Evolution Not Provable ?

[crazynutsx]

There is no evidance for this theory

 

I run my own creation vs science forum

 

and not one evolutionist has given a single peive of empircle evidence (meaning testable, observable and demonstrated)

 

I love this subject beacuse there is no evidence on either side its all speculation

 

 

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculation.

I suggest you go over this, crazynutsx: http://www.sciencefo...ums-and-debate/
and in particular, this part:

What evolution is (and isn't)

Right-ho, there’s a lot of confusion about this in the creationist camp. Basically, this is what evolution is:



The change in allele frequency in a population over time



Creationists generally define evolution thus:


Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god.



This is not the scientifically definition of evolution. For a start, the last bit ('without the aid of a god') is not part of the theory of evolution (see below). In addition, by defining evolution as every process that happened in the chain of events that, starting from nothing, resulted in mankind, you are including a lot of theories which are not covered by the scientist's definition of evolution.

You can still find many people who will discuss the other things here, but if you refer to them as evolution people will invariably get confused. Please bear in mind, then, that on this science forum 'evolution' pertains only to the change in allele frequency in a population over time, and the causes and effects thereof.

By the way, the correct scientifically term for the all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species is 'natural history'.

But feel free to go over the entire thing. Also, avoid talking about creationism here. We don't accept soapboxing. You are welcome to discuss the scientific merit (or lack thereof) of a scientific theory.


We're not going to argue or explain to you the entire theory; there are tons of books and online resources that have *evidence* - repeated, repeatable, predictive and observed - for the (quite big) theory of evolution and natural selection.

You're in a science forum; we don't argue empty statements here, so if you want to argue against this established theory, you are more than welcome to post the counter-arguments or the reasons you think it is bunk.

Coming here and demanding we prove it to you is not the way we work. You make a claim (that the theory is bunk), you should supply evidence for this claim. Go for it.

Good luck, and welcome to Science Forums.

~mooey

[crazynutsx]

 

it really depends what type of evolution you are talking about

 

ok fair enuff you can explain micro evolution, variation over time

 

What about macro evolution that says we all come from one common ancestor

 

 

[mooeypoo]

What about it?

 

 

 

 

Did you go over the link I supplied at all? Those and others are answered in the links there.

[Arete]

There's no mechanistic distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution - you're just describing the same process over different periods.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Arete

[Moontanman]

 

it really depends what type of evolution you are talking about

 

ok fair enuff you can explain micro evolution, variation over time

 

What about macro evolution that says we all come from one common ancestor

 

 

"Micro" and "Macro" Evolution are the same thing, why do creationists always get that wrong? The bigger question is why can't they show any instance of "creation"? Just one animal out of order in the evolutionary record like maybe bunnies in the Cambrian period, no wait, they don't believe there was a Cambrian era, your guys think the Earth is 6,000 years old, that is a pickle isn't it.... maybe you could get one of the real creationist experts to come and give us a good talking to, like maybe Dr. Kent Hovind, yes he is supposed to have taught high school science for 15 years... no wait, he is in jail for fraud, he is also not a doctor (he lied about that too) How sad, I know! Lets ask the Banana Man!

[mississippichem]

it really depends what type of evolution you are talking about

 

ok fair enuff you can explain micro evolution, variation over time

 

What about macro evolution that says we all come from one common ancestor

 

You argue that we haven't observed macro evolution and use this as proof that macro-evolution is false. Your are not accounting for the fact that we have not been observing long enough to observe a population of fish evolving into a population of amphibians. This doesn't "prove" evolution so to speak, but it makes your point moot.

 

How is it so unbelievable that a lot of microevolution adds up to some macroevolution over huge timescales?

Edited June 9, 2011 by mississippichem

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I take it you're not familiar with Talk.Origins, crazynutsx?

 

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Ringer]

To add to everyone else, even if you were to prove evolution is false you would still need evidence for an alternate explanation. AKA even if I am wrong doesn't mean you are right.

[Edtharan]

 

it really depends what type of evolution you are talking about

 

ok fair enuff you can explain micro evolution, variation over time

 

What about macro evolution that says we all come from one common ancestor

DNA is a series of chemicals called Deoxyribonucleic Acids (hence DNA). This sequence of chemicals can be referred to as their name, or a letter that abbreviates their name. This way a sequence of DNA can be represented as a sequence of letters.

