BANANAS ARE PROOF OF GOD!

Yes that's true. It's called sexual selection. We breed ourselves based on traits we look for. Physical or mental. The more those traits become common the more "normal" they are and competition takes place for the best of the new bunch. This is how sexual selection works to aid evolution. It's only one part, or one way that evolution can work to change something.



Well this is sort of true, but not really the way it works. A species doesn't need something and then suddenly evolves it. We didn't lose hair because we created clothes, and we didn't stand erect because we "needed" to reach higher objects. What happens is variation in a group of species. Subtle variations over time provide that at least a few members will be better equipped for certain tasks, or better at competing. If out of all the creatures one or two are just better at getting food because of their variation, those ones will be healthier, live longer, and breed more successfully. The successful variations always pollute the gene pool with their successful DNA. Among the future generations there will again be more that are better, and the change continues to happen over long periods of time. These changes can also lead to extinction of species who no longer have the ability to compete. The Neanderthalensis were driven extinct by the evolution of Cro Magnons. This case is an example of direct conflict but it still illustrates the point I think.

this part is more accurate than the rest. As generations pass physical changes that prove themselves more adapt will take over the gene pool, until everyone is dark-skinned or light-skinned or what have you. They are not born with a certain type of skin just because they live in a certain area however. They are born individually that way because of the genetic transferring from parent to embryo. Selection makes it choice in the wild from there. Luckily we no longer live in an age where we are susceptible to natural selection. We have modern amenities all around us.



They kept living in the trees because their habitat is a sort of geographical boundary. They are equipped there. They will continue to evolve due to natural and sexual selection over time. They will keep changing. It doesn't really have to do with the species "liking" it.



They don't...

If you are talking about extreme mutations or other anomalies perhaps, but every single time any sexually reproducing creature breeds with another they mix DNA. There is a new sequence formed in the structure for every single person (unless we clone someone or we look at identical twins). Further variation is caused by radiation in the atmosphere that comes from the sun. It's not enough to do damage to anyone, but it is enough to allow some subtle variations in the code from time to time. Not all variations are successful, most are not, and most species are extinct. Only the successful variations in the wild survive over time. The phrase "survival of the fittest" applies here.

Yes, what you are talking about is called altruism. There is kinship in tribal groups and members of groups do reciprocate to each other. It is often spectated upon that our ability to discern basic ethics and exhibit generosity is due to having these traits long ago when it was necessary for the group to survive. I doesn't matter if you believe in survival of the fittest or not. This type of competition is in fact observable in the animal kingdom (and in our own human corporate/business world). It exists but generally speaking in tribal groups competition is directed towards other tribes. In other kinds of species it is different. Survival of the fittest and Altruism in practice co-exist and aid evolutionary changes in different ways.

Plankton still exist because they've evolved, like everything else. Plankton were not always around and the earlier forms of plankton (if they could still be classified as such) would have been different than modern examples. The other reason plankton exist is because they are indeed at the bottom of the food chain. This in a way sort of guarantees their survival because they are a food source for many types of sea life. What has happened in order for them in order to survive is that they've evolved the ability to reproduce, a lot, in order to cope with being at the bottom. They are still around because there are so so many of them. Enough to deal with being eaten all the time.

There always has to be something at the bottom of the food chain. If there wasn't then the species above would become extinct and so on and so forth.

That made me lol. XD

one2hit obviously knows more than I do about biology. Of course, that's a given as that is not my area of expertise.

I would rep all of his/her posts, but I do not have the ability to rep at the moment. Lol.

But yeah, I definitely couldn't have explained it better. o_O

I find it astonishing that 40% of Americans still believe in creationism... 40%... Wow...

Anyway, here are some common creationist arguments against evolution.

1. Evolution is a Theory, not a Fact.
Creationists seem to use the word theory like it is an opinion. In everyday speech, we use it as a guess or something. However, evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. It's a model of the world that has testable predictions supported by clear facts and evidence.

