How can I Prove Evolution?

[Trevelyan]

Just my input:

Most scientists agree today that humans as a whole have removed themselves from the "nature", so to speak. Basically, scientists concur that humans rule the world as dominant, and thus, we have no need to evolve since we are not in an environment that is causing us harm.

So saying that we will evolve into some "super human" is not correct, since we don't know whether some huge catastrophe will destroy 90% of the human population and force the rest to adapt-- not yet, anyways

For you guys who defend evolution and ask why creationists & religious people don't defend their beliefs while you have to: Basically, creationism lies in the belief in a supernatural, and uncomprehendable God that dominates everything in the universe, existing outside of our perception of reality and is thus, not understood in any large way by man. So, it is very hard, and nearly IMPOSSIBLE to logically convey beliefs to those who do not believe. I can understand your frustration, however. It kind of sucks to scientifically defend your views and then have a Christian come along and tell you you're wrong without defending his views.

BUT, keep in mind, in just the same light... say you are a Christian and someone comes along totally blasting your views, basing what he says on the fact that you can't prove your "religious" and "unscientific" views in a logical way. It would piss you off... Just because humans can't comprehend a supernatural being existing outside of our reality, does that make your belief wrong? Sure, it is nearly impossible to prove, if not impossible. So what are you supposed to do? Abandon it? Change your beliefs simply because you can't prove them using methods outlined by humans who cannot possibly comprehend supernatural occurences?

It's a continuing debate, and since no one actually knows what happened, we shouldn't say evolution, or creationism is wrong. That doesn't, however, say that you shouldn't defend what you believe and stick with it, no matter what anybody says... BUT, people need to keep an open mind. Evolution and Creation can indeed, be linked... very easily in my opinion.... BUT, in the same respect, if someone comes up to me taughting a pentagram and tells me that all Christians are "fundamentalist freaks"... I just might have to kick his ars

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
A new thread about Creationism is started.

I call all Creationists to present evidence.

But all your so-called evidence leads to a dead end where even scientist cannot agree.

I call all evolutionist to face the facts! There are none!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
A new thread about Creationism is started.

I call all Creationists to present evidence.

But all your so-called evidence leads to a dead end where even scientist cannot agree.

I call all evolutionist to face the facts! There are none!

only because there are facts you are unwilling to accept since they don't fit your religious views there are no facts in science? yea.. right. science changes when new evidence is revealed, yet you make that out to be a weakness.

evolution is both fact and thoery. get over it. twist that definition to suit your silly arguements, because thats all you can do really

well besides going with the idea that all things are unknowable. but i wouldn't trust you to honestly apply that to all things


theres no grand conspiracy by scientists to push a lie. thats the job of creationists.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's really quite simple. Either one very nit picky interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or the rocks of the earth are wrong. It doesn't take an unbiased mind long to figure out that one. You know, I think the entire geology of the planet is a forgery. Yeah, right.

 

[petrek]

?Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.? Isaish 43:10-12

 

[Moonbeam]

And exactly what does that have to do with evolution, petrek?

 

[0roo0roo]

somewhat relevant. tommrow at 8pm.

Nova
Galileo's Battle for the Heavens
120 min.
Science and religion clash in an absorbing chronicle of Galileo's quarter-century struggle to convince the Roman Catholic Church that Earth revolves around the sun. Why the headstrong Galileo (1564-1642) failed is explored in interviews with scientists (one of whom, astronomer Guy Consolmagno, is a Jesuit brother) and dramatizations that feature Simon Callow as Galileo. The program is based on ?Galileo's Daughter,? the 1999 bestseller by Dava Sobel, who points to a sad irony: Galileo was a believer who, she notes, ?said the Bible was the word of God. He just didn't think it was a good astronomy textbook.? Liev Schreiber narrates. (VCR Plus+ 31368)

 

[p0ntif]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Just my input:

Most scientists agree today that humans as a whole have removed themselves from the "nature", so to speak. Basically, scientists concur that humans rule the world as dominant, and thus, we have no need to evolve since we are not in an environment that is causing us harm.

