It has been said in the Evolution thread by Toniol that Darwinian Evolution is "just a guess".. the same as any others.. thats its just a random theory. I wont bother repeating the other misinformed things that Toniol believes Darwinism says.. but I am here to point out just how well established, how concrete evolution is.

I have spent an hour or so thinking of how to post this.. because the argument goes back and forth.. and instead of once more laying out details of evolution Ive decided to go with an example. One example. But this one example contains within it so many different angles that I think more than any simple explanation of the actual theory.. it gives an idea to the average person who hasnt spent years on the subject just how well established the theory is.

The example Ive chosen to talk about is blood. And I will start with human, adult haemoglobin, the protein that moves oxygen around in blood.

Our haemoglobin is actually made of 4 chains of protein. These are called "globins". These globin chains are not identical..but they are closely related to each other. Two are "alpha" globins and two are beta globins. I will not go into details on how we distinguish,etc unless asked.

Analysis of the globins show that they are literally cousins.. but living together. Looking at things we can deduce that about a half billion years ago, in a remote ancestor of ours, an ancient globin duplicated and BOTH copies stayed in the genome. The two copies eventually became the alpha globins and the beta globins.

That split happened 500 million years ago biologists tell us, using their dating methods(which include MUTATION RATES, key to Darwinism). If it really happened so long ago, then we should see the split in all other mammals, in birds, in reptiles, amphibians and bony fish.

So, when we ask different biologists.. ones dealing with living creatures alive today.. to look at globins, this has been proven correct.

Now..the kicker. We turn to a geologist and a paleontologist. We say.. hey.. help us find fossils of a creature that was alive MORE THAN 500 million years ago and still has relatives alive today.

Note that geologists and paleontologists are going to use different methods to determine what was around 500 million years ago.

And what they come up with is the jaw-less fish LAMPREY. Our most remote cousin among surviving vertebrates. They are the only known surviving vertabrates that are sufficiently ancient that they would predate the alpha/beta globin split. What do you we find? Lampreys lack the alpha/beta divide.


Note..that a testable prediction was made. Note that several testable predictions were made. Think about the incredible odds against mere chance being responsible for the prediction. Think about how many different theories this example alone vindicates..from Darwinism, to microbiology theories on mutations, to geological dating.. it goes on and on.

Those that call Darwinism "just a guess".. those that say ID stands on equal footing.. they provide no alternate theories or testable predictions. Since 1973 there have been 100,000 peer reviewed research papers published on Darwinism. Just one on ID (which refuted it).

Toniol asked me to simply say "if I believed in a guys theory". This isnt just "a guys theory". Its like saying I believe in gravity. Its that grounded in evidence.

I can't agree more, Vet...

What can I say? Maybe this:


Charles Darwin believed the origins of humanity lay in Africa, because that was where his 'cousin' the chimpanzee was also found.

For a long time, we believed that any evolutionary trait was an indication of the human line and any archaic trait indicative of the chimpanzees. The evolutionary system in the neo-Darwinian tradition classifies species into families. Each family is attributed an environment to which it has adapted. Viewed in this way, the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans) are placed in the pongid family, while humanity belongs to the more evolved hominid family.

In this context, the great apes are seen as an ancestral line of the human species, with a number of 'missing links' that remain to be discovered. But there is another way of looking at it: one of a common ancestor rather than missing links. The phylogenetic or cladistic system, which is more recent in its concepts and rooted in genetic characteristics (molecular system), is based on relationships of kinship and defines branches – known as clades. This system first searches for relationships between groups and then deduces the evolutionary processes, whereas the evolutionary system first proposed an evolutionary schema and then deduced the classifications. In the phylogenetic view, species are grouped into the same clade if they share the same derived states of a characteristic.

Take, for example, the trout, the lungfish – a fish with both lungs and gills – and the cow. A classification into evolutionary families would put the two fish into the same category. A cladistic analysis, on the other hand, would place the lungfish and cow together because they both possess, in the derived state, an aerial respiratory system.

