How can I Prove Evolution?

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: 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

There is no such thing as a transistional species. Who would decide what is transistional? WE ALL ARE TRANSISTIONAL SPECIES on the timeline of evolution. Evolution means that everything is constantly evolving.

 

[isildur]

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".[/quote]

You have your definitions confused.

An "obervation" is a non-interpretive statement of fact: An object released from unsuspended height will fall to a suspended level.

A "hypothesis" or "theory" is an explanation or a series of explanations attempted to explain an observastion or series of observations: Newton postulated gravitational attraction to explain this observation, which Einstein modified when newer observations didn't jibe.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: 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).

How is what I listed not a species change? I have induced drug resistence by means of selective mutagenesis. I can very easily have the DNA of the original and new strains of bacteria sequenced and show you that a mutation has occured.

Read my post again. I mentioned "the traditional sense" (in layman's terms). I'm well aware that scientifically, evolution is still a theory simply because it is still unexplainable phenomenom. Where the "fact" comes in is that it is a "fact" (traditionally, not scientifically) that evolution exists. I can watch it occur in my lab if there's nothing better for me to do.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Another strange thing with these Creation VS. Evolution threads is that the Creationists (Christian/Religous people) always calls for proof from the Evolutionist side. But the Creationist side doesn't have to prove $hit. They just refer to the magic mystery creature called God.

Now prove that God exists and we can continue.

 

[isildur]

There is no such thing as a transistional species. Who would decide what is transistional? WE ALL ARE TRANSISTIONAL SPECIES on the timeline of evolution. Evolution means that everything is constantly evolving.

This is the most useless post yet. The concept of a "transition species" is a valid one and evolutionary theory dictates that they exist (or should under graduation). It is true though to say that "there is no such thing" insofar as no one has discovered any.

Your flaw here is getting stuck on a distinction that wasn't made except by you - that being that there has to be some kind of definitive, separate niche for a "transition species." What you seem to be getting at is that there WOULDN'T be any clear cut boundaries, since the process should result in a curving arc of development, rather than a stair-step progression marked by clear and distinct jumps.

...of course, since this gradual arc and "smearing" of one group into another has not been observed in any way...

 

[0roo0roo]

creationists always have strange definitions of what constitutes transitional

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: 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

There is no such thing as a transistional species. Who would decide what is transistional? WE ALL ARE TRANSISTIONAL SPECIES on the timeline of evolution. Evolution means that everything is constantly evolving.

You didn't really think that post out very well. Look at my reference to a number line. Think about it for a while, let the thoughts sink in, then get back to me.

 

[isildur]

How is what I listed not a species change? I have induced drug resistence by means of selective mutagenesis. I can very easily have the DNA of the original and new strains of bacteria sequenced and show you that a mutation has occured.

Read my post again. I mentioned "the traditional sense" (in layman's terms). I'm well aware that scientifically, evolution is still a theory simply because it is still unexplainable phenomenom. Where the "fact" comes in is that it is a "fact" (traditionally, not scientifically) that evolution exists. I can watch it occur in my lab if there's nothing better for me to do.

Its not a species change b/c using either definition for "species" they are still the same (since both really depend on reproductive isolation in one way or another). Would you consider an albino individual a different species? Or one with a congenitive disorder due to genetic resessives? Of course not. Granted, the "species" definition is somewhat "soft," but the a singular genetic mutation does not a new species make.

 

[XZeroII]

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

Hate to burst your bubble, but you still have E. Coli. Just because it is not resistant to some sort of chemical that it wasn't before does not mean that it evolved into a completely new species. I don't think ANYONE could argue that what you are saying isn't true, it just isn't relevant to the discussion. For your logic, I could claim that anything unexplained by science is caused by God just because I had a dream and God told me so. I have proof...my dream. But does that REALLY mean anything? No. My point is that you want to prove that evolution occurs because some E. Coli adapts to it's environment. PROOF!!! Well, I have proof that God exists. He appeared in a dream. He appeared in other people's dreams as well which means that it is reproducable. You just can't directly prove my way because the technology doesn't exist yet to measure what I'm telling you. Just like technology doesn't exist yet to actually PROVE macro-evolution.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
creationists always have strange definitions of what constitutes transitional

And for the record... I'm NOT a creationist. I was just pointing out the evident flaws in the current theory of evolution. I have faith that scientist will be able to fill in the holes though. I do have a hard time believing that everything came from nothing though.

 

[isildur]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
creationists always have strange definitions of what constitutes transitional

ad hominem

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: isildur

There is no such thing as a transistional species. Who would decide what is transistional? WE ALL ARE TRANSISTIONAL SPECIES on the timeline of evolution. Evolution means that everything is constantly evolving.

This is the most useless post yet. The concept of a "transition species" is a valid one and evolutionary theory dictates that they exist (or should under graduation). It is true though to say that "there is no such thing" insofar as no one has discovered any.

Your flaw here is getting stuck on a distinction that wasn't made except by you - that being that there has to be some kind of definitive, separate niche for a "transition species." What you seem to be getting at is that there WOULDN'T be any clear cut boundaries, since the process should result in a curving arc of development, rather than a stair-step progression marked by clear and distinct jumps.