So saying that we will evolve into some "super human" is not correct, since we don't know whether some huge catastrophe will destroy 90% of the human population and force the rest to adapt-- not yet, anyways

Regardless, it is a mistake to associate evolution with 'better' or more specifially 'super.' Hell if we were to adapt to our environment, then perhaps we'd loose all pigment and limbs, resulting in a form that rests on a couch comfortably. It's adaption, which does not equate to improvement. But i digress. Isildur is not just playing with semantics. He is in fact making very logical and well thought out arguments (which, frankly, is nice to see amongst a lot of the mess that contaminates this thread). I would like to state for the record though that I do believe in evolution. However, I would also like to state that it is a 'belief' as has been said before, there is no proof for Macro Evolution. I'm on my last year of my PhD research regarding HIV pathology, and when it comes to microevolution . . . very few things compare to the viral swarm As far as debating that evolution on the Macro scale is a fact, without observations, there is no fact, only theory. And i understand where Moonbeam is comming from. Evolution at the very least does seem to stem from scientific evidence. It certainly is more appealing in 'connecting the dots' than traditional religious faith. However, upon closer scrutiny, macro evolution is still problematic, but should not be ruled out, and therefore remains a theory but NOT FACT.

 

[Moonbeam]

NOT FACT? Why? You have sexually reproducing organisms that always have fathers and mothers and a fossile record with all the more complex forms appearing later and later in the record. There is no escape from the implication. It's an iron clad case. There is no other explanation. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory about evolution. Evolution itself is a fact. Observations are of many kinds. You do not need to see a watchmaker to know who made a watch. You don't need to see evolution to know that organisms roproducing selually millions of years ago before the appearance of complex lifeforms or animals on land were the fathers and mothers of all modern lifing things and responsible too for all the fossils in between that chart that slow change.

 

[SleeplessHeart]

Once I heard from a conservative Christian that man-is-eternally-damned-theory which practically says it's God who has created us and only God can save us. I giggled not because of my disrespect but rather of his belief that man will ever be His pet. Should we ignore that in every step we take in our lives, we're constantly evolving in many aspects of our life. Should we ignore that in search of our origin, it's not about getting the supposedly "right" answer but rather, asking the right question in the first place. To say that man isn't evolving is to say that man can not solve his own problem. To say that man should live up to His expectation is to say that man is in vain. Take a look around, is it God loosing touch with us? Is He hiding behind His ambigous words? Or is He truly our savior? Before we implore answers for those questions, maybe we should take a step back and ask ourselves, is God our own creation?

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: p0ntif

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Just my input:

Most scientists agree today that humans as a whole have removed themselves from the "nature", so to speak. Basically, scientists concur that humans rule the world as dominant, and thus, we have no need to evolve since we are not in an environment that is causing us harm.

So saying that we will evolve into some "super human" is not correct, since we don't know whether some huge catastrophe will destroy 90% of the human population and force the rest to adapt-- not yet, anyways

Regardless, it is a mistake to associate evolution with 'better' or more specifially 'super.' Hell if we were to adapt to our environment, then perhaps we'd loose all pigment and limbs, resulting in a form that rests on a couch comfortably. It's adaption, which does not equate to improvement. But i digress. Isildur is not just playing with semantics. He is in fact making very logical and well thought out arguments (which, frankly, is nice to see amongst a lot of the mess that contaminates this thread). I would like to state for the record though that I do believe in evolution. However, I would also like to state that it is a 'belief' as has been said before, there is no proof for Macro Evolution. I'm on my last year of my PhD research regarding HIV pathology, and when it comes to microevolution . . . very few things compare to the viral swarm As far as debating that evolution on the Macro scale is a fact, without observations, there is no fact, only theory. And i understand where Moonbeam is comming from. Evolution at the very least does seem to stem from scientific evidence. It certainly is more appealing in 'connecting the dots' than traditional religious faith. However, upon closer scrutiny, macro evolution is still problematic, but should not be ruled out, and therefore remains a theory but NOT FACT.