 

Now, as the DNA determines what the organism will develop into, then changing that sequence of letters can change the development of an organism. This is because the differences between two types of species is just the sequence of their DNA.

 

But, if you slowly replace one letter at a time in a sequence of letters (also either remove or add a letter which is also know to occur as well in DNA mutations), then you can convert one sequence of letter into another

 

Such as:

ABCD

EBDC

EFCD

EFGD

EFGH

 

ABCD has been turned into EFGH.

 

But, EFGH is an entirely different sequence of letters than ABCD, and in terms of genetics (and thus what the egg will develop into), this would represent an entirely different species of organism. The DNA sequence would be completely different, and the subsequent development too.

 

Now, when you consider you would only need to change around 1.6% of the DNA in us to get the DNA sequence of a chimpanzee, the differences between species is actually very small.

 

If you think about a book. If you changed just 1.6% of the letters in a book, you would not consider that book to be a completely different book, let alone a book written by a completely different author.

 

If you are willing to accept that a book with just 1.6% of the letters change in it, is not a completely different book, or a book written by a different author, then why can you not accept that just a 1.6% difference in the genetic code means that two species can be related.

 

If you changed just 1.6% of the letters in a book, you would still be able to read the book without too much trouble. Sure, some words might not make sense (or are different words), but you could still understand the book.

[Moontanman]

To add to everyone else, even if you were to prove evolution is false you would still need evidence for an alternate explanation. AKA even if I am wrong doesn't mean you are right.

 

 

I agree Ringer, if evolution is wrong, that doesn't make creationism right add that to the fact that nothing in biology makes sense outside the frame work of evolution and you get a situation where creationists are asking to be allowed to promote mythology as fact, mythology that doesn't explain anything and is backed up by zero evidence, and replace a theory (BTW crazyntz I suggest you learn what a theory really is) that has an enormous volume of facts to support it with magic? Really?

[DrRocket]

There is no evidance for this theory

 

I run my own creation vs science forum

 

and not one evolutionist has given a single peive of empircle evidence (meaning testable, observable and demonstrated)

 

I love this subject beacuse there is no evidence on either side its all speculation

 

 

 

First, re the thread title. No, evolution is not provable. Neither is any other scientific theory. "Proof" applies to mathematics, not to science. Acceptance of a scientific theory is always provisional, and is based on evidence, not proof.

 

There is certainly evidence in support of evolution. Genetics is a fairly well-developed discipline with roots in the chemistry of the DNA molecule and lots of supporting data at all levels from molecular to cellular to large-scale breeding. Genetics is an essential ingredient of evolution.

 

Fossil evidence clearly shows a progressive differentiation of species. You can explain that via natural selection, or via repeated interventions of the supernatural. If you accept repeated interventions of the supernatural, then ALL science, not just evolutionary biology, but also chemistry and physics, anything based on an orderly and predictable nature, must be set aside. That is not reasonable.

 

Evolution is not, yet, a quantitatively predictive theory, but it is the best and most reasonable explanation of that which has been observed. It is certainly supported by a preponderance of the evidence. That is not proof. It is as close to proof as you will find.

 

Evolution is distinct from abiogenesis. While abiogenesis very likely did occur on Earth, that is not certain. Perhaps seeds of life arrived on a meteorite. No one really knows. There is no solid theory for abiogenesis. The evidence is basically that we are here now, and it is highly unlikely that life existed 10^-33 sec after the big bang. On a big picture level that is pretty good evidence.

 

The most common misconception of the creationist wackos is that science and religion are incompatible. They are not. Science is incompatible with superstition. If you insists that the Earth was created in 7 literal days, then you are doomed to wallow in superstition. If you are willing to believe that a higher power acts in the natural world via natural processes then there is no conflict. If you insist that a higher power act as you dictate that such a power act then I suggest that you place yourself in the role of an even higher power, and that is just a wee bit arrogant. The Bible is not a physics book, a chemistry book or a biology text. Neither is the Torah, the Koran, ...

