Snivelutionist (LOL) Vs Evolutionist Whom to believe?

Question

I forgot who came up with that snivelutionist but I find it so useful to decribe all those who think they know evolution. I'd like just for once these whiners who just yell THERE IS NO GOD! to actually describe how the process of evolution works.

And please don't puke back facts you find in a book or on a website. I mean actually explain it in a way that shows you actually understand it

I know some of the ideas and thoughts behind evolution. I've read them I've studied them and I find them very interesting. I'm not a molecular biologist but I do undestand how sme of it works. So if you could instead of just spouting off could you be a real evolutionist and expalin why its true and not a sinvelutioinist that sounds liek a 5 yr old?

You don't like people quoting the bible and saying there its true
I don't like people saying look Darwin said this so its true
Be a real student learn what you support and explain how it works to the best of your ability. So any takers?

Real answers only please
I am looking for people who actually know what they are talking about.

Umm Soulful You never explained it to me and I never said make simple I said can you explain it.
.
Also I never said I did not believe evolution I did say I am tired of these wannabes saying that it is true and not know how to explain it.
So all of you who think like that just keeping alking by we don't need you

Ok For all those Dimwitts WHO MISSED THE POINT

I don't neeed it easy.
Explain how the change in species over time works
Describe how the cell goes thru these changes

DarkAngel I like the way you put your answer

by haysoos2

THANK YOU!!!!

you got the idea. The rest are just loud mouth snivelutionist

Answer 1

So you actually expect an explanation of evolution without using facts??

Don't think I can do that, but I'll try a relatively simple explanation.

In any population of organisms, there is variation in their characters. Some are fat, some are skinny, some are smart, some are athletic. I don't think that anyone can rationally argue against this.

The variation that any organism possesses can be passed on to their offspring. The mechanism for this (genetic inheritance through DNA) is now known, and fairly well studied (it was unknown in Darwin's day). Again, there is no rational way to argue against this.

In any environment, there are conditions which will favour certain traits over other traits. For a predatory organism, the athletic individuals may be more successful at hunting than the fat ones - so they are better able to survive, thrive and pass their athletic trait onto their young. In a drought environment, the fat organism may have an advantage, and will produce more offspring that also have a genetic predisposition towards being fat. Again, no rational way to argue against this.

Over time, if the selective pressure remains on that population, the proportion of that trait in the population will change. More and more of the organisms will show that trait. This has been observed to happen. No rational way to argue against it.

As the trait becomes more common, the variation in that trait becomes skewed towards more and more extremes of that trait. If the increase in variation continues to be selected for, the trait can diverge farther and farther from the 'original'. This can easily be seen in the highly divergent characters that are easily artificially selected in animals such as dogs (i.e. Chihuahuas vs Great Danes).

Increasing divergence between two populations can quickly create reproductive isolation (you don't see too many Chihuadanes).

Over time, accumulating changes in the genetic make-up of each population causes sufficient divergence to be considered a new species (i.e. no longer genetically capable of interbreeding). This too has been observed to occur.

Selective pressures on the divergent populations continue to drive morphological changes in the populations. Each species becomes more and more physically divergent.

Fossil remains of the ancestors of modern species should be similar in form, but show accumulating morphological shifts over time. Without selective pressure, most populations should be stable in form (the 'average' being selected for), but strong selective pressures should show rapid shifts in morphology in the population. The morphological changes should be able to be related via comparative anatomy. Morphological shifts should be traceable back chronometrically, with great-great-ancestors morphologically more divergent than great-ancestors. Again, this is what we see in the fossil record.

The theory of evolution is the most powerful tool we have for explaining not only the great diversity of life in Earth, but also the great similarity (i.e. Why do all insects have six legs and four wings? Why do all terrestrial vertebrates have only four legs and windpipes that cross-over their digestive tract? Why do humans and corn share almost 20% identical DNA?).

Not only is it supported by fossil and genetic evidence, but everything from the modern distribution of porcupines, to the ability of cockroaches to survive DDT spraying, to the shriveled, elongated finger of aye-ayes and long-fingered possums is explained by evolution. No other theory in science has the depth of evidence supporting it, nor the predictive power of the theory, yet it is vehemently opposed by close-minded fundamentalist believers who are horrified that some of the Chapters in Genesis might be allegorical, rather than literally true.

Answer 2

If evolution is factual, then it is obvious that some people have not evolved to any great extent...given the fact that they continue to generalize and believe that those with a different opinion are necessarily wrong or at least don't know what they are talking about. One could suppose that evolution is as factual, and possibly easier to prove scientifically, than the Bible. With the blatant mistranslations and misinterpretations regarding the Bible, then one is in a dilemma as to what is believable. Why would it necessarily follow that if one is true then the other is false. Could it not be possible that both have played a role in mankind?

Answer 3

Did you just tell us to explain the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection without using complicated and detailed analysis? "Puke back facts you found in a book..." you do realize you just asked us NOT to use academic sources to explain a complex scientific theory right? You seem to want the entirety of the argument and the evidence behind it explained in 3 sentences or less. Do you actually KNOW what you just asked? Basically for one to compress the entirety of modern biology into an abstract? You're patently ridiculous.

Answer 4

This is unreasonable. The subject is a very large one, and none of us knows how much background you're already aware of.

Nor do we know how much you want to be told.

Nor how hostile you are to the information, such that you might require every statement to be backed up before you'll accept it.

If you want an explanation that goes from zero knowledge up to full degree-level, it would take a good-sized textbook at least.

I reckon I could take you from kindergarten up to everything covered in 'The Blind Watchmaker' - and I'll throw in all the stuff Ridley deal with in 'Genome' as well. Would that do?

How much are you prepared to pay for the several tens of hours involved? I charge my time for this sort of thing at around $1,500/day.

CD

Answer 5

Darwin was wrong on a lot of things. If you knew the first ting about evolution I'm sure you would know that. Science has the ability to learn and grow, something I'm sure you know your God is lacking.

"puke back facts you find in a book"
at least you admit they are facts.

Answer 6

my friend let me explain it this way so all the world will finally know the gospel truth."In the beginning there was nothing & i mean nothing absolutely nothing & it all exploded"that was the simple part now i'm trying to sell some ocean front real estate in Arizona.
The truth is God is our creator & to deny that is foolish.Man can do a lot of things but he canot make life.

Answer 7

Evolution does work but it does not explain the creation of the universe or the creation of the first life form.

Answer 8

The evolutionary fossil record has gaps. Filling in those gaps requires extrapolation. Extrapolation is an act of faith (not in a Deity but in the theory but faith none the less). I'm a religious believer, a math/science teacher for 20 years. I accept micro evolution (multi-generational change within a species) but not species change. It is a fine line but I can walk it.

Answer 9

This is a biology section question. Evolutionary science makes no claim about any religion or spiritual tradition. There is no debate with "creationists", since no credible scientist takes creationism seriously. Do your own homework.

Answer 10

I am a molecular biologist and I've explained evolution to you many times. I can't make it any simpler. I give up.