As for the great apes and modern humans, they can be divided into two lines: the African line (humans, chimpanzees and gorillas) and the Asian line (pongids, in which there are only orang-utans). Humans and Africa’s great apes possess a recent and exclusive common ancestor. But we only know a part of their evolutionary tree.

This other approach to evolution, that of ramifications rather than a straight line, calls into question the notion of progressive development, of a human race that became progressively better adapted to its environment and increasingly skilled and able.

Evolution is not 'linear'. A progression in terms of an increasingly upright biped, an increasingly large brain, increasingly dexterous hands, the creation of tools and socialisation is a schematic and obsolete view.

There is not one biped but several bipeds, and the great apes can also walk upright. For a long time it was thought that man stood up when he started to live in the savannah so that he would be able to see predators approaching. But this aptitude for standing on two feet existed in our ancestors living in the forests of Africa more than 6 million years ago. Then this aptitude, that was advantageous in a new environment, became an adaptation.

The use of stone tools – another example – is a trait of hominids, but not solely of the Homo genus.

Experiences conducted with artificial, computer-modulated, self-reproducing agents, evidence the patterns and actions of the natural selection. And so it is shown the evolutionary theory is a monothetic science, since the natural selection is a principle that applies itself to every system that contains reproducing agents, independently not only of their material composition but of their history as well.

Moreover, the ‘solidity’ of any cladogram (or phylogenetic tree) is supported by corroborative evidence acquired through the approach of different sciences like modular systematic, embryology, compared physiology, palaeontology, and developmental genetics. All this independent knowledge just concurs with the layout of the said cladogram.

I'm in total agreement with evolution...though it makes me no less spiritual..quite the paradox to those who do not understand how the two can go hand in hand...eh, maybe a topic for another day...

OK ... Just to make it totally obvious evolution is scientifically proven as accurate, although it is classed as a theory it has been scientifically proven as accurate. Metamorphis is a form of evolution, a creature transorming into another creature, example. The catapillar and the butterfly, the tad-pole and the frog, the egg and the chicken. This is the basis of evolution and it took hundreds of millions of years or evolution for a creature such as tad-pole to be able to make a metamorphis in only just a few months, that is evolution and this is how Charles Robert Darwin scientifically discovered it's presence. Darwin’s scientific discovery remains the foundation of biology, as it provides a unifying logical explanation for the diversity of life.

I agree evolution goes along with belives,only our interpretation of those two makes them diffrent,if youy look that everything what exists isGod ,Universe in biggest possible picture is God ,this makes evolution and religion right,Universe this is evolution,But Universe is on its own everlasting ,infinite being ,you or me we can change in something else with time but entire system will exist always doesnt have begging and end only some of his creations are finite,but they do not dissapear only change in something else ,this is evolution,death of one is birth to another form of life,Jesus said Iam You ,YOU are me,Father is you ,and you are him,that's means you are part of God(Universe) and Universe is you but only.

I don't believe in Evolution AT ALL. I believe it's an excuse for Darwin to try and get us to believe there is no God. I believe in the Adam and Eve story, not us evolving from Chimpanzees. How come there are still Chimpanzees and Gorillas today? And don't tell me it's because "They haven't evolved yet" because they've had freaking 5000 years or even more to do so!

I'm just not buying it.

Do you really believe Bible story over evolution Sgt....?

hello Hobbes.. here is a start: No one is saying humans evolved from Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees, gorillas, etc ANY living, extent species is just as evolved as you.. just differently evolved. Chimpanzees are very good at being chimpanzees, goldfish are really good goldfishers and bacteria are highly advanced bacteria.

How do you know you dont believe what evolution says if you dont know..what..evolution..says?


