Proving Evolution

[Dark Photon]

in due time everyone will accept the thoery.

[Edtharan]

Even if evolution is "Just a theory", it is a theory that fits the evidence (fossils, genetics, chemistry, physics, biology, etc, etc).

 

It is the evidence that exists that disproves creationism, regardless of weather or not the "Theory of Evolution" is correct or not. If the ToE did not exist (ie Darwin didn't go on his island holiday ) and we just have the evidence that we have today, creationism would still be shown to be incorrect.

 

Evolution is the best explaination of the available evidence that we have. Sure others might come along or evolution might be refigned, but creationism as it now stands, if it is subject to a reality check, does not work at all.

 

The point that evolutionists can't get in their brains is that the concept of humans evolving from apes strongly contradicts Genesis, the first chapter of The Bible.

Well if the reality of the evidence says otherwise then one must discard what is shown to be wrong. This is how science works.

 

Also it is not just the concept of humans evolving from apes that contradicts Genisis, just look up at the stars and you will see objects that are millions (even billlions) of years old. If the bible is to be taken as fact then it must be taken litteraly, the evidence that you can see for yourself proves that the bible can not be take litteraly and so therefore the bible can not be taken as fact, only as an analogy. If the bible can only be used as an analogy then any contradiction between it and the theory of evolution is not a problem. The simple solution is to just make a reality check ato see which is correct.

 

Doing this give us the theory of evolution as the correct one as it make prediction, give explaination and most importantly, it fits the evidence.

[JustStuit]

yourdadonapogos. you also beleave somthing without gathering and analizing proof of it yourself. evolution does not yet have enough proof(that i know of) to be considered fact. yet you beleave anything the scientists tell you' date=' isn't that the same gulablity that you accuse christians of haveing? you beleave in a theory so strongly that you have closed your mind to ANY other knowledge or theories conserning the origin of mankind. Also the creation of new technolohy just makes it easer to MAKE the proof.

 

 

 

like ive said, [u']always[/u] keep room for new possiblities. because we don't know what we will learn in the future. consider the midevil times, they were convinced that the earth was flat, and some even stated that there was proof. flawed proof, but it wasn't untill they could travel the ocean that they found the earth was round.

the same type of event could happen to disprove evolution, or even proove creation. time will tell.

i beleave that its possible for god to exist, but i don't care weather or not he(or she. it) made us. not because there is no proof, but because its a waste of energy to try to proove somthing that we don't have the technology to proove.

It will NEVER be considered a fact. A scientific fact notes that something happens and a theory explains why. It is a theory because it explains why, a fact is a different catagory. And don't even start with "it's just a theory" because anyone who thinks that does not know much about the scientific terms.

[ydoaPs]

stu, evolution does both.

[JustStuit]

But it's only considered a theory. Why isn't considered a fact then?

[insane_alien]

Evolution is a fact and is considered so by all scientists who are in the field of biology. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the mechanisms of evolution. Just like gravity is a fact and the theory of general realativity explains the mechanisms of gravity

[JustStuit]

Oh, so a concept can be both - a fact in that it is proven to happen and a theory that explains how it works?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Theories aren't absolutely true; they have enough evidence to make the credible, but they haven't been proven absolutely positively true.

[JustStuit]

What do they become once they are proven true, or can nothing, technically, be proven 100% true?

[insane_alien]

the latter(nothing can be proven 100%) is the case in science. since we do not have all the data. to have all the data we would need to observe the entire universe and then analyse it. since we haven't observed the entire universe there might be contradictory data out there.

[Edtharan]

Oh, so a concept can be both - a fact in that it is proven to happen and a theory that explains how it works?

You are getting the Facts of Evolution which is the evidence and the experiments that you can do, and the Theory of Evolution which is the explaination of what the observed facts mean.

 

We can see in a lab the facts of evolution taking place. We can sequance genes from different generations and can chart their changes, we can examin and catalogue the changes in the phenotypes and gemo types of organisma. We can study an organism and make assesments on how fit it is in its environment, we can track the number of ofspring and also the number of offspring that these produce. These give us the facts of evolution which are:

1) Genes contained in the DNA molecule are the direct the growth of an organism and a change in the genes will create a coresponding change in the organism (genes are not the only source of this change but the bigest by far).

