This guy made money off Credulity and the IRS wanted there piece.

I have to pay . . . then so does Kent.

Wrong attitude. The IRS is a privately owned corporation that operates as a collection agency. It collects taxes for an illegal crime organization called the FED, which is also a privately owned corporation that lost (gambled) our real wealth in the stock market.

Just because you won't stand up against them don't cheer for the bad guys.

Once again I get here late and this has probably already been said in one form or another.

This biological planet we live on evolves, both the planet and all manner of species upon it.

It is proven over and over.

What I would suggest to religious folks who see evolution as a counter to their creationism beliefs...

Just believe that your Creator, Lord or God was wise enough to create things that evolve according to His plan and that it all is part of His plan.

Maybe even that He is smarter than you and does not reveal his whole plan to you on earth, which many accept and worship.

Considering this could actually end the debate in my opinion.

RW

Lewis Black - The Devil's Handiwork...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-1_BRZoXjOmI/lewis_black_the_devils_handiwork/

I’m staying out off the whole court case involving Kent Hovind as I don’t really see the relevance to the topic. I also saw that he only had the representation of a pubic defender. He's been charged with falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits, felony assault and battery (those charges later dropped), and various tax-related charges. He was convicted of federal tax offenses and related charges, for which he is currently serving a 10-year sentence. I’m not an attorney so I won’t sit here and speculate about his guilt or innocence without knowing all the facts and I’m not spending hours researching that.

As for his creationist "science" it’s a load of hooey. Prior to his convictions, Hovind debated atheists, Christians, skeptics, and scientists. These Creationists such as Hovind and the like cant stand on their own two feet or go head to head in the face of actual intellectual and scientific evidence. They seem to prefer creating big emotional dramas for their predominantly Creationists fan base.

FACT


Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.

For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).

Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.

Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.

Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.

These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.

Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.

Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"

Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.

To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.

It also stands to reason from the rabbit example that humans have an entirely different set of "selection pressures" placed on their bodies now due to our remarkable ability to adapt to our surroundings.

I would more say that humans for a long time now do not adapt to his surrounding but adapts the surroundings to them. That's why I thinks we haven't seen many physical change in humans in a long time compare to animals who must adapt (evolve) themselves to their surroundings and even there humans are a big reason they are dying not only because we kill them but because we change the surroundings to fast for the animals to adapt to them.

Thats probably true. I should have phrased that "humans manipulate their surroundings." However wouldn't these "manipulations" lead to a different set of "selection pressures" on our bodies? I feel that this would be unavoidable.

I don't think we have been watching long enough to see large change to our physical characteristics. History is not so old.

Morphological change can take hundreds of millenia. I can tell you we have evolved, but the changes are not easily apparent, we are finding immunological changes in the majority of humanity due to the black plague and similar wide spread disease.

Society also plays an interesting role in evolution. Due to society helping the less fit survive and reproduce. The effects on evolution are not well understood.

A very interesting speaker...

Check it out!

Mixed in with the US economy...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html

Great Ted Talks presentation!

We are evolving. This is a great example of how evolution is not just a biological phenomena . . . not anymore.

I would disagree with the idea of teaching intelligent design because knowledge is built on what is measurable and demonstraighted. Where as intelligent design isnt eaxctly going to lead to the cure of diseases, the foundation supports nothing more than beliefs. Now that is backwards.

Well when Neil Degrasse Tyson says we should teach intelligent design he means teach how when we are at the limits of our understanding we tend to invoke god as an answer, but not till then.

Every theist scientist has been completely scientific when working with things that are (to them) explainable, but then when something goes out past the realm of knowledge that is when intelligent design (which is nothing more then tossing up ones hands to say this is too complex to be natural) is the answer.

So in this regard we would be teaching the idea that when humans decide something is beyond their understanding this elicits a religious reaction.

I agree its really fun to see the types of arguments that are used to refute it, always gives me a great big laugh.

Far too much entertainment to just ignore them.

Evidently evolution doesn't seem to be a fact for some in the religious thread as they don't believe a species can change into a different species over time and rather choose the teachings of their religion as facts instead.

Oh well what can you do about it? nothing

so it just will remain that some believe and others don't.

Yes I suppose so. Well except at least for me I do not believe in evolution. Its not like some kind of belief. I do however believe the evidence is genuine. That I do believe. I understand this evidence that I believe is true, and thus accept the only logical conclusion that follows(that has yet to be presented to me).

The real issue is critical thinking skills. Many people take these skills for granted, becuase from a very young age they have employed these techniques.

Some people however instead of learning deductive and inductive reasoning have learned indoctrination and dogma. Have been taught the virtue of credulity: faith.

The title of this thread is "Evolution is it a fact?".

That's a loaded question. Just what do you mean by "Evolution"?

There's the evolution of a thought process. One that goes from concept - to design - to execution. That's one idea - then there's the more recognized idea that is taught in classrooms around the world that is commonly refered to as a "tree" of one species mutating into another, and so on and so forth. Granted - a simplistic explination at best. Then there is the idea that mutations occur in every species - giving us Wolves, Hyena's, Dogs, etc. - but tending to be more specified - as we don't necessarily believe that a dog is going to mate with a cat any time soon to give us Dats and Cogs.

And by asking this question - are we to assume that because we can observe mutation within organisms, that this demonstrates that all of the presumptions extrapolated from this are equally acceptable - even if the ability to obseve these presumptions are improbable - if not impossible?

Where are you hoping this thread will head - and what do you intend to demonstrate by it?

The platypus believes in evolution

He quacks when angry

He hits his tail like a beaver to warn others

and he searches for food resentlessly like a reptile

Hey he is one hell of a animal!

All your answers exist within the plethora of videos, and websites linked to in the first few posts.

As far as the purpose of the thread, it is to answer the questions for the person willing to educate themselves by using the links as a resource for valid scientific research. If you take an unbiased review of the material presented you will come to the correct answer for the question "is evolution a fact".

Creationists and Evolutionists suffer from the same problem. They think that their viewpoint is the only "right" one and that the opposising viewpoint is both "wrong" and stupid.

In a logical discussion, creationists are usually the easiest to stomp on and demonstrate that their arguments are subjective at best. Their entire argument revolves around a few pages in a book that has been translated several times in different ways and different languages over the last 1600 years, and who's original organisation was prepared under a Roman Emperor, who's only goal was to unite his empire under one religion rather than many.

Before that these few pages were part of another book that dates hundreds of years earlier in Egypt, and its inception is surrounded by strikingly similar writings from Egypt and Sumeria. There are so many similarities, in fact, between the Sumerian stories and the Egyptian Book of the Dead (sometimes word for word translations) that some tend to believe the book was copied and modified from these texts.

Creationists dwell on the information that got spat out of this long process and take it as factual and complete, and see no reason to let new information fill in the gaps. This is called a closed mind.


Evolutionists are a bit more clever but can be twice as dimwitted when it comes to their attitude towards science. The main ideology nowadays is that if a scientist says it, then it must be correct, and loopholes in scientific theory are rarely attacked with the same tennacity as religious texts. Scientists say all sorts of things are not possible and are later proven wrong. Ever hear of the four minute mile...?

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121799/Sports/Bannister_stuns_world.shtml

Theres a neat little news article in case you haven't.

Scientists also proposed that the sound barrier could not be broken for seemingly valid reasons. When the trinity bomb went off some of the chemists had started laying bets as to whether or not the bomb would destroy the earth. There are still a lot of unknowns in science, and evolution is not without a few gaps of its own.

Not going to bore you with the whole missing link thing, people always get hung up on that one, but in reality, who cares? There are so many other problems with evolution that it is meerly notable. Here are a few...

From a single celled organism without an appendage to one that has a flagella.
From a single celled organism to a multi-celled organism (this is a BIG question mark in science right now)
Why humans have been breeding dogs and cats to isolate genes for millenia and have never created anything that could be called a new species, though hundreds of breeds have become availible.
Retroviruses that are made specifically to alter DNA do not create new species.
Experimentation with artificial selection and leopard geckos. You can make them any color that you want, but they are still leopard geckos and have never yet formed a new species through breeding.

Geneticists and hobbyists have tried and tried with forced mutations, artificial selection (faster than natural selection), and many other means to produce new species but it doesn't seem to work.


Personally, I like evolution. It fits into my spiritual and scientific pictures of reality very nicely, but to claim that it has to be accurate as prescribed is childish and presumptuous. It has never been verified, even though it has a lot of supporting evidence. Someone adament about wanting to find the truth should look at ALL of the arguments and instead of making final decision on the matter, keep your mind open to other possibilities while favoring one theory at the current time. Saying "evolution has to be right" is no different than saying "the bible has to be right" when it comes down to it. When all encompasing statements like these are made you are no longer keeping your eyes open to other possibilities, just like all the doctors who used to claim that eating oranges and lemons has no effect on scurvey (they ended up being wrong too by the way).

Supporting evidence does not make a proposition True.