I can completely agree with your statement.

However, like science and it's diverse theories, many of 'faith' do not take the adaptation of the Bible by some religions as fact. We all do not completely exclude some type of evolution as possible. Be careful when you group us together as 'traditional.'

Btw, Moonbeam, there are no fossil records that show changes that indicate evolution that can be followed. You are assuming you cannot be wrong. That's not science, but faith!

I've only disputed evolution as the origin of the species.

more complex forms appearing later and later in the record. There is no escape from the implication.

Man was not created until the sixth day. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to God.

 

[Athlon4all]

Originally posted by: petrek
?Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.? Isaish 43:10-12

Amen brother!!! What does this have to do with Evolution? Well its saying that those that believe in the true infallible word of God are to be witnesses of it to the whole world!!!!

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's really quite simple. Either one very nit picky interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or the rocks of the earth are wrong. It doesn't take an unbiased mind long to figure out that one. You know, I think the entire geology of the planet is a forgery. Yeah, right.

I beleive this is the first time we have agreed. It really does come down to this choice.

 

[Anubis]

common sence

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Been hanging back a bit on this.

One simple question- What do YOU edro mean by "prove"?

Everything is a belief, but at what point does your belief turn into a fact? This is a more general question. Fact- The world is flat. Why do I say that? Because the "evidence" of the day suggested that. Now we can see the world, and now the fact is that the world is round. Of course this assumes I believe the evidence of my senses. I have to, or I cannot go any further. If I live in a Matrix, then all bets are off. I choose not to believe that.

No one has seen evolution. Selection, yes, but evolution no. Do I believe in evolution? Yes, because the evidence suggests it to be . Could there be directed evolution? Of course, but I have no means of access to that information. I choose to use Occams razor for this. What I also choose to remember is that a razor is a nice tool with which to slit ones throat.

 

[FrozenYak]

This thread is still goin eh?
Anyway, just thought id say there is plenty of evidence for the creationist point of view, its just discussed so less frequently than evolutionism. I remember watching a video long ago all about it. Now I cant remember most of the points but they way in which the Bible says the world is created and formed can all be proven. Even many scientists admit that at one time or another in the earths history there was a giant flood.

There was a book that was very helpful called (i think) "Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter" if anyones interested

I found a web site that i think is the same as the book.
http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hdertoc.htm

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: FrozenYak
This thread is still goin eh?
Anyway, just thought id say there is plenty of evidence for the creationist point of view, its just discussed so less frequently than evolutionism. I remember watching a video long ago all about it. Now I cant remember most of the points but they way in which the Bible says the world is created and formed can all be proven. Even many scientists admit that at one time or another in the earths history there was a giant flood.

There was a book that was very helpful called (i think) "Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter" if anyones interested

I found a web site that i think is the same as the book.
http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hdertoc.htm

just one of many of the inaccuracies in the handy dandy creationist pseudoscience handbook

Robert Kofahl's Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter and Wallace Johnson's book Evolution? both use the following quote (Johnson only has the second clause):

"Not many (if any) [fossil hominids] have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast." (John Reader, Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?, New Scientist, March 26 1981, p.805)
It sounds as if Reader is saying that most, if not all, fossil hominids have been discredited. But the previous sentence was:
"Australopithecus afarensis is the latest fossil hominid to be thrust before the public as the oldest evidence of mankind's existence. Not many (if any) have held the stage for long; ..."
With the full context, it is clear that Reader was not saying that all fossil hominids have been debunked; he is referring only to their claimed status as the oldest evidence of human evolution. In fact, Reader's article explicitly says that H. erectus is still considered to be a human ancestor.

 

[Athlon4all]

Actually, there's all the evidence in the world on Creation, in the Bible. Truth is, any of the "scientific" evidence will always be made to fit ones personal bias.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Athlon4all
Actually, there's all the evidence in the world on Creation, in the Bible. Truth is, any of the "scientific" evidence will always be made to fit ones personal bias.

As opposed to "evidence" gleaned from an arguably fictional book?