Do you believe in selective breeding? I mean..do you believe for example, crops can be improved by taking the the most productive plants and eating the rest? Or that, for example, faster horses can be bred by selecting the parents? Now.. just add into that idea, which obviously there is no denying, that nature also kills.

Thats as simple as I can make it.

so how does a new species spring up,what or how the dna changes.if we evolved from chimps,per say,what will we evolve into?

I just got done writing that we DIDNT evolve from chimps..and then you write "so if we evolved from chimps..". sigh. What will we evolve into? Good question. For a while lots of scientists believed that due to our sort of social safety net maybe Darwinism wasnt being applied to humans..but recent studies show that in fact with increased population, etc there is rapidly increasing diversity in our DNA. What environmental pressures are doing the selecting, I dont know.

How does a new species "spring up"? Change just goes on..and on..and on. THere is no magic stop line at which mutations will stop. Species are a term humans made up. It has meaning and is useful, but is an artificial construct. There is nothing acting on genes telling them "if you keep mutating, the overall organism you are part of will belong to a different species so you had better stop now!". With no stop sign, and plenty of time, mutations will create new species. Despite IDers claims, this has even been observed in the lab.

sorry vetamur. i didn't read it properly,just got over tummy bug last night,can't keep me a way for long though.

maybe life just changes when it has to,to meet the changing demands of its enviroment,do or die,really.life i think,will always find a way .

Sorry to hear you were sick.. home youre feeling better!

I find it annoying how so many people argue against Evolution without knowing the first thing about what it is. These posts are full of obviously misinformed opinions and downright wrong claims.

People always throw things like:

"So humans evolved from monkeys, huh? Ridiculous!" To which I have to guide them like a child and explain that nowhere in Evolution does it say that.

"So, the human eye was just a random accident, huh?" Again I have to point out that nowhere does it say it was random. It is something they made up, and keep saying over and over again as an "argument" against Evolution.

I find it amusing that there are people who still argue against evolution.

what is so amusing,is not so much evolution,its darwins theories and it is just a theory.

It's "just a theory" like gravity and the germ theory of disease.

Macdaddy.. re read my original post that started this thread please. And then provide any other context in which it could possible make sense.

As Kelly pointed out, evolution is a theory only when using that word in its proper scientific context. In laymens terms it should be considered a fact, just like gravity, just like any number of scientific theories that are used everyday. You need to define your terms.

A long while back I watched a documentary on human evolution, that talked in less detail but no less interesting a way about our origins. When it talked about the future, It hypothesized how humans might evolve given many generations of living in space. Obviously there are many reasons why long term space travel does nasty things to our body, but the assumption was that these problems were overcome. They went on to say that there would be no need in space to maintain the same gravity on earth, that long term, limited gravity would make so many things easier, the result of this was our limbs became weaker and thinner over generations. The lower light conditions and lack of natural light in the artificial environment meant our eyes evolved larger. The lack of sunlight tended to pale our skin. It went on an on describing the many possible changes that may occur in a low light, low gravity environment. Anyway by now you can see where it is heading. The finished product looked a lot like what we so often describe as a Grey Alien. Now of course the whole thing could have been nonsense I guess but the argument put forth, all though highly hypothetical was pretty compelling.

sorry guys been unwell for a few days had a tummy bug and the flu,i went off on a completely different direction..i blame it on lack of food etc.so please forgive my wanderings.feeling a bit better now.

Arguments against evolution should be welcomed on the basis that it forces us to continuously question and redefine 'truths' even when accepting them as facts. It allows for greater understanding rather than undermining it. To my understanding, limited as it is, evolution is a nothing more than a mechanism for the survival of Life. It fails to address, and is not intended to address, the nature of Life itself. Any whole is greater than its parts. Life is necessarily greater than the mechanisms by which it operates. I suspect that arguments for and against evolution are largely misconstrued in that they are confusing the mechanics of Life with the 'everything else' of Life. The latter of which more correctly belongs in philosophical discourse.