How can I Prove Evolution?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,300
6,355
126
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the theory that explains the fact. Evolution happened. There is no doubt what so ever about that. Scientists are still working out the details about how evolution works. But we know that it did. Some of the supporting facts are these. There are a number of scientific means by which rock can be dated. The older the date the more primitive the life forms. Time therefore created complexity, another word for evolution. Older sediment lies under younger sediment, on average. the farther down a sequence of rock you go, the older the fossils and the more primitive they are. A comparison of fossils with time reveals a branched structure, specialized forms having more general forms back through time. The farther back in time the more similar the appearance of the organisms. The embryo recapitulates its evolutionary history. The obvious physical characteristics of organisms suggest obvious genetic relationships. Horses and donkeys and zebras look related. Humans and chimps look related. Examination of the DNA shows an identical relationship. The rate of genetic drift or change and the period of time it would take to produce the differences between a horse and a donkey or a man and a chimp or a man and a horse correspond to points in the fossil record where you will find species that evolved into both. Common ancestors appear in the fossil record at dates that match genetic differences. These facts multiplied ad infinitum coupled with multitudes of similar and related data yield only one possible rational explanation. Evolution is a fact.

On top of all that, there is really only one group that can't see this obvious fact. That group is Christian Fundamentalists who are afraid that God doesn't exist if there is a tiny misprint in the Bible. These are the people with no faith. God is either like they say He is or he doesn't exist at all. These are the people who think they know better than God does how things got to be how they are. If there is a God, the real Bible is, of course, all of his creation. That Bible says that evolution is a fact. Those who think, then, that the written Bible could possibly refute Gods own creation, are self deceived fools. God wrote the truth in stone, not on paper. His clay tablets, the stratigraphic record, are there for everybody to see.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Maetryx
A lot of creationists don't dispute speciation, where one super-prototype became speciated (like breeds of dogs). They just simply don't believe that life came from non-life for no cause and just happened to have a built-in capacity to improve against all laws of thermodynamics.

how is any of that against the laws of thermodynmics?

The laws say that no emergy is created - that is simply changed from one form to another; They also say that things neither get better with time, nor stay the same -things degrade.

nik
again, what part of the theory of evolution violates a law of thermodynamics, not your misunderstanding of them?
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Mooney, you really believe all your crap? You are a dope!

99.999% does not and never will equal fact! Chimps have a 98% relationship at best. Rats are what 89%?

There is zero evidence man had an 'ape-like'ancestor. No fossil record or any credible link.

Even today we see thousands of species becoming extinct. We see no new ones. I wonder why?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
61
91
Originally posted by: Tominator
There is zero evidence man had an 'ape-like'ancestor.
Isn't that your purpose on this planet?

Seriously, you may want to consider bacterial resistance to antibiotics as evidence that living organisms adapt and evolve. When attacked by antibiotics, the most resistant are the most likely to survive, and this resistance is passed to later generations of the bacteria.
 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Tominator
There is zero evidence man had an 'ape-like'ancestor.
Isn't that your purpose on this planet?

Seriously, you may want to consider bacterial resistance to antibiotics as evidence that living organisms adapt and evolve. When attacked by antibiotics, the most resistant are the most likely to survive, and this resistance is passed to later generations of the bacteria.


So you are saying that's how we got here? Even scientist admit the earth would need to be many times older than anyone claims for the evolutionary theory you suggest to even be remotely possible.

Mutations are commonplace, but evolution as 'the origion of the species' as taught in public schools is a farce!
 

Pastore

Diamond Member
Feb 9, 2000
9,728
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the theory that explains the fact. Evolution happened. There is no doubt what so ever about that. Scientists are still working out the details about how evolution works. But we know that it did. Some of the supporting facts are these. There are a number of scientific means by which rock can be dated. The older the date the more primitive the life forms. Time therefore created complexity, another word for evolution. Older sediment lies under younger sediment, on average. the farther down a sequence of rock you go, the older the fossils and the more primitive they are. A comparison of fossils with time reveals a branched structure, specialized forms having more general forms back through time. The farther back in time the more similar the appearance of the organisms. The embryo recapitulates its evolutionary history. The obvious physical characteristics of organisms suggest obvious genetic relationships. Horses and donkeys and zebras look related. Humans and chimps look related. Examination of the DNA shows an identical relationship. The rate of genetic drift or change and the period of time it would take to produce the differences between a horse and a donkey or a man and a chimp or a man and a horse correspond to points in the fossil record where you will find species that evolved into both. Common ancestors appear in the fossil record at dates that match genetic differences. These facts multiplied ad infinitum coupled with multitudes of similar and related data yield only one possible rational explanation. Evolution is a fact.

