The Theory of Evolution Made Easy






The Theory of Evolution Made Easy

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy

Understanding the fossil record and what it really means

Know anything about this? Email us
Email a friend Privacy policy
Tags
Evolution, Creationism, Education, Science, Religion, Science & Technology, Politics & Society
Misc
Link to this page
Newsletter: Sign up
Download   ?

Get plug-in

Keep BoreMe fresh: Contribute
View by top voted  |  date

danskaldanskal (108 days ago)

@glortman.... No. You are describing the subject matter of Darwin's work: "On the origin of species". Evolution, on the other hand, does include adaptations within a species. Darwin has become the figurehead for evolutionary theory, and rightly so, but that doesn't mean that evolutionary theory is limited to his works - far from it.
 Reply  Vote up  down  All comments  Spam or offensive? 

Guest (278 days ago)

I think the part about the Nylon eating Bacteria is the real nail-in-the-coffin to any creationalist. Kinda conclusive proof that things evolve to adapt.
 Reply  Vote up  down  Spam or offensive? 
   

glortmanglortman (108 days ago)

Be careful not to confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptive changes can result in evolution, but many adaptations are about changes within a species in response to environmental conditions. Evolution is about adaptations causing a divergence between species.
 Reply  All comments  Spam or offensive? 
      

danskaldanskal (108 days ago)

You are talking about speciation, not evolution. Guest is actually correct.
 Reply  All comments  Spam or offensive? 
         

glortmanglortman (108 days ago)

Adaptation and genetic drift fall under microevolution, and speciation under macroevolution. The guest said that evolution causes adaptation. That is not correct. If anything, adaptation contributes to the overall process of evolution, which culminates in speciation.
 Reply  All comments  Spam or offensive? 
            

danskaldanskal (107 days ago)

Apologies glortman - although you did make it sound like you considered adaptations to not be a part of evolution. . . Anyway, to my mind, speciation is actually a less interesting subject than adaptation. If a mammal subspecies adapts itself to become a marine mammal with fins, whether it can or cannot breed with other (sub)species members still on land seems like an academic question.
 Reply  All comments  Spam or offensive? 
               

glortmanglortman (106 days ago)

Latest comment: "I agree with you on points evolutionary, and you probably know more about it than I do. Speciation, however, is important in this thread since while some creationists will allow for microevolution (for example the melanic adaptation of the peppered moth) they will not allow for macro evolution, and cite the crocoduck as their champion. "
 Reply  All comments  Spam or offensive? 

Guest: Irenic (657 days ago)

Re: John Actually 'Flat Earth Theory' fell by the wayside quite early. Aristotle and Ptolemy argued against it quite well and the question was settled by the 4th century BC. Flat Earth became slightly more popular in the Middle Ages, but never really caught on. Aquinas (13th century) took it for granted that the Earth was a sphere as do many of the works of literature (Dante's Inferno, for example) and all of the works of astronomy and cosmology since the 9th century. The first scientific method is commonly credited to Descartes (Discourse on Method, 1637), though early experimental method can be said to go as far back as, perhaps, 750 AD in the Islamic world. So, you see, the Flat Earth Theory was never a scientific fact. Did appreciate your use of a straw man argument in the post deriding the videos use of a straw man though. If you come across an intelligent creationist, be sure to send them my way, so we can set them straight.
 Reply  Vote up  down  Spam or offensive? 
   

Guest: Galopolis (108 days ago)

Yes, the flat earth theory was disproven by the Greeks, see Eratosthenes, as early as 300 B.C.E. However, during the middle ages Christianity suppressed all knowledge that didn't come from Christian 'scholars': ancient Greece, Rome, etc. Luckily, Greek works were kept in Persia; brought back to Europe during the Enlightenment period.
 Reply  Spam or offensive? 

Guest: John (683 days ago)

Not all creationists are uneducated nutjobs. Incidentally, when this video talks about a scientific theory being "the highest form of proof you can get", or as "scientific fact", the Flat Earth theory would have come under the same category a few hundred years ago. Make your own mind up about evolution, but please don't do so based on 'straw man' arguments like this one; there are plenty of intelligent creationists who can give you their side of the argument.
 Reply  Vote up  down  Spam or offensive? 
   

forrester106forrester106 (158 days ago)

yes they can but they'd still be full of sh1t
 Reply  All comments  Spam or offensive? 
   

glortmanglortman (108 days ago)

The other side of that idea John, is that not every person of faith rejects evolution. One must deliberately misread most holy books in order to believe that they stand opposed to sound scientific principles. The most important idea here is that the bible was NEVER intended to be a scientific text, and any attempt to make it so does violence to both faith and science. Last, a flat earth was NOT a scientific theory: that idea was put forth by the church, and in Muslim circles, fatwa was declared against infidels who believed contrary. Scientists have been punished (Copernicus, for example) for disagreeing with the church. With the exception of mathematics where you can have a "proof", in science, the highest cohesive explanation for a series of phenomena is a "theory". You are conflating the common use of the word "theory" with the scientific use. HYPOTHESIS (science) = THEORY (common speech). THEORY (science) = FACT, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL AT THIS POINT (common speech).
 Reply  All comments  Spam or offensive?