 

This is not to suggest that science supports religion either. It is completely independent. Creationists also fail to understand this point.

[Fuzzwood]

It has actually been proven: E. coli mutating into EHEC. HIV virus mutations. YES THAT FALLS UNDER EVOLUTION.

[rktpro]

He is using evolution as a headline for the debate.

But didn't you suspect that he wants to debate over existence of God.

Actually, craqzynutsx, I believe that evolution is wrong at certain points. I believe that it can't start on its own. Also, it is not completely discovered by us. Remember what Darwin's son said. He said that no matter how much have we studied about evolution, but it is still a mystery.

But I keep my belief with myself. I agree with some points of this theory.

If you have to do devotion. you have to follow a science. Body do devotion and this is to be maintained. Science is not completely wrong, neither is evolution.

You are asking a proof with which it can be demonstrated. Well, there are things which can't be proved on just visual basis. You can't prove your dad on visual-basis. And you can't demonstrate that you were born out of him. Only you can use someone as witness who saw your birth. But since, evolution took million of years, you can't have a spectator for the event.

[A Tripolation]

I believe that it can't start on its own.

 

I'd like to know how adding an entity that could "start" such a process makes it less complicated in any way, shape, or form.

[markearthling]

Mooeypoo

 

Isn't this the right place for speculation about evolution or should crazynutsx

have posted elsewhere ?

 

Is he actually soapboxing as you said above or is he just presenting a general

speculatory subject regarding creationism vs evolution ?

 

Just wondered.

 

Mooeypoo

 

Whoops, sorry.

 

I see it was moved from somewhere else to here.

 

 

 

[rigney]

There is no evidance for this theory

 

I run my own creation vs science forum and not one evolutionist has given a single peive of empircle evidence (meaning testable, observable and demonstrated)

 

I love this subject beacuse there is no evidence on either side its all speculation

 

 

I've heard it used several times and now finally realize what "trolling" means on this forum. Crazyx, below is a good explanation of how science works as opposed to religion.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

And if Dr. Rocket hadn't made such a nasty remark in his post #12; Quote:The most common misconception of the creationist wackos is that science and religion are incompatible.Unquote, I could have believed his every word.

Edited June 11, 2011 by rigney

[swansont]

Mooeypoo

 

Isn't this the right place for speculation about evolution or should crazynutsx

have posted elsewhere ?

 

Is he actually soapboxing as you said above or is he just presenting a general

speculatory subject regarding creationism vs evolution ?

 

Just wondered.

 

Mooeypoo

 

Whoops, sorry.

 

I see it was moved from somewhere else to here.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Even though it was moved, it still has to follow the rules of discussion, which include "no soapboxing". That it is in speculations does not remove the requirement that evidence be presented to support a claim. The speculations rules state this explicitly.

[Moontanman]

I've heard it used several times and now finally realize what "trolling" means on this forum. Crazyx, below is a good explanation of how science works as opposed to religion.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

And if Dr. Rocket hadn't made such a nasty remark in his post #12; Quote:The most common misconception of the creationist wackos is that science and religion are incompatible.Unquote, I could have believed his every word.

 

 

I have a lot of respect for DR. Rocket, he is correct but only partially, there are two basic types of creationists, the sheep and the shepherds, they call themselves these labels so it's not derogatory to use their own terminology. The sheep are people who believe for what ever reason in the absolute truth of the word of god as written in what ever religious book they use (there are more Muslim, Hindu, and Zoroastrian creationists than Christian ones but their delusion is generally the same even if the details are completely different.) Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs as long as it doesn't disrupt our society. The real wackos are the shepherds who knowingly and deliberately use lies to convince other people to believe their "absolute truth" often they are making a very lucrative living, private jets, multiple mansions, luxury cars, yachts, they live like most of us have trouble even dreaming of all on the backs of the sheep they are lying to so the sheep will give them money. Hmm, maybe they are not wackos after all, i could use a mansion and a few luxury cars too, several million dollars a year for just getting up in front of people and convincingly lying to them sounds pretty easy... but as Dr. rocket points out their real scam is convincing people that anyone who disagrees with them is an atheist and will go to hell so you have to believe what they say or it's human fritters on the deep under the earth grill....

