Evolution has never been observed

[cabinintheforest]

Evolution has never been observed. Saying species evolved over millions of years is a faith statement and is not the scientific method. Science is knowledge from observation.

 

If you believe you have empirical evidence that evolution has been observed. Please put it up. I am not talking about words i am talking about video footage or a photo.

 

I am willing to pay £10 to anyone that has a photo or video evidence of macroevolution taking place.

Edited November 3, 2010 by cabinintheforest

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What sort of video evidence are you expecting? A video of a cow giving birth to a Komodo dragon?

[-Demosthenes-]

That would be so SICK!

[ydoaPs]

How about the Lenski experiment? It's not video(mainly because that is ridiculous to even suggest), there are samples.

 

You seem to suggest that you accept 'microevolution.' If that is so, I have a question for you. What mechanism is there to prevent the small scale changes from accumulating into large scale change? Basically, what I want to know is how you posit 'microevolution' is prevented from becoming 'macroevolution'. What is your anti-accumulatory mechanism?

 

Also, here is 29+ evidences for 'macroevolution.'

 

What sort of video evidence are you expecting? A video of a cow giving birth to a Komodo dragon?

It seems so. If that is the case, the OP may want to read this Introduction to Evolutionary Biology to see what Evolution actually consists of. If the OP returns, I predict we'll see at least one thing from this list.

Edited November 3, 2010 by ydoaPs

[Moontanman]

What sort of video evidence are you expecting? A video of a cow giving birth to a Komodo dragon?

 

 

More likely he is looking for a chimp to give birth to a human, but I'd like a copy of the cow giving birth to a dragon video, no wait does a duck having sex with a chicken count?

 

Here ya go cabinintheforest, complete with pictures, you can donate the money to SFN in my name...

 

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

Edited November 3, 2010 by Moontanman

[Red Hypergiant]

Actually, evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. For example, there was a factory in Japan that produced nylon, a man-made material that appeared in the 20th century. There were bacteria found there that produce nylonase, a protein that digests nylon.

 

So which is more likely? The bacteria evolved this ability, or God gave them the ability to do so?

 

 

And as for indirect observation, we can see evolution in the fossil record, and even more importantly, in the genetic code.

 

 

There's plenty of evidence for evolution, you just need to look at it.

[michel123456]

Interesting. I learned something today.

[CharonY]

There are also far simpler experiments for accelerated artificial evolution that can be easily reproduced in class. To reiterate: evolution is the change in allele frequency distribution within a population. A simple lab course involves plating bacterial cultures on more or less selective media. The media represent strong selective forces and by applying them, you weed out all cells and their offspring lacking it. The result is a population that in which this particular trait is fixed (as opposed to the original culture in which only a limited number of cells carried that trait). This can be done with without a mutagenic agent, for example.

[zapatos]

Evolution has never been observed. Saying species evolved over millions of years is a faith statement and is not the scientific method. Science is knowledge from observation.

 

If you believe you have empirical evidence that evolution has been observed. Please put it up. I am not talking about words i am talking about video footage or a photo.

 

I am willing to pay £10 to anyone that has a photo or video evidence of macroevolution taking place.

Have you ever observed the passage of millions of years? I'll give you £20 for a photo or video footage.

[swansont]

Evolution has never been observed. Saying species evolved over millions of years is a faith statement and is not the scientific method. Science is knowledge from observation.

 

If you believe you have empirical evidence that evolution has been observed. Please put it up. I am not talking about words i am talking about video footage or a photo.

 

I am willing to pay £10 to anyone that has a photo or video evidence of macroevolution taking place.

 

You aren't entitled to restrict what constitutes evidence for evolution (or any science, really) in this way. Why is a video or picture the only empirical evidence you will accept? If, for the sake of argument, you assume evolution to be true, is a video the kind of evidence one would expect to have? Is it even remotely close to the only evidence one would expect to have?

[ydoaPs]

Evolution has never been observed. Saying species evolved over millions of years is a faith statement and is not the scientific method. Science is knowledge from observation.

 

If you believe you have empirical evidence that evolution has been observed. Please put it up. I am not talking about words i am talking about video footage or a photo.

