How can I Prove Evolution?

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Beast1284

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.

Carbon dating can not be accurate to within a few years. The accuracy can be accurat to a few thousand years.
The decline of C14 is a fact but the method is tedious and cleanliness is an absolut must.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Tominator

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!

Werd. Didn't a scientist prove that life could not be created from Non existance? Was it Pasteur?

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Tominator

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!

Werd. Didn't a scientist prove that life could not be created from Non existance? Was it Pasteur?

Since when is Pasteur a modern scientist?

 

[0roo0roo]

Werd. Didn't a scientist prove that life could not be created from Non existance? Was it Pasteur?

some scientist proved god didn't exist?

 

[tfbit]

Originally posted by: baffled2

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Damn, baffled, I could have given you mine. But my Dad started it so long ago that just recently, when I opened the frig, it got up and walked away.

Darn you Cailifornians !! everybody who bakes is on the hunt to answer the eterrnal question, just where in Cali is the BEST Sourdough starter found?

It's like the hunt for the Holy Grail, lol, I dunno about Christ but my bread dough will sure rise again

I don't know much about CA except that everytime I have ever had a stop in SF, I grabbed a couple of loaves of sourdough at the airport. I will tell you that the best sourdough rolls I have ever had are from a restaurant in Corvallis Oregon named Michael's Landing.

Michael's Landing

If you happen to see this Maetryx, me and the wife are 3 months pregnant with twins (supposedly identical). Watch out world...

 

[McPhreak]

I can watch evolution occur in about 2 days.

1) Plate some E. Coli onto a dish and grow some colonies.
2) Pick one colony and replica plate it onto a plate with some ampicillin.
3) Watch all the E. Coli on the amp plate die
4) Grow that same picked colony in a 10 liter flask of non-selective media.
5) Slowly add ampicillin to the media over time.
6) Watch as ampicillin resistent E. Coli begin to grow
7) Ta-da! Evolution at it's finest

 

[ElFenix]

even if you could disprove darwin's theory of evolution that doesn't mean creationism is correct anyway.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: Beast1284
They just assume what they heard from their 8th grade Bio teacher is 100% truth...

An odd complaint considering creationists "just assume what they heard from their 8th grade Sunday school teaher is 100% truth". Sounds like "faith" to me, which is supposed to be a virtue...

Anyway, Moonbeam has it right. The evidence for evolution is very compelling, to the point being treatable as a "fact". The proposed driving forces behind evolution (e.g. survival of fittest, etc.) are scientific speculations, and therefore only "theories".

Of course, all scientific "facts" are constantly up for review and modification over time as new evidence is found (e.g. Newton's Laws of Motion being modified by Einstien's Relativity, which in turn may be modified by ???). And that's precisely what makes it science.

The converse of scientific "facts" are the faith-based beliefs, like those based on biblical interpretations. If your father's beliefs have a religious base, then there's no scientific evidence that likely to change his views.

 

[Fixxors]

kill a stupid person

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: edro13
How can I Prove Evolution?

This sums it up RIGHT HERE

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: klah
Beast1248
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.

Red Dawn
How about I really don't know and neither does anybody else despite what they may say.


So the only theories are God and Evolution then?

This is a personal favorite, as it was the first thing I EVER came across on the internet.
Here you go.

 

[0roo0roo]

what?

and more...

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: Tominator

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!

Evolution is the result of many many mutations. Some are good and they survive, some are bad and will die out.
Evolution and Mutation is closely connected. In fact without mutations there would be no evolution. Everything would stay the same forever. So when you say mutations is commonplace, you've actually accepted evolution.
Now the only thing left before you understand how evolution works is to see how the common mutation will affect a species during hundreds of thousands of years.

Many scientist will disput that. We have never seen a mutation that was a benefit. I'm talking of animals. Not one. In fact mutation most likely leads to extinction.

And you are saying if only one part of the puzzle is found, the whole picture is evident

To believe in the theory of evolution takes a lot of faith!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: Tominator

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!

Evolution is the result of many many mutations. Some are good and they survive, some are bad and will die out.
Evolution and Mutation is closely connected. In fact without mutations there would be no evolution. Everything would stay the same forever. So when you say mutations is commonplace, you've actually accepted evolution.
Now the only thing left before you understand how evolution works is to see how the common mutation will affect a species during hundreds of thousands of years.

Many scientist will disput that. We have never seen a mutation that was a benefit. I'm talking of animals. Not one. In fact mutation most likely leads to extinction.