2) DNA replication is imperfect so this causes mutaitons. Also the way certain organisms can influence their DNA (fertilization, etc) is another source of variation of the genetic material.

3) Some organisms survive better than others of its speicies.

4) This survival can be because of the organisms phenotype.

5) Organisms that survive can produce more and healthier offspring. ALso organisms that survive but struggle to survive will still produce offspring, but they are usually less healthy and less of them.

6) Over time, mutations can build up and change the expression of a gene so that it has a new function/behaviour.

 

There are others, but that is enough.

 

The Theory of Evolution tries to make predictions based on this evidence. One of the predictions is that if enough changes occure over a long enough period of time then the final organism will be distinctly different from the original (or other organisms that might have experenced different mutations).

 

The theory deals in what the evidence means, the facts are the collections of evidence for and against the theory. They are not the same, in the same way a list of measurements of you is not you.

[reyam200]

in responce to insane alien

the latter(nothing can be proven 100%) is the case in science. since we do not have all the data.

thats why it is inportant to always leave room for possiblities. because we don't have all the data.

[habana999]

if evolution doesn't have enough proof then creationism is in the crapper cause it has less evidence than evolution. QUOTE]

 

glad somebody said that!!

[habana999]

Ok heres my take on this 'evolution versus creationism'

 

people who now believe in creationism not so long ago would never have accepted Darwin's theory. BUT now that it has been widely accepted as a bloody good explanation of how we came to be what we are today with actual 'scientific' backing they realise they would look like fools (and risk the end of their religion altogether) did they not accept at least some of it. backing their 'theory' up with quotations from a book written by 'man' (oh sorry those good people of the church/monarchy [same thing] who had so much power back in the day that they had to make sure uneducated Joe Public were god fearing people). Difference now is that people are educated...whether they like it or not and hell when you give people an education they also get an opinion. People have a hard time accepting that they just 'exist'. This whole argument is so much more sociological than scientific or theological. Anyway if the Christians finally became evolutionists (is that a word?) then the Muslims would take over because the scientists are so liberal!! And no god fearing christian wants that now do they?

[Earth_Muffin]

If we disregard the Young Earth Creation argument of a 6,000 year old earth and 6-day creation event, we're left with Intelligent Design, which attempts to use scientific evidence and methods to explain the world's creation and the biblical "miracles", such as the flood and parting of the Red Sea...

 

The problem here is that Intelligent Design has come to a point of disarming God, so to speak. If the Great Flood can be explained in scientific terms, it is no longer the work of God but rather a natural and explainable occurance. If we can explain the parting of the Red Sea, same thing happens. God is all but taken out of the picture. (These are just two examples, mind you.)

 

It seems as if the whole "theory" of Intelligent Design holds that God is miraculously responsible only for what we otherwise cant explain (which is how religions are created in the first place).

 

The only thing holding Intelligent Design together are the holes in scientific theories, such as the sketchy fossil record, especially that regarding hominid evolution.

 

Personally, I believe that once you have 60 pieces of a 100 piece puzzle you have enough to see the big picture. The big picture shows the theory of evolution.

[SkepticLance]

This is such a tired old argument.

We have religious types trying to support outmoded means of thinking, versus science.

 

Evolution is NOT a theory. It is a mainstream principle of modern science. It is as much a theory as the idea of atoms is a theory (people have photographed atoms with scanning tunnelling microscopes). It is as much a theory as the idea of germs as causes of infectious illness (and they have been seen in normal microscopes).

 

Yes, evolution has been witnessed happening. In Africa, cichlid fishes, over a period of 100 years have been seen, and reported by teams of biologists, to evolve into different species. Fruit flies, in the laboratory, have been seen to evolve into different species. Bacteria, in the laboratory, have been seen to so evolve.

 

Come on guys. If I hit you fair square in the eye, you end up with a black eye. Are you going to pretend it is mascara!!!! If we see evolution happening, are we going to call it accident? Get real!!!