2. Evolution has never been observed
It actually has. Many times. Right here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html We've seen it in the lab with bacteria and fruit flies. We've seen it in nature with plant life. Then this argument turns into, macroevolution is false while microevolution is fine. However, macroevolution is just on a larger scale. One can infer instances of macroevolution from fossil records.

3. Evolution cannot create complex structures. ie. The eye.
Also false better explained by this youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA

I'll include more!

I'd like to see some of these facts and evidence. The only things shown to me so far are fossils who's age was determined by other fossils.



Evolution or just animals passing on genes? Evolution is only supposed to pass on the good genes which will eventually lead to a superior existence, so why are there still people with a family history of very dry skin or high blood pressure/cholesterol or kidney disease who suffers from the same fate as their ancestors? If we were evolving, shouldn't those genes be gone by now or do they serve some kind of purpose for our future selves? If you call reproducing evolution, then yes, it's true, but most of the time we're not turning out for the better.



Well, I'll give you that but the title is wrong. That vid doesn't disprove creationism, it just proves that the eye can be made through evolution.

Your first point asking for facts and evidence sort of goes with the second point I made and not the first which explains what a theory in scientific terms means and not the connotation we usually associate with the word "Theory".

On your second point about humans gaining traits favorable and not. It has happened. For example, in Africa and the Mediterranean, sickle cell anemia is a favorable trait passed on because of the ever present danger of malaria. Those who have this Sickle Cell Disease live longer. Another trait is skin color. Those who live further north where there is less sunlight exposure will have light skin while those who live in areas where there is high sunlight exposure will have darker skin. But that is beside the point. Your question is why humans are able to pass on unfavorable traits. The reason is because of modern medicine. If you have high cholesterol, blood pressure, whatever, instead of dying early enough to where you can't pass your genes, you just take some sort of medication that'll help you with it so you can pass your genes. Same with AIDS. You get AIDS, take some medicine. And then you stir up a giant pot of controversy about letting these people live and pass on these traits or die and... let a human die. *shrug*

On your third point,the title is misleading, but that was not my intention. My intention was to show that complex structures could and are created through evolutionary processes.

This turning from IB to Serious Discussion!?

Great points.

Here is a very very simple and easy to understand video about what it means to be a "theory"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg

that should clarify some things. Evolution is a fact, it happens. The theory explains how.

Lol. That video explains it so much better than me. cdk007 is awesome by the way.

Wow. That video has everything that common creationists arguments make of evolution. D=

youre welcome

WHAT?!

get outta here you joker lol

Im the one who first posted the videos containing Thundef00ts and cdk's materials. The only reason Shia has heard of them is because of me. >__>

I think Namazu meant that to me when he introduced me to these Creationists are dumb videos.

But he introduced me to Thunderf00t. Not cdk007. D= Lol. xD

I blame you Namazu! Too much biology for me!

ah, I thought you were about to claim to being the owner himself lmao.

Oh hey if you like Thuderfoot and Cdk check these out:

AndromedasWake
AronRa
Best0fScience
DonExodus2
FFreeThinker
potholer54
Zuke696

Richard Dawkins also has a youtube channel with a bunch of biology/science vids and the like.

No I posted two cdk videos in chatroll shortly after posting the "Why do people laugh at creationists" videos.

This one.


and this series

Why Creationists Must Deny Gravity




Already subbed him :D

I love how incoherent, pointless threads, like this one, gets fukken serious.

I have checked them out. Well, DonExodus and Dawkins anyway. Through Thunderf00t of course. xD Haha.



I didn't watch those, from you anyway. D=

notice how this is in a section of the forums called Incoherent Babbling.

I dont see any seriousness, just someone asking questions and people answering.

Long posts explaining science =/= seriousness /drama

Dude, you're gonna fuckin love this..



Neil DeGrasse Tyson <3