And you are saying if only one part of the puzzle is found, the whole picture is evident

To believe in the theory of evolution takes a lot of faith!

you mean like how sickle cell protects against maleria?


its not one part, but a ton of parts pointing to one probable conclusion.


how long have we even been looking, ah yes, a miniscule length in evolutionary time.

not to mention humans complicate things with social evolution.

 

[Tominator]

its not one part, but a ton of parts pointing to one probable conclusion.

In other words, it's FAITH that gives your belief it's credence.

Btw, I edited my post. The part you missed is not BOLD!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Tominator

its not one part, but a ton of parts pointing to one probable conclusion.

In other words, it's FAITH that gives your belief it's credence.

Btw, I edited my post. The part you missed is not BOLD!

bold? we're not animals? no point anyways because we're talking evolutionary time scales.

whats your point. i have faith that i'm really made out of atoms too. all things point to it, but am i really really sure its not an illusion? maybe i'm just a simulation in a complex computer and all my laws of physics are false. whats an atom made of? other small doodads oh yea, but what do we know about em, not all that much. toss out atomic theory, too much faith involved. whats your point. you can make the arguement tat nothing is certain. ignoring evidence is a bit stupid though.


whats the problem? the people arguing against evolution don't even have the slightest credible alternative. not to mention their arguements are generally dishonest anyways. bring up a good alternative and that will be great for science, but thats not the agenda driving certain people.

 

[glenn1]

even if you could disprove darwin's theory of evolution that doesn't mean creationism is correct anyway.

And vice versa.

I'm not sure what level of "proof" you're talking about. If it's proof in mathematical/logic sense (a "perfect proof") what you're asking for is impossible. If you're asking for a legal proof (an argument that would convince an unbiased jury beyond reasonable doubt) i think you'd have a resounding conviction on the count of microevolution, a hung jury macroevolution, and would lose on abiogenesis. Just my $0.02.

 

[B00ne]

here we go again.

U cannot prove a scientific theory, u can only have it make certain predictions and then look if theses predictions are observed.
A scientific theory has to be falsifiable though.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Beast1284

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.

What Moonbeam wrote there is well thaught out. Many ppl here dont seem to know (or dont want to) how science works what a theory is. Carbon dating is as accurate as the assumptions that are necessary to make. I have naver heard that carbon dating is not accurate in general - for the timeframes regarded and the purposes it is used for it is accurate enough to my knowledge. I only hear american religious extremists claim these things.

BTW Evolution itself still wouldnt contrast Christian belief and even the Pope has accepted it...

But I have hard time understanding ppl that use religion for explaining their origin and science rather than spiritiual and balm for the soul

 

[bGIveNs33]

First of all... when Darwin created his theory of evolution, he expected to find more transistional species. That just hasn't happened yet. There should be 1000's more transistional fossils than normal fossils. Look at a number line between 1 and 10. There are only 10 whole numbers(normal species) but an infinite number in between. 2nd of all... Carbon dating can't date anything that wasn't organic. I have seen that argued at least 10 times in the past week. Every creationist here has to admit that evolution does have a considerable amount of scientific data backing them up. They still have lots of holes to fill, but thats why its only a theory. Finally, what if God used evolution as a paintbrush for his creation, and the story in the Bible is just the story of the Jews???

-Billy

 

[isildur]

The core of evolutionary claims (meaning the development of new, varient species from old) cannot be observed, recreated or tested - thus it cannot be "proven" scientifically. The best scenario you could hope for would be to find a pervasive and comprehensive patter of transition species in the fossil record - something paleontologists have either yet to discover (unlikely) or does not exist. All the other branches of science can find evidences that are consistent with the predictions of evolution, but since they also can be used to support other hypothesis, they are just circumstancial bits of data and cannot reasonably be considered "proofs" in any scientific sense (i.e. to be a meaningful evidence of "proof," the observation MUST be one that can be accounted for ONLY by one hypothesis).

<shrug>

Of course, none of this deals with the fact that, since the notion of gradual special change has been exploded, current neo-Darwinian theory only lives on through the revision of "punctuated equilibrium" - which dictates that given species exist for very long periods of time with little to no siginificant change and then are suddenly and widely replaced by an entirely new set of species with no warning, no connection and for no currently known reason.

:-\

Add to that the fact that, for Darwin's evolution, or even for neo-Darwinian evolution, to really operate, it requires a time-frame that astronomers no longer believe reasonable. It was originally thought that the universe was unlimited and infinite - since it is NOT (it is expanding - that which expands cannot by definition be infinite and must by necessity have had a point of origin), the theories are having difficulty adapting to the shorter timeframe.