On top of all that, there is really only one group that can't see this obvious fact. That group is Christian Fundamentalists who are afraid that God doesn't exist if there is a tiny misprint in the Bible. These are the people with no faith. God is either like they say He is or he doesn't exist at all. These are the people who think they know better than God does how things got to be how they are. If there is a God, the real Bible is, of course, all of his creation. That Bible says that evolution is a fact. Those who think, then, that the written Bible could possibly refute Gods own creation, are self deceived fools. God wrote the truth in stone, not on paper. His clay tablets, the stratigraphic record, are there for everybody to see.

And all this of course banks on the fact that carbon dating is accurate, and many well respected scientists believe it is not.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Maetryx
A lot of creationists don't dispute speciation, where one super-prototype became speciated (like breeds of dogs). They just simply don't believe that life came from non-life for no cause and just happened to have a built-in capacity to improve against all laws of thermodynamics.

how is any of that against the laws of thermodynmics?

The laws say that no emergy is created - that is simply changed from one form to another; They also say that things neither get better with time, nor stay the same -things degrade.

nik
again, what part of the theory of evolution violates a law of thermodynamics, not your misunderstanding of them?

The 2nd one: Entropy always increases. The universe is moving towards a state of greater disorganization, not less. Evolution, by very definition, implies increasing organization.
And evolution is not "fact" any more than religion (as an example) is fact. Nor can it be proven, any more than religion can be "proven." As has already been stated, it is popular belief that God may have created via evolution and such a belief would not even be contrary to the Bible.
And to those who are completely stupid, it is the LAW of Gravity, not the theory of gravity (somehow this always comes up so I thought I would nip it in the bud in advance).
This debate could go on forever and is senseless. Personally, I consider the evolutionists who think that everyone must believe in evolution as no different than creationists who try to do the same thing. Let people believe what they want.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Maetryx
A lot of creationists don't dispute speciation, where one super-prototype became speciated (like breeds of dogs). They just simply don't believe that life came from non-life for no cause and just happened to have a built-in capacity to improve against all laws of thermodynamics.

how is any of that against the laws of thermodynmics?

The laws say that no emergy is created - that is simply changed from one form to another; They also say that things neither get better with time, nor stay the same -things degrade.

nik
again, what part of the theory of evolution violates a law of thermodynamics, not your misunderstanding of them?

The 2nd one: Entropy always increases. The universe is moving towards a state of greater disorganization, not less. Evolution, by very definition, implies increasing organization.
again, you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. the way you've thought of thermodynamics makes photosynthesis and air conditioning impossible.
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Maetryx
A lot of creationists don't dispute speciation, where one super-prototype became speciated (like breeds of dogs). They just simply don't believe that life came from non-life for no cause and just happened to have a built-in capacity to improve against all laws of thermodynamics.

how is any of that against the laws of thermodynmics?

The laws say that no emergy is created - that is simply changed from one form to another; They also say that things neither get better with time, nor stay the same -things degrade.

nik
again, what part of the theory of evolution violates a law of thermodynamics, not your misunderstanding of them?

The 2nd one: Entropy always increases. The universe is moving towards a state of greater disorganization, not less. Evolution, by very definition, implies increasing organization.
again, you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. the way you've thought of thermodynamics makes photosynthesis and air conditioning impossible.

What, the changing of one form of energy into another?

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
see, the thing is, you can have a few things go up while just about everything else goes down and you'll still have a decreasing total, which is all the law says.
 

oblizue

Senior member
Jan 8, 2002
747
0
0
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

I snagged this from darwinawards, so acknowledgments to that site.