 

I am willing to pay £10 to anyone that has a photo or video evidence of macroevolution taking place.

Since you wanted a video, here's one about why the whole millions of years thing is not a faith statement.

 

nRmJbP25m-Y

Edited November 3, 2010 by ydoaPs

[Red Hypergiant]

We have what's called radiometric dating (and yes, it works)

My link

 

 

Therefore, millions of years is not a faith statement.

[Moontanman]

I think cabinintheforest owes sfn 10 pounds, i wonder why his bet was so low? must have not been convinced of his own data...

[Red Hypergiant]

I think cabinintheforest owes sfn 10 pounds, i wonder why his bet was so low? must have not been convinced of his own data...

 

Just wait for him/her to pull something off of AnswersinGenesis or something else to try and refute the arguments laid forth. Or, if we're lucky, (s)he'll be creative and give us something new.

[cabinintheforest]

Sorry people. Little mistake done by me.

 

If you want the 10£ you have to take the video/photo yourself and send it to me. - This was kind of obvious from the post. But now i have said it.

 

Pasting words off websites is NOT empirical evidence. I thought we are on a science forum here.? Do you people know what science is? B) Knowledge from direct and i repeat direct observation. I want REAL LIVE footage of evolution taking place or a REAL PHOTO of evolution.

 

Pasting in words from websites, is just subjective and biased and is not scientific objective data. Please look up the definition of the scientific method. Anyone can put anything on a website. I can head over now to a ID website and paste in how evolution is a hoax, does not exist and is unscientific.

 

Here it is:

 

http://www.trueorigi.../theobald1a.asp

 

29 evidences for macroevolution debunked

 

and

 

http://creationwiki....d_(Talk.Origins)

 

Macroevolution has never been observed

 

Pasting in websites is subjective.

 

Websites are not going to help on this issue. I am asking for a photo/live video footage of evolution taking place. You all seem to support evolution here - BUT YOU HAVE NEVER OBSERVED IT, why continue to believe in evolution when you have never observed it yourself? Evolution is currently a belief nobody has observed it, want to prove me wrong? Get a photo/real live video footage of evolution taking place - but oh no you can not prove it. So you are just believing... faith... you may aswell just pick up a religious book and believe it then. Scientific method, knowledge from observation, testing and repeating... evolution is not scientific. If it was you would be able to show me some real empirical photos/footage. But you yourselves have admitted it "takes 1000s of millions of years". Not scientific then. Science is all about the present, millions of years is not in the present, science is about now, what you can observe in the now.

 

You pasted in:

 

- No evolution to be seen on this blogspot (owned by anybody) all there was, was photos of ordinary plants with a bit of writing underneathe it. NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HERE FOR EVOLUTION JUST MORE FAITH BASED STATEMENTS AND BELIEFS...

 

Two users pasted in WIKIPEDIA links - more words - blah blah blah - No scientific empirical evidence here. No photos. No live footage. Wikipedia is a publicly edited website, you believe everything that is written on there do you? If that is your logic you may aswell just believe in a religious book.

 

Somebody pasted in a youtube video self created on photoshop and powerpoint... again just cartoons and words. Just personal opinions completly subjective, anyone can create anything on youtube and post it. NO SCIENTIFIC REAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION HERE:lol:

 

You people call yourself scientists lol:lol:

 

10£ is still on the table. I am waiting for the evidence. Please stop pasting in words, beliefs and ideas. I want real evidence. Cheers.

Edited November 3, 2010 by cabinintheforest

[Horza2002]

Cabinintheforest, did you bother to read the posts?

 

If you think direct evidence is a video, then how do you respond to the entire subject of chemistry? You can't see individual molecules in solution reacting together. I am at the moment doing a Suzuki reaction; I can't see my aryl bromide molecule inserting into the palladium-phosphine bond and then my boronic acid coordinating and my biaryl product being released.....but funnily enough, I now have a pile of beautifully red crytals of MBC sitting in fumehood drying....but as i couldn't see MBC being put together, obviously I havn't made anything.....