Of course, none of these deals with the issues of the Big Band theory, which predicates the suddenly explosion of everything from nothing (in the absolute sense) for no known reason and occuring by a means that violates all the known and observed laws of physics in our universe.

Soooo, why is it your dad has trouble with conceptualizing these theories? B/c they are no where near as simple or clear cut as Nova or your local high school/college instructors would have you believe.

Does this mean they are totally off? Not necessarily - but don't sell out to ANY notion as "obvious" or "given" without being willing to face the hard questions or think critically about the answer.

 

[isildur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Of course we know. Evolution is a proven fact. You're just a bit behind on what it means to think rationally. Nobody is guessing about evolution. It's as plain as day all around. We can watch DNA divide. We know what kinds of mistakes get made. We see variability, we know that every lifing thing came from some other living thing. We know the earth is ancient and that simple life came before complex life. It's as obvious as 2 + 2. Evolution is a fact. Get over it. The likelyhood that evolution is wrong is on the order of 2 does not equal 2. You can't claim to posess reason, when you see the evidence, and deny what you see.

This is simply incorrect.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: McPhreak
I can watch evolution occur in about 2 days.

1) Plate some E. Coli onto a dish and grow some colonies.
2) Pick one colony and replica plate it onto a plate with some ampicillin.
3) Watch all the E. Coli on the amp plate die
4) Grow that same picked colony in a 10 liter flask of non-selective media.
5) Slowly add ampicillin to the media over time.
6) Watch as ampicillin resistent E. Coli begin to grow
7) Ta-da! Evolution at it's finest

I guess some people just decided to ignore my proof that evolution exists and continue on with their ramblings, but oh well...

As Moonbeam stated, the "Theory" of evolution is not a theory in a traditional sense. It is a fact. Evolution exists. As just one example I showed above, we have a whole slew of definitive proof that a species can change/evolve due to environmental pressure (survival of the fittest if you will) placed upon a population. Where the "theory" part comes in is that we don't understand how this mechanism of evolution and environmental pressure works. Think of it like salmon who return to the rivers where the spawned to breed. We know for a fact that this happens, but it has yet to be explained how it happens. Hence, it could be considered a "theory".

 

[isildur]

Carbon dating can not be accurate to within a few years. The accuracy can be accurat to a few thousand years.
The decline of C14 is a fact but the method is tedious and cleanliness is an absolut must.[/quote]

and it also assumes a constant carbon environment - check out the records of the problems they had baselining carbon dating until they adopted their methods to account for the sudden increase of carbon in the atmosphere due to the industrial revolution - should there be one single such episode anywhere in the past for any reason that we haven't accounted for, all the dates we've calculated are way off.

<shrug>

still, its all we've got at the moment.

 

[isildur]

Originally posted by: McPhreak

Originally posted by: McPhreak
I can watch evolution occur in about 2 days.

1) Plate some E. Coli onto a dish and grow some colonies.
2) Pick one colony and replica plate it onto a plate with some ampicillin.
3) Watch all the E. Coli on the amp plate die
4) Grow that same picked colony in a 10 liter flask of non-selective media.
5) Slowly add ampicillin to the media over time.
6) Watch as ampicillin resistent E. Coli begin to grow
7) Ta-da! Evolution at it's finest

I guess some people just decided to ignore my proof that evolution exists and continue on with their ramblings, but oh well...

As Moonbeam stated, the "Theory" of evolution is not a theory in a traditional sense. It is a fact. Evolution exists. As just one example I showed above, we have a whole slew of definitive proof that a species can change/evolve due to environmental pressure (survival of the fittest if you will) placed upon a population. Where the "theory" part comes in is that we don't understand how this mechanism of evolution and environmental pressure works. Think of it like salmon who return to the rivers where the spawned to breed. We know for a fact that this happens, but it has yet to be explained how it happens. Hence, it could be considered a "theory".

The second you call evolution a "fact" you abandon the scientific theory. What is listed above is not a species change. The "fact" mentality is one that MUST not exist in a scientific consideration or in the scientific community. The ONLY things that can be considered "facts" are observations.

The terminology here can get confusing. Yes, the progression listed above is a part of what evolutionary theory explains, but not nearly all and not at all what is disputed about it.

This is a DEBATE and a CONTINUING ONE. If it weren't, the leading evolutionary theorists in our day would not be revising the theory in an effort to bring it into line with modern OBSERVATIONS (the lack of transition species, the accepted theory that the universe is not infinite, etc).