 

oblizue

Senior member
Jan 8, 2002
747
0
0
From talk origins

Creationist arguments are often based on assuming that a scientific theory or law possesses an attribute that it does not, in fact, possess. The creationist thermodynamics argument is a typical example of how this technique is used to twist well established scientific principles into meaningless gibberish. The reader should refer to Chapter III of "Scientific Creationism," edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research for specific details. This chapter can be summed up as follows.


Creationist claims:


1. The second law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. The second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. To do so would violate the universal tendency of matter to decay or disintegrate.

2. Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules. In cases like these, creationists have assigned an attribute that there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change.

3. This energy conversion mechanism is postulated to "overcome" the second law, thus allowing order to spontaneously arise from disorder.

4. Creationists believe that changes requiring human thought and effort, such as constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed, writing a book, etc. are covered by the science of thermodynamics. Creationists believe that a wall will not build itself simply because to do so would violate the laws of thermodynamics. In building the wall, the stonemason overcomes the laws of thermodynamics!

5. In the case of organic change, like seeds growing into trees and chicks developing from eggs, creationists believe that the directed energy conversion mechanism that overcomes the laws of thermodynamics comes from God.



Comments on the above five claims:


1. The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

2. There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.

3. The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

4. Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!


Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.



 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: supesman
dude, just watch the discovery channel or the nat'l geographic channel. They have shows all the time about evolution. The best example would be to show the evolution of man from apes. There are many examples of intermediate species incl the neanderthals so you shouldn't have much to explain.

neaderthals aren't an intermediate species as we did not evolve from them as far as anyone can tell.
according to scientists neaderthals evolved seperately for a long time before they mixed with the homo sapiens, and thanks to the neaderthals we have hotties with red hair
 

klah

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2002
7,070
1
0
Is there a single person in this forum who is not a Christian and does not believe in evolution?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
61
91
Originally posted by: klah
Is there a single person in this forum who is not a Christian and does not believe in evolution?
YES!!!... and proud of it.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: klah
Is there a single person in this forum who is not a Christian and does not believe in evolution?
I don't believe that Evolution is the absolute truth. It's an interesting theory and a hell of a lot more feesible that Creationism or any other origin by a Myth but at best it is just a theory.
 

klah

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2002
7,070
1
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: klah
Is there a single person in this forum who is not a Christian and does not believe in evolution?
YES!!!... and proud of it.

What is your alternative theory?
 

klah

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2002
7,070
1
0
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: klah
Is there a single person in this forum who is not a Christian and does not believe in evolution?

Lots of them. WTF kinda of question is that???

nik
Well it seems so far that the only reasoning we have discounting evolution is based on religious grounds.

 

Pastore

Diamond Member
Feb 9, 2000
9,728
0
76
Originally posted by: klah
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: klah
Is there a single person in this forum who is not a Christian and does not believe in evolution?
YES!!!... and proud of it.

What is your alternative theory?

Does a person have to have an alternative theory? Some people honestly don't give a crap. And their blood pressure is prolly a lot lower than any of ours arguing over it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,300
6,355
126
Beast, actually almost none of it relies on Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 has a very short half life, What, 5000 yrs.? So it is only useful for what, some 80 to 100 thousand years. I'd have to check. There are many problems, contamination, etc, that introduce margins of error into such calculations, but there is no question about the rate of isotopic decay. The age of old rocks is based on radioactive heavy elements like uranium with huge half lives. Any single interpretive test can have a margin of error. What is consistent are the overall results. All the minor uncertainties dissolve in an overarching obvious conclusion. The more similar organisms are the more DNA they have in common and the more recent in the fossil record are their common ancestors. The more different two organisms are the farther back in time one has to search to find organism that branched in two directions. Evolution reveals a coherent tree of life. The elegance of the model is profound. When you see it you say, oh my God, of course. But this cannot happen if there is a commitment not to allow it to.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: klah
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: klah
Is there a single person in this forum who is not a Christian and does not believe in evolution?
YES!!!... and proud of it.

What is your alternative theory?
How about I really don't know and neither does anybody else despite what they may say.

 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,200
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
How can I Prove Evolution?

LOL,my aren't you ambitous ? it would be nice if you or someone could it would shut up the fundamentalists and that would be a good thing

At any rate,I'm more concerned with finding the best place to order sour dough bread starter
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |