• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far.

More here at the link
.

Yes, evolution may only be a theory, but the evidence in favor of it is massive. And now, we can actually see evolution in action from recent human history. The only discrepancy here is the number of years that this particular natural selection event took place - Biologists maintain 3,000 years, while archeologist claim it happened in 7,200 years. Nevertheless, we have ironclad proof that this evolution among Tibetans did happen.

And here is the problem that I have with certain people in the "Creationist" camp. They ask for proof of evolution, and time and time again, evidence is provided. Yet, when you ask them for proof that God created humans, they reply "Prove that God didn't create humans", which is the kind of an answer that speaks for itself, and as we all know, not a reply that is based even remotely on logical debate. You don't debate by asking people to prove a negative, especially when the scientific method dictates that evidence through experimentation and observation provides evidence that the theory is correct.

Yes, evolution is still a theory. So is relativity, a theory that is used today to focus an electron microscope. So is the periodic table of the elements, without which chemists would still be in the dark ages. And creationism? Hogwash, obviously, since absolutely no evidence has been provided to date that supports it. Of course, if and when creationists come up with even an iota of hard evidence to support their claims, I am willing to listen. As of now, though, I am still waiting.
 
Last edited:

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,367
Reaction score
8,100
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, I can't speak for all Creationists, but here's my opinion.

I don't discount that humans, and all species, have an amazing ability to adapt. I don't discount that over time, humans have changed in different ways as part of a "survival of the fittest" weening out process. I readily accept those conclusions.

What I don't accept - and I say this for effect, not saying you believe this - is that a paramecium turned into a fish thing, which turned into a salamander, which turned into a squirrel, which turned into a monkey, which turned into a human. I realize that is an oversimplification of the theory of evolution, but that aspect of it remains the most implausible and unproven aspect of the whole thing.

Evolution, or the changing and adaptation of the earth's species, is not in my mind at odds with Creationism. It is in itself, a "miracle" as you would prescribe the religious views on these things.

Whatever the process is not necessarily for us to understand, and it is certainly in the control of a higher power in my mind. Science and religion do not have to conflict with each other, which most Christians acknowledge.

Churches are not filled with just mindless idiots, as non-believers would like to think. Albert Einstein believed in God, and many of the congregation each Sunday are educated, successful people who have given this a great deal of thought. Don't let the over-the-top televangelists paint the stereotype for you.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,493
Reaction score
36,563
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What I don't accept - and I say this for effect, not saying you believe this - is that a paramecium turned into a fish thing, which turned into a salamander, which turned into a squirrel, which turned into a monkey, which turned into a human. I realize that is an oversimplification of the theory of evolution, but that aspect of it remains the most implausible and unproven aspect of the whole thing.
Why don't you accept this? Why do you call it "unproven?" This transition of species is shown in several ways, it's not just fossil records.

I also cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "just a theory." In scientific terms, a theory is something that is pretty solid. When most people use the word theory, they equate it to an educated guess, but that's incorrect. The word they're looking for is "hypothesis."
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

More here at the link
.

Yes, evolution may only be a theory, but the evidence in favor of it is massive.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Sciam.com said:
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

danarhea said:
And now, we can actually see evolution in action from recent human history. The only discrepancy here is the number of years that this particular natural selection event took place - Biologists maintain 3,000 years, while archeologist claim it happened in 7,200 years. Nevertheless, we have ironclad proof that this evolution among Tibetans did happen.
Certainly a few thousand years is enough.
Nice to see yet more evidence tho.
For those interested in new ideas about recent human evolution:
10,000 year explosion - Google Search
online google book but nevertheless bought Hardcover on ebay for $9/free ship. The first one in years I thought important and interesting enough.
 
Last edited:

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
18,008
Reaction score
7,203
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And here is the problem that I have with certain people in the "Creationist" camp. They ask for proof of evolution, and time and time again, evidence is provided.
You are linking to an example of microevolution which is something the vast majority of "intelligent design" proponents accept. I believe their primary concern with evolution is not that it "doesn't exist" but that it's not sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

That is, are the processes of mutation and natural selection sufficient to explain how a blue whale, a cyanobacterium, and a corn plant all derive from the same parent organism?
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
18,008
Reaction score
7,203
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why don't you accept this? Why do you call it "unproven?" This transition of species is shown in several ways, it's not just fossil records.
Perhaps "unsubstantiated" might have been a better choice of words to reflect his intent. Of course, nothing is ever "proven" in science.
 

fishinRod

Active member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
420
Reaction score
193
Location
NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative



people in Denver Colorado live at altitudes of 5,000 feet, thats 16% less oxygen than sea level...whats their deal? the article went on to say that genes in the Tibetans "adapted"


if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
people in Denver Colorado live at altitudes of 5,000 feet, thats 16% less oxygen than sea level...whats their deal? the article went on to say that genes in the Tibetans "adapted"


if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?

so you don't belive in evolution?
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,990
Reaction score
9,844
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

More here at the link
.

Yes, evolution may only be a theory, but the evidence in favor of it is massive. And now, we can actually see evolution in action from recent human history. The only discrepancy here is the number of years that this particular natural selection event took place - Biologists maintain 3,000 years, while archeologist claim it happened in 7,200 years. Nevertheless, we have ironclad proof that this evolution among Tibetans did happen.

And here is the problem that I have with certain people in the "Creationist" camp. They ask for proof of evolution, and time and time again, evidence is provided. Yet, when you ask them for proof that God created humans, they reply "Prove that God didn't create humans", which is the kind of an answer that speaks for itself, and as we all know, not a reply that is based even remotely on logical debate. You don't debate by asking people to prove a negative, especially when the scientific method dictates that evidence through experimentation and observation provides evidence that the theory is correct.

Yes, evolution is still a theory. So is relativity, a theory that is used today to focus an electron microscope. So is the periodic table of the elements, without which chemists would still be in the dark ages. And creationism? Hogwash, obviously, since absolutely no evidence has been provided to date that supports it. Of course, if and when creationists come up with even an iota of hard evidence to support their claims, I am willing to listen. As of now, though, I am still waiting.

This is a minor point but I'd like to point it out anyways. Yes, evolution is a theory, and it will always be a theory because it's a scientific theory, like gravity or any other scientific theory. That doesn't also mean that evolution is a fact, because plain and simple, it is. Just as gravity is fact because when you drop something, it falls.

From wiki:
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

- Stephen J. Gould said:
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,367
Reaction score
8,100
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why don't you accept this? Why do you call it "unproven?" This transition of species is shown in several ways, it's not just fossil records.

I also cringe whenever someone uses the phrase "just a theory." In scientific terms, a theory is something that is pretty solid. When most people use the word theory, they equate it to an educated guess, but that's incorrect. The word they're looking for is "hypothesis."

I think you mean "postulate".

Evolution is far from proven in that regard. There is zero evidence that humans came from monkeys.
 

Magill

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
158
Reaction score
51
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
people in Denver Colorado live at altitudes of 5,000 feet, thats 16% less oxygen than sea level...whats their deal? the article went on to say that genes in the Tibetans "adapted"


if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?

Really? Is this a joke comment??
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
32,213
Reaction score
36,197
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think you mean "postulate".

Evolution is far from proven in that regard. There is zero evidence that humans came from monkeys.

Yes because the alternative theory is so much more plausable...


This video, and the theory of creationism are not far from eachother in logic...
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,367
Reaction score
8,100
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes because the alternative theory is so much more plausable...


This video, and the theory of creationism are not far from eachother in logic...

Bashing on faith doesn't help your case. You're small and completely insignficant in this universe, which makes your position on the beginning of life completely irrelevent in the grand scheme, as does mine.

Fortunately, I don't have to care what you think, nor do you me.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
32,213
Reaction score
36,197
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bashing on faith doesn't help your case. You're small and completely insignficant in this universe, which makes your position on the beginning of life completely irrelevent in the grand scheme, as does mine.

Fortunately, I don't have to care what you think, nor do you me.

Creationism is a human invention, if you want to believe it, that is your right...

