacteria developing immunities to cures that used to work perfectly against them, right? That's evolution.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Monroe wrote:I forget his name but in the 1830s I think there was an alternative theory to evolution. That traits are passed to their offspring based on usage. Its similar but the example the guy used was garaffes stretch their necks to reach high branches so their offspring have slightly longer necks.

That is evolution. It's a different model to Darwin's natural selection, but it is still evolution. Indeed, evolution isn't merely a theory, even in the scientific sense of a proposed mechanism that has made predictions that have been found to be accurate - it's irrefutable fact. The fossil record shows a series of incremental changes to species as time progresses. The mechanism of natural selection may be open to debate but evolution isn't, any more than the statement that the sun doesn't appear at night is open to debate.

Its a different theory than Darwin's theory of evolution (or Wallace, poor guy got hosed on the credit). It doesn't say, like evolution does, that mutations pass on, it says traits that are used most are passed on. You guys asked for a different scientific theory there is one

Monroe wrote:Its a different theory than Darwin's theory of evolution (or Wallace, poor guy got hosed on the credit). It doesn't say, like evolution does, that mutations pass on, it says traits that are used most are passed on. You guys asked for a different scientific theory there is one

But it still is evolution. Evolution just means that species change over time, and it had been proposed by many people before Darwin (even some of the ancient Greeks IIRC). Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, as well as Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus, supported the idea of the heritability of acquired characteristics, like a giraffe stretching its neck and thus having longer-necked offspring. The crucial thing that Charles Darwin thought up was evolution by natural selection.

Lazar wrote:

Monroe wrote:Its a different theory than Darwin's theory of evolution (or Wallace, poor guy got hosed on the credit). It doesn't say, like evolution does, that mutations pass on, it says traits that are used most are passed on. You guys asked for a different scientific theory there is one

But it still is evolution. Evolution just means that species change over time, and it had been proposed by many people before Darwin (even some of the ancient Greeks IIRC). Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, as well as Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus, supported the idea of the heritability of acquired characteristics, like a giraffe stretching its neck and thus having longer-necked offspring. The crucial thing that Charles Darwin thought up was evolution by natural selection.

Ah that was it, Lamarck. I'm no bio expert but in class we described it as a different theory. And if you follow Lamarck's theory then it would not be the current theory of evolution. In class we were going over the theories leading to Darwin's and Lamarck's theory was close but not quite there. Either way I'm just playing devil's advocate. There's no scientific evidence to support Lamarck and he's been disproved.

@OP

I am so ashamed of my fellow citizens. I'm brought to mind of the saying " Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

I am one of the 39% that believe in evolution.

Lazar wrote:

Monroe wrote:Its a different theory than Darwin's theory of evolution (or Wallace, poor guy got hosed on the credit). It doesn't say, like evolution does, that mutations pass on, it says traits that are used most are passed on. You guys asked for a different scientific theory there is one

But it still is evolution. Evolution just means that species change over time, and it had been proposed by many people before Darwin (even some of the ancient Greeks IIRC). Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, as well as Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus, supported the idea of the heritability of acquired characteristics, like a giraffe stretching its neck and thus having longer-necked offspring. The crucial thing that Charles Darwin thought up was evolution by natural selection.

Kind of but not in the sense we know it, the one he's talking about is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. His theory predated Darwin's and goes as thus, an animal will change to fit it's needs. I.E. a giraffe at one point in time looked like other quadropeds, as it moved into an area where the trees were taller, it suddenly forced it's neck to get longer, from that point on all of it's children then had long necks. according to him, If humans closed their eyes and put that look that says "I'm Really Constipated Right Now" on their face long enough we could sprout wings and fly. AFAIK

Lt. Staplic wrote: I am one of the 39% that believe in evolution.

I think "believe" is the wrong word, personally. It's like saying "I believe the sky is blue." or, "I believe fire is hot."

That said, I also "believe" evolution is a scientifically sound theory with a mountain of observable evidence.

Here's a good example.