 

Time to turn so you don't burn....

Edited June 11, 2011 by Moontanman

[mooeypoo]

Mooeypoo

 

Isn't this the right place for speculation about evolution or should crazynutsx

have posted elsewhere ?

 

Is he actually soapboxing as you said above or is he just presenting a general

speculatory subject regarding creationism vs evolution ?

 

Just wondered.

 

Mooeypoo

 

Whoops, sorry.

 

I see it was moved from somewhere else to here.

 

 

 

Yeah, I think the main problem is that unlike you, markearthlink, it seems that he doesn't quite care to really debate, but rather to post random "booyah!" sentences around the forum and run.

 

In general, by the way, we don't usually allow talks about creationism outside the Religion forum, since it's obviously NOT science.

 

We could, however, discuss the merits of scientific theories (evolution and anything else,) like we do here. It's a bit hard to focus on what to debate about when there's no real cooperation from the other side.

 

If you're really interested in the debate, markearthling, I think you might want to pick up on it.. we will probably have a more helpful debate with someone that actually cares to cooperate.

 

 

 

 

Avoid making claims about religion in this thread, though. Those strictly go in the Religion thread (and you're more than welcome to make those claims there when you have enough posts.)

 

~mooey

[Edtharan]

First, re the thread title. No, evolution is not provable. Neither is any other scientific theory. "Proof" applies to mathematics, not to science. Acceptance of a scientific theory is always provisional, and is based on evidence, not proof.

Actually evolution can be framed into an algorithm (a mathematical process using functions). In this form evolution is provable. Biological evolution is just organic chemicals performing these evolution algorithms. Thus you can prove that biological evolution is true through proving algorithmic evolution is true and then demonstrating that biological systems undergo the processes of algorithmic evolution.

 

There is certainly evidence in support of evolution. Genetics is a fairly well-developed discipline with roots in the chemistry of the DNA molecule and lots of supporting data at all levels from molecular to cellular to large-scale breeding. Genetics is an essential ingredient of evolution.

Genetics is only essential to biological evolution. Biological evolution is just one application of algorithmic evolution.

 

To prove algorithmic evolution, all you need to do is to prove that evolution operates by logical steps that can be performed by a Turing Machine or a Universal Turing Machine (also know as a computer). If one can show that the processes required for Evolution can be executed by a Turing Machine and that the output of this is what is describes as evolution, then you have proven that evolution is a mathematical fact.

 

This has been done many, many times. Much of modern technology relies on algorithmic evolution being true. Many of the manufacturing processes use algorithmic evolution to optimise production and thus make then cheap enough for people to afford and for mass production of them. Many of the transport networks that bring good and food to us are also optimised by algorithmic evolution. The designs of modern computer chips and motherboards are also designed by evolutionary algorithms, so the computers you are using to view this could not exist without them working.

 

If it didn't work, then none of these system (and many others) could be easily optimised, and without that optimisation, the speed, power and cost of these goods and services would not be affordable to anyone by the mega-rich.

 

As computers are a type of Universal Turing Machine, and evolution can be programmed into them, this proves that evolution is mathematically true.

 

For biological evolution to be true, we need to show that biological systems perform the same function as in algorithmic evolution.

 

Algorithmic evolution uses these functions:

1) Make many copies of a given data set

2) Add in small changes to each copy of the data set

3) Remove the copies of the data set that perform below a given threshold

4) Repeat steps 1 to 3 until either non data sets are left, or the a data set exceeds a given performance threshold.

 

Now, do biological systems do this?

1) Make many copies of a given data set:

Yes. When an organism reproduces, it reproduces the DNA it had. This also means that DNA is the data set.

 

2) Add in small changes to each copy of the data set:

Yes. Mutations in the data set of DNA can and does occur and had been well documented to occur.

 

3) Remove the copies of the data set that perform below a given threshold:

Yes. This is what is called natural selection in biological evolution. For a population to remain stable exactly 2 offspring from a breeding pair must survive to breeding age. This is not 2 from each litter, but 2 from the entire life time of a breeding pair. Simple calculations show that most offspring must not survive to breed, or we would be quickly over run with organisms. This means that removal of under-performing organisms must be occurring and thus selection taking place.

