Evolution...

...is currently the best scientific explanation we have for the vast plethora of seemingly different forms of life in the world.

Who would disagree, and why?

...without going into some spiritual or supernatural rhetorics...

Originally posted by C Hess
...is currently the best scientific explanation we have for the vast plethora of seemingly different forms of life in the world.

Who would disagree, and why?

The only disagreement in the sciences would be like the punctuated evolution vs continuous evolution camps, as just one example but they both agree with the broad stroke of evolution.

The main 'disagreement' is with creationists and especially young Earth creationists who think the Earth is like 6,000 years old or some such rot.

Originally posted by sonhouse
...punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism camps...

Personally, I'm a sucker for the variable speed evolution. It seems to be more plausible to me.

I don't think many hold to the idea of constantly slow continuous evolution. The environment is too fickle* for that.

* I hope that's the correct word.

Originally posted by C Hess
Personally, I'm a sucker for the variable speed evolution. It seems to be more plausible to me.

I don't think many hold to the idea of constantly slow continuous evolution. The environment is too fickle* for that.

* I hope that's the correct word.

I would argue that the fossil record irrefutably proves punctuated equilibrium beyond any rational doubt else we should expect to see continuous gradual change in each and every ( or at least most ) species throughout the fossil record and not the erratic apparently fast changes followed by long lulls with little apparent change in species in the fossil record for many millions of years. I cannot imagine how anyone that is at least half rational that has studied the erratic fossil record can possibly still believe the old idea of constantly slow continuous evolution as the fossil record clearly contradicts that.

Originally posted by humy
...the erratic apparently fast changes followed by long lulls with little apparent change in species...

That's variable speed evolution, I thought. I had the idea in
my head that punctuated equilibrium meant that speciation
only occur in short bursts (only a few million years at a time), with
long stretches of time in between where absolutely no
speciation occur, whereas variable speed evolution is the idea
that speciation always occur, but in varying speeds (sometimes
in bursts).

Or so I thought. I'm certainly not an expert, so I'll go read up on the
subject now.

Originally posted by C Hess
That's variable speed evolution, I thought. I had the idea in
my head that punctuated equilibrium meant that speciation
only occur in short bursts (only a few million years at a time), with
long stretches of time in between where absolutely no
speciation occur, whereas variable speed evolution is the idea
that speciation always occur, but in varying ...[text shortened]... rsts).

Or so I thought. I'm certainly not an expert, so I'll go read up on the
subject now.

I thought. I had the idea in
my head that punctuated equilibrium meant that speciation
only occur in short bursts

Then you think correct because punctuated equilibrium means that also. This aspect of punctuated equilibrium, which is arguably the main defining aspect of punctuated equilibrium, of speciation only occur in short bursts, is also what the fossil record shows.

Originally posted by C Hess
...is currently the best scientific explanation we have for the vast plethora of seemingly different forms of life in the world.

Who would disagree, and why?

I would disagree because the theory of evolution explans nothing about life. Evolution does not explain anything about where life came from, how it got here, or where it is going. It is nothing better than a fairy tale, like a frog turning into a prince by the kiss of a princess. For example, evolution does not explain the metamorphosis of a caterpiller to a butterfy or the origin of sex and gender. The idea of evolution is just stupid nonsense in my opinion.

I think the scientific field of genetics gives the best partial scientific explanation for the different forms of life.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would disagree because the theory of evolution explans nothing about life. Evolution does not explain anything about where life came from, how it got here, or where it is going. It is nothing better than a fairy tale, like a frog turning into a prince by the kiss of a princess. For example, evolution does not explain the metamorphosis of a caterpiller to ...[text shortened]... f genetics gives the best [b]partial scientific explanation for the different forms of life.[/b]

You are talking about evilution. You can attack that theory how much you like, because that is an creationist invention, not science.

Evolution on the other hand...

Originally posted by humy

I thought. I had the idea in
my head that punctuated equilibrium meant that speciation
only occur in short bursts

Then you think correct because punctuated equilibrium means that also. This aspect of punctuated equilibrium, which is arguably the main defining aspect of punctuated equilibrium, of speciation only occur in short bursts, is also what the fossil record shows.

The fossils indicate the animal groups appeared suddenly and fully formed and have remained in that form to the present time. No evolution there.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fossils indicate the animal groups appeared suddenly and fully formed and have remained in that form to the present time. No evolution there.

GET OUT OF SCIENCE!

Originally posted by humy
...which is arguably the main defining aspect of punctuated equilibrium, of speciation
only occur in short bursts, is also what the fossil record shows.

Right, I understand that this is what the fossil record shows, but as I've understood it, the
only difference between punctuated and variable speed is whether or not speciation
continues (albeit slowly) between bursts. I think it must.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would disagree because the theory of evolution explans nothing about life. Evolution does not explain anything about where life came from, how it got here, or where it is going. It is nothing better than a fairy tale, like a frog turning into a prince by the kiss of a princess. For example, evolution does not explain the metamorphosis of a caterpiller to ...[text shortened]... f genetics gives the best [b]partial scientific explanation for the different forms of life.[/b]

I'm sure you've had this explained to you many times, and that you just don't care about the
finer distinctions, but the theory of evolution is not a theory on how life once began, but a
theory about how all different forms of life we can see around us today could have evolved
from a single form of life.

It is an explanatory model that has yet to be contradicted by scientific evidence
(observation), but is supported by all the evidence pertaining to it, collected over hundreds
of years.

As far as scientific theories goes, the theory of evolution is as solid as they get.

Now, caterpillar to butterfly metamorphosis, you say. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Evolution is like an umbrella theory housing a whole host of more specific hypothesis and
theories. The metamorphosis process by which a caterpillar turns into a butterfly is very
well understood scientifically. Exactly why certain insects began hatching in a larval state,
is not yet clear, but it's easy to see that this is an evolved trait, when you consider that the
larva has the basic structures for wings, antennas, eyes and so on, and that these simply
continue their development during the metamorohosis stage.

The origin of sex and gender can also be explained by evolutionary processes. There are
still forms of life (both single-celled - like bacteria - and hermaphrodites) that reproduce
without sex (as you would typically think of it). The only difference between a species that
reproduce through sex, and one that doesn't, is that DNA is combined into new
combinatory DNA rather than merely copied. But it wasn't the case that two individuals of
the same species, a species that never before were expressed in different gender forms,
suddenly decided to procreate through the process of copulation. Nothing in evolution
works as suddenly, or magically as all that.

And, finally, the scientific field of genetics support the theory of evolution, so I guess that
means you too will accept it from now on. 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fossils indicate the animal groups appeared suddenly and fully formed and have remained in that form to the present time. No evolution there.

Uuuuuhm, no.

If we are talking about evolutionary theory making testable predictions which have been tested and verified this is an excellent example...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/04/your_inner_fish_book_and_pbs_documentary_on_tiktaalik_and_neil_shubin.html