[cabinintheforest]

Cabinintheforest, did you bother to read the posts?

 

If you think direct evidence is a video, then how do you respond to the entire subject of chemistry? You can't see individual molecules in solution reacting together. I am at the moment doing a Suzuki reaction; I can't see my aryl bromide molecule inserting into the palladium-phosphine bond and then my boronic acid coordinating and my biaryl product being released.....but funnily enough, I now have a pile of beautifully red crytals of MBC sitting in fumehood drying....but as i couldn't see MBC being put together, obviously I havn't made anything.....

 

Thank you. In other words there is no direct empirical evidence for evolution and evolution is just a theory. Basically you are saying you believe in things which you can not see with your own yes. You are really no different than the typical religious creationist then. Cheers for this. Evolution is pseudoscience. I studied chemistry for two years, most of the stuff in chemistry can be observed. Molecules can be observed - http://www.newscient...es-at-last.html Lets not compare the theory of evolution to chemistry experiments.

Edited November 3, 2010 by cabinintheforest

[Red Hypergiant]

Sorry people. Little mistake done by me.

 

If you want the 10£ you have to take the video/photo yourself and send it to me. - This was kind of obvious from the post. But now i have said it.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight. And who are you to define what evidence is needed to prove it?

 

Pasting words off websites is NOT empirical evidence.

No, it's called citing sources.

 

I thought we are on a science forum here.? Do you people know what science is? B) Knowledge from direct and i repeat direct observation.

Wrong. You do not need direct observation. For instance, we do not see atoms moving, but we can infer that that's the cause of heat.

 

I want REAL LIVE footage of evolution taking place or a REAL PHOTO of evolution.

Why is that the only thing that will change your mind? Does a crime scene investigator refuse to believe that a suspect with evidence piled up against him is guilty just because there is no photo of him committing the crime?

 

Pasting in words from websites, is just subjective and biased and is not scientific objective data.

No one has pasted in words from websites. The websites we linked you to were not biased, just scientific.

 

Please look up the definition of the scientific method. Anyone can put anything on a website.

 

Yes, but for casual things, Wikipedia is generally reliable, and cites sources. If you question the validity of these sources, you can check them out yourself.

 

I can head over now to a ID website and paste in how evolution is a hoax, does not exist and is unscientific.

 

Here it is:

 

http://www.trueorigi.../theobald1a.asp

 

29 evidences for macroevolution debunked

 

and

 

http://creationwiki....d_(Talk.Origins)

 

Macroevolution has never been observed

 

Now, I don't have the time right now to look over those websites, so I'll leave someone else to do that, or maybe I'll do it later. Again, you don't need to directly observe something to infer beyond reasonable doubt that it's true.

 

 

Websites are not going to help on this issue. I am asking for a photo/live video footage of evolution taking place. You all seem to support evolution here - BUT YOU HAVE NEVER OBSERVED IT, why continue to believe in evolution when you have never observed it yourself? Evolution is currently a belief nobody has observed it, want to prove me wrong? Get a photo/real live video footage of evolution taking place - but oh no you can not prove it. So you are just believing... faith... you may aswell just pick up a religious book and believe it then. Scientific method, knowledge from observation, testing and repeating... evolution is not scientific. If it was you would be able to show me some real empirical photos/footage. But you yourselves have admitted it "takes 1000s of millions of years". Not scientific then. Science is all about the present, millions of years is not in the present, science is about now, what you can observe in the now.

Again, direct observation is not necessary, and science is about learning about our world. By dating rocks, discovering fossils, and examining the genetic code, we can infer that evolution can and does happen all the time. Also, you can look up observed cases of speciation on Google. Not that hard.

 

You pasted in:

 

http://evolutionlist...d-evidence.html - No evolution to be seen on this blogspot (owned by anybody) all there was, was photos of ordinary plants with a bit of writing underneathe it. NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HERE FOR EVOLUTION JUST MORE FAITH BASED STATEMENTS AND BELIEFS...

No, it's not a belief, because we have evidence.