The bible was written by humans... god was invented by humans to explain the unexplainable, now I don't want to get into a debate of whether god exists or not... but there's a lot more evidence to suggest that Evolution is the answer, then that god exists, of which there is virtually 0 evidence... so by extension the theory of creationism doesn't make sense either.

Oh and one more thing, the video is what they call "Satire" Get a sense of humor rocky Dennis...
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,367
Reaction score
8,100
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Creationism is a human invention, if you want to believe it, that is your right...

The bible was written by humans... god was invented by humans to explain the unexplainable, now I don't want to get into a debate of whether god exists or not... but there's a lot more evidence to suggest that Evolution is the answer, then that god exists, of which there is virtually 0 evidence... so by extension the theory of creationism doesn't make sense either.

Oh and one more thing, the video is what they call "Satire" Get a sense of humor rocky Dennis...

And much of the reason you've arrived at that conclusion is because you WANTED to arrive at that conclusion. Tell me where the first spec of matter and/or energy came from, and how evolution could have allowed it to be in the first place if their wasn't a greater hand involved.

There is far more sensibility in the existence of God than there is that all this just got here for no apparent reason and with no particular design in place.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,990
Reaction score
9,844
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And much of the reason you've arrived at that conclusion is because you WANTED to arrive at that conclusion. Tell me where the first spec of matter and/or energy came from, and how evolution could have allowed it to be in the first place if their wasn't a greater hand involved.

There is far more sensibility in the existence of God than there is that all this just got here for no apparent reason and with no particular design in place.

The way I see your argument is this:

The universe and all it's life forms are much too complex to have existed on their own or to have always existed.

Therefor, I will stipulate an even more complex entity that existed on it's own or has always existed.

I guess my argument is that if you think that the universe is too complex to have just always existed or to have been created through natural phenomenon that we just don't understand, then you must make the same argument about any proposed God, since a creator would by definition have to be more complex than it's creation.

Using Ockams razer, we simply reduce "The universe was created by God, who has always existed" down to "The universe has always existed."
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,493
Reaction score
36,563
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think you mean "postulate".

Evolution is far from proven in that regard. There is zero evidence that humans came from monkeys.

This statement is pants-on-head ignorant. The research behind evolution is extensive.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
32,213
Reaction score
36,197
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And much of the reason you've arrived at that conclusion is because you WANTED to arrive at that conclusion. Tell me where the first spec of matter and/or energy came from, and how evolution could have allowed it to be in the first place if their wasn't a greater hand involved.

There is far more sensibility in the existence of God than there is that all this just got here for no apparent reason and with no particular design in place.

And you arrived at your conclusion because you WANTED to... if god created the universe... what created god?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This study doesn't point to evolution, if anything it's natural selection. This study isn't even confirmed yet, yet the scientists and the NYT are pushing it as if it's settled and proves evolution. How dishonest.
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
3,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?

Evolution is far from proven in that regard. There is zero evidence that humans came from monkeys.

Tell me where the first spec of matter and/or energy came from, and how evolution could have allowed it to be in the first place if their wasn't a greater hand involved.

Statements like these are laughable because they are made in all seriousness, yet they scream ignorance on the subject just as loudly as someone who thought school was spelled skool reveals a lack of basic literacy.
 
Last edited:

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I see them used interchangably too often so just wanting to clarify.

Do you mean Creationists as in LITERAL creationists, IE those that believe the earth is as old as the Bible says it is and men lived in the time of Dinosaurs and fossil records are absolutely false and god went "poof" and man was there...

Or do you mean creationists as in the derogatory term placed on people who believe in Intelligent Design?

Because while I understand evolution is in general a rather disliked and disputed notion to literal creationists, I thought with most ID'ers the notion of evolution isn't just not disputed but is readily accepted as a generalized idea?
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Statements like these are laughable because they are made in all seriousness, yet they scream ignorance on the subject just as loudly as someone who thought school was spelled skool reveals a lack of basic literacy.

While I think the first two don't really add anything, the notion of the last one is sound.

If matter or energy can not simply be created from nothing then from whence did the first thing government by the laws of nature come from that allowed this to happen. Its the horrendous chicken and egg issue that seems to have little true answer unless one essentially steps outside of the question itself.
 
Top Bottom