Is science being unduly influenced?

[Akitu]

I strongly agree. If that is true, then the moth or bacteria examples can only conclude minute changes within a species and say nothing about evolution. I am discussing macro-evolution. The theory all life evolved from an ameoba not minute changes within a species.

On the macro level, until we're able to get a sample of a fossilized amoeba, we'll just have to do with our genome mapping and figure out where the origin of species began to the best of the data we have at hand.

Also, we're speaking of evolution as a concept and not the origin of species. The same concept of evolution that is being removed from some schools in favour of creationism, due to the unwillingness to accept the fact that over time some species will adapt and change to better suit their environments, vis a vis survival of the fittest.

[Darren King]

What's stopping you from getting some fruit flies and doing your own research? It's not rocket science, you know...

Nothing is stopping anyone from trying to replicate the same results, and that's what's best about science - if someone makes a bold claim he must prove that claim is true before it being accepted, as opposed to religion, where the person making a claim (the dragon in the garage) tells you that if you can't prove he's wrong, then the claim must be true.

Scientists haven't proven anything about evolution. They say that somehow life "evolved" from a rock (planet earth) with nothing organic on it. I am not a genius, but, even I can see a flaw in that conclusion. And lets say, for the sake of argument, somehow, this stuff developed in that primordial pond. Scientists can't seem to explain how it became both plant and animal. That is a pretty big stumbling block in my opinion.

[Chameleon]

On the macro level, until we're able to get a sample of a fossilized amoeba, we'll just have to do with our genome mapping and figure out where the origin of species began to the best of the data we have at hand.

Also, we're speaking of evolution as a concept and not the origin of species. The same concept of evolution that is being removed from some schools in favour of creationism, due to the unwillingness to accept the fact that over time some species will adapt and change to better suit their environments, vis a vis survival of the fittest.

It would make my day if schools just taught reading, writing, math, chemistry, physics and if they even had to teach biology do it without the ~isms.

[Akitu]

Scientists haven't proven anything about evolution. They say that somehow life "evolved" from a rock (planet earth) with nothing organic on it. I am not a genius, but, even I can see a flaw in that conclusion. And lets say, for the sake of argument, somehow, this stuff developed in that primordial pond. Scientists can't seem to explain how it became both plant and animal. That is a pretty big stumbling block in my opinion.

Saying scientists haven't proven anything about evolution is about as far from the truth as can be. You're again, focusing on the origin of species, which is up in the air for debate the same way the concept of an omniscient deity is up in the air for debate.

Science can determine common traits and make educated guesses based on that, and in some cases replicate it as well. Fun fact: horses and rhinoceri shared a common ancestor. This is based on the fact they both at one point (or still presently) had/have 3 toes. The horses evolved to require only a single toe in a hoof, whereas the rhino still has 3 toes to this day. Find me an example of anything presently that was at one point a single organism that has presently evolved into both a plant and animal. There are aspects of our world that work in specific ways to prevent genetic freaks from occurring, such as a cat and a dog reproducing. They're too different, and thus nature won't allow a pairing of the different species. Lions and tigers, as another example, share so much similarities in their genetic code that they can successfully reproduce (A liger, or a tion, depending on which was the male and which was the female. Both create their own separate sub-species just based on who had the sausage at the party).

If you can find the link that says creature x and creature y are now a plant and an animal, but organism w was a common ancestor to both, you may have just solved your own origin of species issue. It's just a matter of what traits some of the primitive eukaryotic cells developed, eg. photosynthesis.

[mrwho]

Scientists haven't proven anything about evolution.

I'll say it again: Evolution Theory!

[Akitu]

I'll say it again: Evolution Theory!

Refer to my previous post regarding the term "Theory", which is just a scientific fact that can not be or has not been disproved through testing.

Gravity, while we understand how and why it works, remains a theory and not a law simply because it can not be disproved - yet... Still waiting on my hover car.

It would make my day if schools just taught reading, writing, math, chemistry, physics and if they even had to teach biology do it without the ~isms.

I'll agree with most of this, but biology is an important subject. Without biology we wouldn't have a large number of the life saving procedures that are used every day, nor would we understand what makes the very essence of the world tick - life.

[Darren King]

Saying scientists haven't proven anything about evolution is about as far from the truth as can be. You're again, focusing on the origin of species, which is up in the air for debate the same way the concept of an omniscient deity is up in the air for debate.

Science can determine common traits and make educated guesses based on that, and in some cases replicate it as well. Fun fact: horses and rhinoceri shared a common ancestor. This is based on the fact they both at one point (or still presently) had/have 3 toes. The horses evolved to require only a single toe in a hoof, whereas the rhino still has 3 toes to this day. Find me an example of anything presently that was at one point a single organism that has presently evolved into both a plant and animal. There are aspects of our world that work in specific ways to prevent genetic freaks from occurring, such as a cat and a dog reproducing. They're too different, and thus nature won't allow a pairing of the different species. Lions and tigers, as another example, share so much similarities in their genetic code that they can successfully reproduce (A liger, or a tion, depending on which was the male and which was the female. Both create their own separate sub-species just based on who had the sausage at the party).

If you can find the link that says creature x and creature y are now a plant and an animal, but organism w was a common ancestor to both, you may have just solved your own origin of species issue. It's just a matter of what traits some of the primitive eukaryotic cells developed, eg. photosynthesis.

To say this animal came from that animal but just ignore the fact that there is no foundation under your argument is rather "scientist" like. Just blip over the stuff that doesn't prove the conclusion. lol

[Akitu]

To say this animal came from that animal but just ignore the fact that there is no foundation under your argument is rather "scientist" like. Just blip over the stuff that doesn't prove the conclusion. lol

There is a proven common ancestor, this was only a single example as well. I'm awaiting a legitimate response to my post still.

[Chameleon]

Fun fact: horses and rhinoceri shared a common ancestor. This is based on the fact they both at one point (or still presently) had/have 3 toes. The horses evolved....

I was following along until that point. No sarcasm, I sincerly want to know, what data was used to conclude the horse evolved? I understand concluding they had common traits but need more data for the other conclusion.

[Akitu]

I was following along until that point. No sarcasm, I sincerly want to know, what data was used to conclude the horse evolved? I understand concluding they had common traits but need more data for the other conclusion.

My apologies, I misspoke a bit, they're from the same order of the animal kingdom, but they did share a common ancestor at one point. There's a very large amount of horse relatives that have been discovered from various ages and stages of evolution.

The Rhinoceros Family

Third paragraph "Despite their horns and armored appearance, one may expect rhinos to share close ancestry with elephants. But rhinoceroses are actually related to horses and tapirs, in the Mammalian Order for odd-toed ungulates, Perissodactyla. Like the other perissodactyls, rhinos have mesaxonic feet, which means the center toe bears much of the weight. Rhinos have three toes, which are large and splayed out to support their bulky body. Also like horses, rhinos are hindgut fermenters, bearing the ability to eat less nutritious vegetation than ruminants because digestion is faster."

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The potential close relative of both animals

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

Or, if you're one of the people who discredits open source moderated information, another link.

Living Relatives of the Horse