 

Two users pasted in WIKIPEDIA links - more words - blah blah blah - No scientific empirical evidence here. No photos. No live footage. Wikipedia is a publicly edited website, you believe everything that is written on there do you? If that is your logic you may aswell just believe in a religious book.

 

Again, go see the sources for yourself if you don't believe it.

 

Somebody pasted in a youtube video self created on photoshop and powerpoint... again just cartoons and words. Just personal opinions completly subjective, anyone can create anything on youtube and post it.

You just told me that you didn't pay attention to the video at all. It clearly stated, mathematically, that the universe is not 6,000 years old.

 

NO SCIENTIFIC REAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION HERE:lol:

 

You people call yourself scientists lol:lol:

 

Yes, because we make decisions based on evidence and reason, not a Bronze Age book.

 

10£ is still on the table. I am waiting for the evidence. Please stop pasting in words, beliefs and ideas. I want real evidence. Cheers.

 

We gave you evidence, and you ignored it, and said that only photos and videos were evidence. That is closed mindedness.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Red Hypergiant

[ajb]

Websites are not going to help on this issue.

 

Well, I would say that depends on who wrote the website and the standard of its content.

 

You all seem to support evolution here - BUT YOU HAVE NEVER OBSERVED IT, why continue to believe in evolution when you have never observed it yourself? Evolution is currently a belief nobody has observed it, want to prove me wrong?

 

Scientific method, knowledge from observation, testing and repeating... evolution is not scientific.

 

 

In the same way we should not believe in atoms, electrons, the theory of relativity, or anything else scientists have ever worked on ?

 

At some point you have to put some trust in the integrity of the people who have done the work. I believe in evolution, but no way am I going to do all the experiments and preform all the observations.

 

NO SCIENTIFIC REAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION HERE

 

I am sure people more knowledgeable than me can direct you to the published literature.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

cabinintheforest, why are photos and videos the only acceptable evidence? If you were to apply this standard to all empirical observation, most of science would be out the window.

 

Along with most science done before 1900.

 

In fact, if I had video evidence of evolution taking place in just a few minutes or hours, that would falsify our current theories of evolution -- because they require timescales of thousands of years.

 

But if you want a photo, here you go:

 

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/citrateflasksphotos.html

 

That beaker that's all cloudy inside is cloudy because it evolved to eat the citrate in the medium, so there's loads more bacteria than there are in the others.

[cabinintheforest]

In the same way we should not believe in atoms, electrons, the theory of relativity, or anything else scientists have ever worked on ?

 

Atoms can be directly observed. There is some scientific evidence for electrons but we can not see them directly. Most things scientists have worked on have been observable or tests can be carried out with results like electrons we have witnessed some kind of effect from them. There is nothing going for evolution. No cause and no effect. Macroevolution it simply does not exist can not be tested, predicated, observed, studied, repeated... the list goes on. Nothing scientific about it. It's a philosophical theory of the past. Never present.

 

We cannot observe evolution or something being intelligently designed so we are now into philosophical theories of existence. You are now down to a choice, a belief, so were all these things that you see in everyday life intelligent designed or did they evolve over long periods of time? Which one is right and which one is wrong? Most views of reality are variations of these two basic views. There is no conclusive way to decide between them. There is no experiment that can be performed to decide whether reality is formed by intelligent design or by evolution. Ultimately the test is in the explanatory power of either view: whichever one best explains the empirical phenomena of reality is the one more likely to be true. The individual has to think his way to the truth. There are supporters on both sides.

Edited November 3, 2010 by cabinintheforest

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Atoms can be directly observed.

Show me a picture of one. Or video.

 

Most things scientists have worked on have been observable or results have tests can be carried out like electrons we have witnessed some kind of effect from them. There is nothing going for evolution. No cause and no effect. Macroevolution it simply does not exist can not be tested, predicated, observed, studied, repeated... the list goes on. Nothing scientific about it. It's a philosophical theory of the past. Never present.

Hmm. I can propose a test. Suppose I have some organisms. I introduce a chemical that kills most of the organisms. Using evolution, I'd predict that after some time, all of the organisms that are vulnerable to the chemical will be dead, and the rest will have gotten more and more immune. After a sufficiently long time, the chemical will not kill the organisms at all.