...of course, since this gradual arc and "smearing" of one group into another has not been observed in any way...

A so called transistional species is actually a game of words. They would be transistional because you defined the starting and ending point of an evolution (primates ---> humans) and therefore everything in between would be transistional.
Now fast forward 100000 years into the furute and we have the evolution of; primates ---> humans ---> future humans.
In this case we, the humans or homo sapiens would be a transistional species. And I do belive that the we will evolve and change slightly in that timeframe. People from the rich western world will probably evolve into a different species because we eat so much fatty and unhealthy food LOL!

I wouldn't call the post useless because it all depends how we define the words we use.

 

[isildur]

Hate to burst your bubble, but you still have E. Coli. Just because it is not resistant to some sort of chemical that it wasn't before does not mean that it evolved into a completely new species. I don't think ANYONE could argue that what you are saying isn't true, it just isn't relevant to the discussion. For your logic, I could claim that anything unexplained by science is caused by God just because I had a dream and God told me so. I have proof...my dream. But does that REALLY mean anything? No. My point is that you want to prove that evolution occurs because some E. Coli adapts to it's environment. PROOF!!! Well, I have proof that God exists. He appeared in a dream. He appeared in other people's dreams as well which means that it is reproducable. You just can't directly prove my way because the technology doesn't exist yet to measure what I'm telling you. Just like technology doesn't exist yet to actually PROVE macro-evolution.

lol

not very elegantly put, but essentially this is my point as well.

Strictly speaking, science employs certain methodologies and certain terms to make observations, generate theories to explain them and then put those theories through the wringer to see if they hold up. By definition and by necessity, certain "claims" or "theories" in a broad sense simply cannot be examined in this regard. Some of the critical portions of macro-evolution are of this sort. So are just about _all_ metaphysical claims.

<shrug>

This doesn't mean either are necessarily "untrue," merely that they cannot be scientifically examined.

- Nobody disputes the adaptation of organisms - however, macro-evolution makes much more grandious claims that are advocated as "fact" which:
a - cannot be scientifically evaluated
b - have significant scientific evidence to the contrary

These two thing should give us pause, and DO give many scientists pause, in extending a blanket acceptance of these claims.

Again, theoretical revision may come to account for these contrary evidences - such is the nature of the process - but we should really maintain a more healthy perspective of scientific skepticism in the face of these objections.

 

[isildur]

[qA so called transistional species is actually a game of words. They would be transistional because you defined the starting and ending point of an evolution (primates ---> humans) and therefore everything in between would be transistional.
Now fast forward 100000 years into the furute and we have the evolution of; primates ---> humans ---> future humans.
In this case we, the humans or homo sapiens would be a transistional species. And I do belive that the we will evolve and change slightly in that timeframe. People from the rich western world will probably evolve into a different species because we eat so much fatty and unhealthy food LOL!

I wouldn't call the post useless because it all depends how we define the words we use.[/quote]

Well, I agree and disagree now, as I did in my post. You addressed the same ontological problem that I mentioned, but not the substance of my objection. The problem with the fossil record is that there are NO CONNECTING LINES of ANY SORT between current observed species. We CANNOT empiraclly connect "pimates ----> current humans" in the way that Nova and the natural channel suggest in their prgramming that educates on the 4th grade level of oversimplification.

At THIS point, we are no longer talking about semantics. Macro-evolution DEMANDS that there be an unbroken chain of organisms linking us to every other species on the planet. We CANNOT substantiate this claim IN ANY WAY from the fossil record. We have found a few pieces that we think MIGHT fit in to the chain, but the links are few and far between.

(that is, graduation demands this - puntuated equilibirum is the current rage and, though it explains these gaps, it has no naturalistic explanation for its occurance...a strange characteristic for a scientific theory, that)

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

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

Hate to burst your bubble, but you still have E. Coli. Just because it is not resistant to some sort of chemical that it wasn't before does not mean that it evolved into a completely new species. I don't think ANYONE could argue that what you are saying isn't true, it just isn't relevant to the discussion. For your logic, I could claim that anything unexplained by science is caused by God just because I had a dream and God told me so. I have proof...my dream. But does that REALLY mean anything? No. My point is that you want to prove that evolution occurs because some E. Coli adapts to it's environment. PROOF!!! Well, I have proof that God exists. He appeared in a dream. He appeared in other people's dreams as well which means that it is reproducable. You just can't directly prove my way because the technology doesn't exist yet to measure what I'm telling you. Just like technology doesn't exist yet to actually PROVE macro-evolution.

Um...hate to burst your bubble, but I do have proof in DNA. Unlike your "God" reference, I can have anyone reproduce the same phenomenon by following the same protocol. And DNA sequencing will show that selective mutations have occured.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: isildur

How is what I listed not a species change? I have induced drug resistence by means of selective mutagenesis. I can very easily have the DNA of the original and new strains of bacteria sequenced and show you that a mutation has occured.