 

[p0ntif]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
NOT FACT? Why? You have sexually reproducing organisms that always have fathers and mothers and a fossile record with all the more complex forms appearing later and later in the record. There is no escape from the implication. It's an iron clad case. There is no other explanation. Evolution is a fact.

This is simply wrong as isildur had pointed out earlier. What Isildur was trying to convey that was probably to subtle or was lost is that there are skips in your logic. You make leaps in logic to the point that the argument simply does not follow. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are trying to say, but it is not a logical argument. You assume way too much. Here is a real life example of why the argument does not follow. There is a rather famous study that was done that linked cervical cancer to smoking. In California, an epidemiological study was performed that showed that in a large group of women that were all smokers, there was a high incidence of cervical cancer. The study went on to deduce that because there is a high incidence of cervical cancer in these women who smoke, that it must be due to the smoking (which has been known to cause cancer in most, but not all people). However, upon closer scrutiny, this deduction was erronious. It just so happened that the women used in this study were recruited from an STD clinic and the cervical cancer was not in fact caused by the smoking, but instead by the oncogenes in the Human Papilloma Virus that each woman was infected with. Smoking was instead a statistical link to promiscuity.

What I'm saying here is that just because something seems to make sense and seems to come together does not mean that there is proof for the conclusion. The fact of the matter is that there is not enough supportive evidence to invariably conclude that Macro Evolution is fact. In response to your argument quoted above.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
NOT FACT? Why? You have sexually reproducing organisms that always have fathers and mothers and a fossile record with all the more complex forms appearing later and later in the record. There is no escape from the implication. It's an iron clad case. There is no other explanation. Evolution is a fact.

First of all, while it is true that complex organisms do appear, along with them very simple organisms persist. Why do they not become more complex? Likewise, there were more complex organisms a million years ago in comparison to simple organisms that exist today. Or, in other words, there were complex organisms in the fossil record, and there are complex organisms today. There were simple organisms in the fossil record and there are simple organisms today. The fossil record is not complete. The fossil record only shows us what did exist in the past, but does it show us everything? No. Can it be considered complete? No. Does Macro evolution provide a pretty explanation for the orgin of our species? Yes, but it cannot be proven with the fossil record. You say that it is an 'iron clad case' and that there is no other explanation. However, it is obviously not an iron clad case as there are several contradictory issues. Several other explanations can and have been made. And as far as the phylogenetic tree goes, homology evident in genetic strains, does not necessarily imply relatedness.

Do not assume too much. If you start preaching Evolution as Dogma when there is not sufficient scientific evidence, you may become as ostentatious as some of the people who keep quoting scripture as if it was an argument, or in some way contributed to this discussion. All I'm saying moonbeam, is to step back for a minute and be open-minded enough to consider that there mayu indeed be other possibilities that led to the origin of our species. Without scientific proof, claiming that Macro evolution is indeed fact, is more than just hasty, it's wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

Tominator quote:

Btw, Moonbeam, there are no fossil records that show changes that indicate evolution that can be followed. You are assuming you cannot be wrong. That's not science, but faith!

I've only disputed evolution as the origin of the species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There need be no particular fossil in the fossil record that is related to any living being for my argument to be true. Lets assume that all simple sexual reproducing life is made up of a small number of genes and that all complex modern forms are made up of many thousands of genes. This assumption corresponds to the facts we see about simple and complex we see today. This is what science is. Reasoning from what is to what was, because we have faith in the laws of nature, that they apply everywhere and always have. It's the kind of faith that allows you to tie your shoes and set an alarm clock. It's what makes it possible to walk and run up a tree to escape a tiger. Our whole being is predicated on the fact that the universe works like that under the conditions we find and have found ourselves in for billions of years.