 

You wanna quote the bible? Let me quote : New English Bible. OEP 1961.

Matthew : 27, 3 - 8

"When Judas the traitor saw that Jesus has been condemned, he was seized with remorse, and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, "I have sinned" he said; "I have brought an innocent man to his death."

But they said, " What is that to us? See that to yourself." So he threw the money down in the temple and left them, and went and hanged himself.

Taking up the money, the chief priests argued : This cannot be put into the temple fund, it is blood money. So, after conferring, they used it to buy the Potters Field, as a burial place for foreigners. This explains the name 'Blood Acre' by which that field has been known ever since."

 

Compare this to : Acts 1, Verse 18 to 20.

"This Judas, be it noted, after buying a plot of land with the price of his villainy, fell forward on the ground, and burst open, so that his entrails poured out. this became known to everyone in Jerusalem, and they named the property in their own language Akeldama, which means Blood Acre."

 

Now either Judas hanged himself, or fell and burst out his entrails. Not both!!!

Clearly, the bible contrdicts itself.

 

This is typical of the religious view. You can tell the same story several ways. No problem. The same 'double-think' works for opposing evolution.

 

Face it. The bible is a load of $%#@!!!

[bjaminwood]

btw, i was a creationist for a long time

 

Plenty of people start off as Atheists and later become Creationists

[bjaminwood]

This is such a tired old argument.

We have religious types trying to support outmoded means of thinking' date=' versus science.

 

Evolution is NOT a theory. It is a mainstream principle of modern science. It is as much a theory as the idea of atoms is a theory (people have photographed atoms with scanning tunnelling microscopes). It is as much a theory as the idea of germs as causes of infectious illness (and they have been seen in normal microscopes).

 

Yes, evolution has been witnessed happening. In Africa, cichlid fishes, over a period of 100 years have been seen, and reported by teams of biologists, to evolve into different species. Fruit flies, in the laboratory, have been seen to evolve into different species. Bacteria, in the laboratory, have been seen to so evolve.

 

Come on guys. If I hit you fair square in the eye, you end up with a black eye. Are you going to pretend it is mascara!!!! If we see evolution happening, are we going to call it accident? Get real!!!

 

You wanna quote the bible? Let me quote : New English Bible. OEP 1961.

Matthew : 27, 3 - 8

"When Judas the traitor saw that Jesus has been condemned, he was seized with remorse, and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, "I have sinned" he said; "I have brought an innocent man to his death."

But they said, " What is that to us? See that to yourself." So he threw the money down in the temple and left them, and went and hanged himself.

Taking up the money, the chief priests argued : This cannot be put into the temple fund, it is blood money. So, after conferring, they used it to buy the Potters Field, as a burial place for foreigners. This explains the name 'Blood Acre' by which that field has been known ever since."

 

Compare this to : Acts 1, Verse 18 to 20.

"This Judas, be it noted, after buying a plot of land with the price of his villainy, fell forward on the ground, and burst open, so that his entrails poured out. this became known to everyone in Jerusalem, and they named the property in their own language Akeldama, which means Blood Acre."

 

Now either Judas hanged himself, or fell and burst out his entrails. Not both!!!

Clearly, the bible contrdicts itself.

 

This is typical of the religious view. You can tell the same story several ways. No problem. The same 'double-think' works for opposing evolution.

 

Face it. The bible is a load of $%#@!!![/quote']

 

Evolution IS a theory because as has been stated a number of times the only evolution that takes place that can be observed is within species and not from one species to another. How come, for instance an intermediate state creature has NEVER been found in the fossil records?

 

Also with regard to your "Clearly the bible contradicts itself." comments about Judas you should look at

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2846

If you read this you will see that just as you can accuse a creationist of using arguments without having solid facts the same could be said of certian people who hold the evolutionist view.

[mattbimbo]

B...a.....d:Evolution IS a theory because as has been stated a number of times the only evolution that takes place that can be observed is within species and not from one species to another.

this statement is dumb.

try considering the evidence for the endosymbiotic origins of eukaryotic cells. the evidence actually points to multiple endosymbiotic events.