Read my post again. I mentioned "the traditional sense" (in layman's terms). I'm well aware that scientifically, evolution is still a theory simply because it is still unexplainable phenomenom. Where the "fact" comes in is that it is a "fact" (traditionally, not scientifically) that evolution exists. I can watch it occur in my lab if there's nothing better for me to do.

Its not a species change b/c using either definition for "species" they are still the same (since both really depend on reproductive isolation in one way or another). Would you consider an albino individual a different species? Or one with a congenitive disorder due to genetic resessives? Of course not. Granted, the "species" definition is somewhat "soft," but the a singular genetic mutation does not a new species make.

True, but I can just as easily use yeast (which can mate) in this example and screen for amino acid production.

Granted, this is more microevolution than macroevolution, but it is evolution none the less.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Well, this thread PROVES that you can't PROVE a damn thing to someone who isn't willing to seperate faith-based beliefs from empirical-based beliefs.

 

[isildur]

True, but I can just as easily use yeast (which can mate) in this example and screen for amino acid production.

Granted, this is more microevolution than macroevolution, but it is evolution none the less.

And thus we are in agreement - the adaptation you describe is certainly micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution is the component of the theory that seems to have the issues, and my objection is the blanket acceptance of both, and the insistence that one is "fact" b/c the other appears sound.

 

[isildur]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
Well, this thread PROVES that you can't PROVE a damn thing to someone who isn't willing to seperate faith-based beliefs from empirical-based beliefs.

physician heal thyself

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: isildur

True, but I can just as easily use yeast (which can mate) in this example and screen for amino acid production.

Granted, this is more microevolution than macroevolution, but it is evolution none the less.

And thus we are in agreement - the adaptation you describe is certainly micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution is the component of the theory that seems to have the issues, and my objection is the blanket acceptance of both, and the insistence that one is "fact" b/c the other appears sound.

And macro-evolution is made up of millions of micro-evolutions....

 

[isildur]

And macro-evolution is made up of millions of micro-evolutions....

Thus goes the theory, which cannot be empirically established, which has evidence to the contrary, and teh abandonment of which is advocated by some in the paleontalogical community.

("More is at stake here than the reality of species, however. If species sorting is real, then the processes operating on the level of species (macroevolutionary processes) are not necessarily the same as those operating on the level of individuals and populations (microevolutionary processes). In other words, macroevolution may not just be microevolution scaled up. After decades of experiments on fruit flies, the most interesting evolutionary phenomena might only be studied in the fossil record, or in the embryology lab. With publications, prestige, and grant money on the line, the traditional research community of evolutionary biologists do not want to find themselves suddenly irrelevant to the most interesting issues in macroevolution. On the other hand, paleontologists have begun to shed their subservience to evolutionary biology (Gould, 1983), and assert the importance of the fossil record for detecting phenomena that are too large in scale for biologists to observe (Gould, 1982a, 1982b, 1985; Eldredge, 1985b). Clearly, all of evolutionary biology is undergoing ferment and change. To the paraphrase the old Chinese proverb, we indeed live in interesting times.")

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: isildur

True, but I can just as easily use yeast (which can mate) in this example and screen for amino acid production.

Granted, this is more microevolution than macroevolution, but it is evolution none the less.

And thus we are in agreement - the adaptation you describe is certainly micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution is the component of the theory that seems to have the issues, and my objection is the blanket acceptance of both, and the insistence that one is "fact" b/c the other appears sound.

And macro-evolution is made up of millions of micro-evolutions....

touche

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: isildur

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
Well, this thread PROVES that you can't PROVE a damn thing to someone who isn't willing to seperate faith-based beliefs from empirical-based beliefs.

physician heal thyself

hehe, nice deflection.

 

[isildur]

Originally posted by: McPhreak

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: isildur

True, but I can just as easily use yeast (which can mate) in this example and screen for amino acid production.

Granted, this is more microevolution than macroevolution, but it is evolution none the less.

And thus we are in agreement - the adaptation you describe is certainly micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution is the component of the theory that seems to have the issues, and my objection is the blanket acceptance of both, and the insistence that one is "fact" b/c the other appears sound.

And macro-evolution is made up of millions of micro-evolutions....

touche

eeexxxxcccept that macro-evolution has legitmate scientific evidence controverting its claims...

 

[isildur]

Hey, don't get me wrong - my problem here is abandoning skepticism (the heart of science) and closing the book on an issue. If there are questions about the claims and/or holes in the evidence (which there are), how can we call this issue settled?

Really, how can science ever call any issue settled?
Dogmatism MUST be absent from scientific pursuit.

<shrug>

The debate (when really a "debate") is healthy, interesting, and good excersize for the gray matter.
"Keep an open mind" is good advise all around - we just need to make sure we are doing it ourselves before we participate.

The LAST thing we want to be teaching our kids or anyone in a scientific field is to stop asking questions and just "accept it as fact."

What if Einstein had?
Columbus?
Galileo?
Copernicus?
Darwin?
Gould?

So who knows what could happen if YOU do.