 

What have we here? Antibiotic resistance, observed in numerous strains of bacteria.

 

Hmm. How about another one?

 

Suppose I put some organisms in an environment with several kinds of food. They can only digest one kind of food there, and they eat it and thrive. Using evolution, I'd predict that if one of the organisms develops the ability to eat more than one kind of food, it'll get ahead, because it gets to eat food that no other organism eats -- so there's plenty of food for it. Guess what! It's the Lenski experiment, exactly, and Lenski has the actual bacteria frozen away in petri dishes for you to examine under a microscope.

 

Or another one?

 

Suppose we have an insect that lives in a certain environment. Suppose humans build a new environment -- say, underground tunnels. Some of this insect get into the new environment and adapt. Years later, they've adapted so much they no longer breed with the original insects. What's this? Why, it's the London Underground mosquito, Culex pipiens molestus.

 

In each of these examples, you can get samples of the actual organisms in question. You can perform whatever experiments you want on them. You can look at them under microscopes. (Lenski froze samples of his bacteria from every stage in the process, and analyzed the genome of many samples. You can get some of his samples if you have a lab and a freezer capable of handling them.)

 

But you won't get video of it happening in real-time. The Lenski experiment has been running for 22 years, or 50,000 generations. Try videotaping that.

[ajb]

We cannot observe evolution or something being intelligently designed so we are now into philosophical theories of existence.

 

I don't see why direct observation of something in real time should be seen as the only evidence.

 

The theory of evolution fits well with lots of observations as does macroevolution.

 

There are more qualified people than me to discuss this. (see above)

Edited November 3, 2010 by ajb

[Red Hypergiant]

Atoms can be directly observed. There is some scientific evidence for electrons but we can not see them directly. Most things scientists have worked on have been observable or tests can be carried out with results like electrons we have witnessed some kind of effect from them. There is nothing going for evolution. No cause and no effect. Macroevolution it simply does not exist can not be tested, predicated, observed, studied, repeated... the list goes on. Nothing scientific about it. It's a philosophical theory of the past. Never present.

 

 

 

Nothing going for evolution? Nothing like, say, the fossil record? The genetic code? The ring species of salamanders in California? The nylonase producing bacteria? Bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics?

 

 

Evolution can and has been tested. Simply apply a pressure to a species, and genetic diversity and natural selection will do the rest.

 

 

Learn more about science before embarrassing yourself.

 

 

[Moontanman]

Atoms can be directly observed. There is some scientific evidence for electrons but we can not see them directly. Most things scientists have worked on have been observable or tests can be carried out with results like electrons we have witnessed some kind of effect from them. There is nothing going for evolution. No cause and no effect. Macroevolution it simply does not exist can not be tested, predicated, observed, studied, repeated... the list goes on. Nothing scientific about it. It's a philosophical theory of the past. Never present.

 

No atom has ever been directly observed, all we have is some evidence for them like we do electrons but then again we have evidence for evolution too but no direct observation according to you. I say there is just as much evidence for evolution as there is for electrons. We can observe evidence of electrons in the form of electricity and we can see evidence for evolution all around us, both in fossils and in the living organisms of the earth. We see no evidence what so ever for ID or creationism or the book of urantia or any other fairy tale.

 

We cannot observe evolution or something being intelligently designed so we are now into philosophical theories of existence. You are now down to a choice, a belief, so were all these things that you see in everyday life intelligent designed or did they evolve over long periods of time? Which one is right and which one is wrong? Most views of reality are variations of these two basic views. There is no conclusive way to decide between them. There is no experiment that can be performed to decide whether reality is formed by intelligent design or by evolution. Ultimately the test is in the explanatory power of either view: whichever one best explains the empirical phenomena of reality is the one more likely to be true. The individual has to think his way to the truth.

 

Plenty of evidence of evolution, just as much evidence of evolution as there is for fusion inside the sun, or rings around Uranus.

 

There are supporters on both sides.

 

There is support somewhere for everything, supporting numbers does not the truth make.