[nahomadis]

Darwin’s theory is based of something called "Natural Selection"

 

Actually, the Neo-Darwinian theory today is really two fold:

 

1 - The Theory of common ancestry. This holds that all living things have a common ancestor.

 

2 - The Theory of descent with modification. This holds that the multitude of living things we see today have descended from a common ancestor through a process of gradual and successive genetic evolution, demonstrated phenotypically in new body plans, functions and systems.

 

The mechanism of evolution is itself two fold. It is considered to operate due to the information-generating changes in a gene pool (mutations) bringing about new useful information, working alongside the phenotype-sifting process of natural selection. Information (from the Latin, in-(toward)+forma(form)) literally is an arrangement of data pointing towards or leading to form/structure/function.

 

Natural Selection and mutation are observable in the present, but have not been observed to generate a new arrangement of useful data that was not already in the genome. They have, however, been observed to generate a rearrangement of the data. For this reason, some scientists doubt the ability of Natural Selection and mutation to have operated in the past as the mechanism of evolution. I don't think observing natural selection and mutation today (which does not generate new useful information) can be cited as evidence for the Theory of common ancestry or the Theory of descent with modification. Someone has tried to show (satirically) the difference of opinion that results when the evidence today (Natural Selection and Mutation) is extrapolated backwards to account for the origin of living things. See http://www.mollallegn.blogspot.com for the satire which really makes a serious point. All major view points are give a fair voice.

[habana999]

Evolution IS a theory because as has been stated a number of times the only evolution that takes place that can be observed is within species and not from one species to another. How come' date=' for instance an intermediate state creature has NEVER been found in the fossil records?

[/quote']

 

 

everything is constantly in an 'intertmediate' state as you put it..thats what the theory of evolution is based on!!!

[ydoaPs]

Evolution IS a theory because as has been stated a number of times the only evolution that takes place that can be observed is within species and not from one species to another.

incorrect

 

How come, for instance an intermediate state creature has NEVER been found in the fossil records?

another strike, another miss

 

Also with regard to your "Clearly the bible contradicts itself."

it does. get over it.

[SkepticLance]

bjaminwood.

You say evolution has only been observed within species?

You clearly did not read my post. There have now been many examples of changes observed that lead to new species. My African cichlid example is one of the best.

 

You claim no intermediate fossils.

Sorry, there are literally thousands of examples of intermediate fossils. For example, we now know that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The first intermediate fossil was Archaeopteryx. This was clearly a dinosaur, but had feathers, including flight feathers very similar to those found on today's birds. Until recently, there was a big gap in the fossil record after Archaeopteryx. However, the opening up of China to the world led to studies of fossil beds there, and the discovery of a wealth of intermediate fossils, such as Confuciousornis, which had lost more dinosaur features and gained more bird. There are now at least 10 intermediate fossils between dinosaurs and birds, which show a clear path of evolution. This was all written up in a very nice Scientific American article a couple of years ago.

 

The dinosaur to bird pathway is just one example. Intermediate fossils have been found for whales, horses, apes etc.

[Earth_Muffin]

How come' date=' for instance an intermediate state creature has NEVER been found in the fossil records?

 

[/quote']

 

We DO have intermediate fossils. In the case of human evolution, we have fossil remains of a number of transitional forms, for instance, homo erectus. Clearly displays a fairly modern skeletal structure below the neck, yet retains a number of archiac features, particularly in the skull.

 

For those who accept Neandertal as an intermediate between archaic hominids and modern homo sapiens, he is proof of the hominid species evolving. For those who DONT accept Neandertal as part of the hominid evolutionary chain, we're left with two different species of hominids, one of which went extinct, one which thrived. Two different species of hominids coexisting? Sounds a whole lot like evolution to me.

[CharonY]

The definition of transient species is a bit fuzzy. For instance, all now existing organisms can actually be seen as transient form between neighboring taxa.

But just to add some to transient fossils, there are quite a lot of examples around. Not only hominids, but also foraminifera or the famous transition from fish to tetrapods. As such the given claim that no transitional fossils have been found is ridiculous at best.