 

4) Repeat steps 1 to 3:

Yes. Each generation ends up performing the steps 1 to 3. If there are no organisms left, then the cycle stops. However, there is really no upper limit to performance, unless you consider an organism that completely wipes out every other living organism.

 

So, this actually proves that biological evolution must be occurring because algorithmic evolution has been mathematically proven to be true. By showing that biological evolution is identical to algorithmic evolution and that biological systems perform the processes of evolution, then we can show biological evolution must also be true.

[Ophiolite]

It appears to me that all you have demonstrated is that biological evolution could be identical to algorithmic evolution. You would also have to demonstrate that no other mechansims are present in biological evolution in order to state the case has been proven.

[Stefan-CoA]

I really, really wish there could be some sort of ban against discussions like this.

 

No matter what you do, the nutters from the "invisible friend" side will ALWAYS misunderstand evolution. No matter how hard you try to explain it to them, how eloquent you may be, it is their mission in life to misunderstand the theory of evolution. I mean, the have contested the meaning of theory and lost, they have contested evolution and lost, what next are you going to debate the meaning of 'of'?

 

They will cry for proof of intermediate forms, but then they will want intermediates of the intermediates and so forth.

 

So, let's stop all this nonsense, agree that creationists will always moan about how there is no evidence, that people came from monkey-rocks and that god is the bestest and greatest thing in the world.

 

Evolution has provided more for humanity than superstitious ideology.

[Ophiolite]

I really, really wish there could be some sort of ban against discussions like this.

I understand your frustration, but you are being governed by emotion, not logic.

 

Many more people read threads like this than contribute to them. Many of these are not forum members, but interested persons, often young, trying to understand the world and the conflicting theories (in all senses of the word) as to how it functions. Discussion like this provide a current opportunity for the weaknesses of the creationist arguments and the strength of the scientific ones to be expressed.

 

If the scientific arguments are presented objectively, not as scientific dogma. If objections are dealt with thoroughly and dispassionately, then there is a good chance the lurker will come to favour these over the unfounded assertions of the creationists. Presenting the arguments objectively includes making sure the objections are to the logic and lack of evidence of the creationist position, not an attack on faith, or religion in general.

 

For these reasons I see these discussions as both welcome and necessary, as one road of many to educate and inform the layman about the nature of science in general and evolution in particular. We may never persuade the creationist initiator of the thread of why he is so painfully wrong, but that is not who our primary target audience should be.

[StringJunky]

I really, really wish there could be some sort of ban against discussions like this.

 

No matter what you do, the nutters from the "invisible friend" side will ALWAYS misunderstand evolution. No matter how hard you try to explain it to them, how eloquent you may be, it is their mission in life to misunderstand the theory of evolution. I mean, the have contested the meaning of theory and lost, they have contested evolution and lost, what next are you going to debate the meaning of 'of'?

 

They will cry for proof of intermediate forms, but then they will want intermediates of the intermediates and so forth.

 

So, let's stop all this nonsense, agree that creationists will always moan about how there is no evidence, that people came from monkey-rocks and that god is the bestest and greatest thing in the world.

 

Evolution has provided more for humanity than superstitious ideology.

 

After reading and sometimes contributing to many threads here in the last two years or so, you realise that many threads are repeated by new people (same old so-and-so... different actors! ), but as Ophiolite says, the role of this forum as a proponent of scientific methodology, is to educate those that want to learn and, usefully, the ardent naysayers are often the unwitting focal point for demonstrating how their versions of reality don't pass muster. The naysayers most likely stay the same at the end of a discussion but the watching bystanders get something useful from it...hopefully.

 

If SFN blocked the creationist argument it would be as guilty of dogmatism as them. Other stricter science forums block them out without a second thought but they've taken the easy road and can be accused of dogmatism. I admire SFN's scientific members for taking on all comers and patiently putting forward the scientific view.

 

The dissemination of science is an exercise without end and you personally should just get off the educating merry-go-round when you've had enough and pass the baton...there's the best part of 6 billion people to sort out, so, globally 'winning' the scientific argument, I think you will agree, is unlikely in our lifetime.

Edited June 12, 2011 by StringJunky