That simple organisms, the only kind found long ago had to have fathered and mothered all the complex beings of today means that a simple genome evolved into more complex ones. So all of the increasingly complex genomic types that occur in the fossil record indicate a progression in genomic complexity. Speciation is just changing genomic complexity. The fossil record does not have to show all the intermediary types of a particular species evolution to prove evolution. It only has to confirm the increasing complexity that is acquired with time. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable. Evolution accounts for speciation. It's very simple. Anything time you find only simple things that breed long ago where today you find complex things that breed, you know that those simple things were the ancestors of the complex things and therefore evolved into them. How that might have happened is the Theory of Evolution, that it happened is indisputable on the level of ordinary reality. Assumptions about ordinary reality are not tenets of faith. They are what the brain is designed to be able to figure out. Thought itself is just the evolution of interpretive skill, the ability to make correct predictions about how the world works so you don't zig when you should have zaged. To argue with evolution is to argue with the truth of your own being. Trust me.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
My holy Christian brother was asking me if I thought we were just super monkeys then.

I said I didn't know, and probably won't know ever. I don't know if evolution is true, or if theres a higher being. I said, it's something I can't prove and no one can, so I'll just live my life as I see fit as an agnostic. Both are theories at the moment and nothing more.

So then my brother replies to me, "That's good, at least you have an open mind." (meaning, I still have a chance in believing in God and getting into religion)

I was so very tempted to say "Yup, cause you sure fvcking don't!!!"

Sorry, might be flamebait but I think it was a nice story.

HAHAHAHA. Ya, it's funny when you say "Prove God exists". Then reply with, atleast you have an open mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Macro evolution happened, pOntif. That makes it a fact. None of your simple was and is and comples was and is amounts to anything, because when you go far back you find only simple, then you find a tiny bit of complex then you find a lot of complex. Were horses hiding a billion years ago? Not everything has to morph, only a tiny line of organisms branching and branching throughout time. We live on a microbes world. Once that was all there was. Why not just admit that life evolved. I'm saying the women had cancer. I'm not guessing how.

 

[dullard]

I didn't read the whole thread since it is so long. So I appologize if this is repeated from posts above. I probably won't check up for anyone quoting me (PM me if you really want me back to this thread) for the same reason.

I think some of the best evolution examples are from viruses/bacteria. People should get a flu shot every year? A vaccine should give you lifelong immunity. So why keep getting vaccines? Since the flu virus evolves. In fact the flu virus is one of the most rapidly evolving viruses. The flu shot vaccine must be redeveloped and reformulated frequently in order to keep up with the flu evolution.

Some of the best anti-bacterial drugs from the last decade don't work anymore. If there was no evolution, then the drugs would keep killing the bacteria. But now the bacteria can grow freely in the presence of the drugs. Why? Because they changed. You can sequence their DNA and prove it changed. Change = evolution.

Sure some viruses don't evolve quickly, like TMV the tobacco virus or yellow fever. Supposedly they have already evolved to an optimum form and all mutations grow slower/less/die and thus there is no evolutionary force. But other viruses have up to 20% of thier DNA/RNA changed each year. We can watch these changes in their nucleotides. We can watch how the different genes give the mutated viruses different properties. We can watch how you get different symptoms over the years. To me this is evolution.

But there is a more drastic and much more rare thing that has been observed with viruses. Many DNA viruses integrate into the host chromosomes. We can put a virus into a host cell and occasionally the virus emerges with bits and pieces of the host DNA. Usually the host DNA kills the virus and that is the end of it. But sometimes it doesn't. Also occasionally a virus can jump to a different species. It is rare for a virus to be able to do both, but it has been observed. Thus a virus has been seen to:
1) integrate into species X chromosomes.
2) pick up some of species X genes.
3) spread to species Y.
4) integrate into species Y chromosomes.
5) deposit species X chromosomes into species Y.
If this happened in any few random cell of species Y probably nothing would happen. But what if it got into an egg or sperm cell? The baby (if formed) would then have genes from two unrelated species. This baby may die, or it may live on with properties different from both its parents since it has genes from a third source (even a different species). This may make the baby evolve...

Ok enough of a virus lecture. Flame away.

 

[Moonbeam]

The flu virus is still a flu virus. It didn't grow a trunk and start eating peanuts. Yuk Yuk Yuk