This is interesting because I was looking for some general (interesting facts) quiz questions and accidentally came across this website/blog (Listverse : Top 20 Amazing Science Facts) which suggested that 60-65 million years ago dolphins and humans shared a common ancestor (item 14).
By the time I have discovered this website, people have been already been adding comments for/against certain parts of the quiz questions/answers including item 14.
This is just a snippet of the conversation we were having, you can visit the site to view the full conversation. My comments are on pages 3 and 4 .
Search for Jharris007, God Bless
For the evolution discussion, consider this. One of the major parts of the theory of evolution is genetic adaptation. This is the analogy I was taught: Some region has an unusually cold winter. This region is home to a species of rabbit. Due to the cold, half of them die. The ones that survived did so because they had thicker fur and could withstand the cold. Now because all of the remaining rabbits have thicker fur, new generations will inherit the thicker fur and survive the cold winters. Evolution is simply the idea of “survival of the fittest” drawn out across billions of years. That’s how I look at it.
The theory of evolution has enough evidence behind it to be considered fact. The reason why it is still called a theory is because we can’t live long enough to physically observe the process, and that it can’t be scientifically tested. The laws of motion are laws for example, because they can be tested and observed.
Decadence what are you doing!? Saying the process cannot be scientifically tested is GIVING amunition to creationists!
We CAN physically observe the process, as long as generation time for the organism in question is short enough. In the wild, there are numerous examples of evolution in action. Many viruses and bacteria have changed dramatically in the space of a human lifetime, from HIV adapting to humans to H5N1 bird flu.
Why do you think it cannot be scientifically tested?
Why does this page have a title called “Top 20 Amazing Science Facts” and contains item “14. 60-65 million years ago dolphins and humans shared a common ancestor“. This is neither a scientific statement nor is it a fact! And why don’t people study this subject before commenting on it?
Decadence (May 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am): Your description of evolution suggests you don’t understand the theory. You described micro evolution (which IS a fact) and confused it with item 14 which is describing macro evolution which is NOT a fact, not observable and has no evidence to support it. Macro evolution is not even a theory, it’s a hypothesis (or even less likely than that)!!!!
cymraegbachgen87 (May 27th, 2009 at 11:21 am): What “amunition to creationists!” are you talking about? Your response to Decadence suggests you know less about this theory than Decadence! And yet you appear to be defending it! The example you have given has so many flaws it’s inconceivable to explain them all. You need to read up more about DNA structures before you make such comments. Whilst mutations (ie FAULTS within DNA) can sometimes happen, the DNA polymerase is self-correcting with built in backup systems to prohibit random changes. Any varition from the original form usually produces inferior species when mixed back into their original population. Briefly, the example you gave is NOT proof of evolution, it’s simply a variation within the kind and has limits. It is important you understand that the only thing that counts when it comes to evolution is empirical evidence. NOT AMUNITION! Not imagination, Not assumptions, Not even majority of opinion! Just FACTS!
Sorry if I came across a little harsh but the lack of understanding in this theory is mind boggling
If you want to believe in evolution, then be my guest, but don’t try to present it as a fact that is scientifically supported. There is nothing worse than an evolutionist who religiously accepts this hypothesis without understanding it.
jharris007-even worse are creationists that write a wall of text demonstrating repeatedly that they have no idea what they are talking about and that their “understanding” of the theory comes solely from books written by guys with big silvery hairdos and moustaches.
I hope this makes sense, if not, I’m happy to quote from material that comes from guys with short black hairdos with NO moustaches