Proof of Evolution

[hifi_killer]

Evolution is a complex interaction of genetic and environmental variables.

Theres too much talk about the genetic variables, but there seems to be too little attention on the environmental variables

The changing climate, physical geography, ecosystem, they all give rise to new selection pressures hence new traits/genotypes will eventually be selected. The original article did mention a extreme environmental event - a drought, that could serve as environmental trigger to turn on/off certain genes...

as a theory, evolution has a lot of applications in the other disciplines of science like psychology and sociology.
Evolutionary applications and theories in these sciences are based on testable hypotheses , most of which are empirically validated.

wikipedia/youtube/google (with the exception of google scholar) should not be used as 'evidence'. The accuracy and validity of scientific information is questionable, these internet sources are widely discouraged for use at the tertiary level of education.

 

[ymmak]

There is NO evidence for creation, their "evidence" comes from gaps in evolution. like I've said before creationists look at whats missing instead of whats there. And again like I've said before if we discover Species A, C, D and F, the creationists will argue that because Species B and E have not been discovered evolution is false. Even though we've discovered Species A, C, D and F. They will ignore the evidence that IS there and focus on the evidence that ISN'T there. Youtube will provide a lot of explanation for evolution and debunk common creationist claims. or you could visit talkorigins.org

If you may choose to be persuaded by evidence that IS there, why cant the creationists choose to focus on the evidence that ISNT there? If you are discontent with how creationist focus on the evidence for evolution that ISNT, why have you also focused on the evidence for creation that isnt there?

When you say there is NO evidence for creation, please bear in mind that unless species B and E are discovered, there will equally be NO concrete evidence for evolution.

Creationists believe what they believe in based on faith. Evolutionists stands firmly for evolution because they assume that there is species B and E to bridge the missing link. Both camps of people actually have made some sort of assumptions or speculations. Both camps of people are actually similar, just different stand.

 

[ymmak]

wikipedia/youtube/google (with the exception of google scholar) should not be used as 'evidence'. The accuracy and validity of scientific information is questionable, these internet sources are widely discouraged for use at the tertiary level of education.

+1.

Such comments above are more favored than simply lambasting creationist incoherently.

 

[widdly]

Not really. You being a bit narrow by focusing on the evolution of animals. The whole idea of evolution is not just about how we are formed, but how the world is created. The problem I see about evolutionist's data is that they merely focus on how different animals "evoluted", but not on the rest of the idea

The rest of what idea? The creation story? Isn't reducing the origins of the universe, the planet earth and all the life on earth to two chapters of Genesis is a bit narrow?

 

[hutkahn]

we have to account for a certain degree of illogic. even if you're a proponent of the Big Bang Theory, does it make sense that it happened out of literally nothing? In considering other people's beliefs, we have to take into account what they believe might not be the same as what you do, and to classify something as absolute truth upon which other theories are wrong is bigotry. Evolutionist or Creationist, there are flaws in the theories that the other camp will constantly rebuke, yet how do you classify something as being the absolute truth?

 

[theliverevolution]

The rest of what idea? The creation story? Isn't reducing the origins of the universe, the planet earth and all the life on earth to two chapters of Genesis is a bit narrow?

Lol. No! I'm not referring to just Genesis alone. There's actually a scientific magazine called Creation that uses science to show evidence of Creation. They've got a website as well. They use actually use science to show that they're right.
Naturally, I'm lost in all the science talk, but what they say do makes sense



Disclaimer: By reading the magazine or the website, you agree that you would be exposed to another belief and, inevitably, another faith.

 

[widdly]

Lol. No! I'm not referring to just Genesis alone. There's actually a scientific magazine called Creation that uses science to show evidence of Creation. They've got a website as well. They use actually use science to show that they're right.
Naturally, I'm lost in all the science talk, but what they say do makes sense



Disclaimer: By reading the magazine or the website, you agree that you would be exposed to another belief and, inevitably, another faith.

Lol! No wonder you are lost in the science talk. It's not very scientific.

Here's an article in a decent science mag about reconciling evolution and faith
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-christian-mans-evolution

 

[theliverevolution]

I never studied bio, hated physics. The only science I love is chem, but I'm still more of a arts sort of person! I don't understand a lot of arguments for/against evolution/creation because of all the science talk! ;D

 

[empihsrow]

Has SOFT recently turned into a battleground between the religious believers and the non-religious believers?

Let me tell you something. Neither science nor religion tells you the truth.

So, stop the debate and get on with life. :/ That's so much more to do.

 

[penta-tonic]

nah i dont think this is unhealthy. its good when factual debate can take place with each expressing his own opinion and backing it up with factual content. always good to see both sides of a coin, limiting oneself to only one side would be really narrow and brings out the bigots in us. im christian and i have reconciled both evolution and creation. and more info is always welcome. irony is the more i see what science proves for me, the more i see God.

 

[predz23]

Not really. You being a bit narrow by focusing on the evolution of animals. The whole idea of evolution is not just about how we are formed, but how the world is created. The problem I see about evolutionist's data is that they merely focus on how different animals "evoluted", but not on the rest of the idea

WRONG!!! evolution only explains the diversity of life and not its origins, that biogenesis thats a whole different field. thats why Charles Darwins book was called "The Origin of SPECIES" and not the "Origin of the world"

 

[predz23]

If you may choose to be persuaded by evidence that IS there, why cant the creationists choose to focus on the evidence that ISNT there? If you are discontent with how creationist focus on the evidence for evolution that ISNT, why have you also focused on the evidence for creation that isnt there?

When you say there is NO evidence for creation, please bear in mind that unless species B and E are discovered, there will equally be NO concrete evidence for evolution.

Creationists believe what they believe in based on faith. Evolutionists stands firmly for evolution because they assume that there is species B and E to bridge the missing link. Both camps of people actually have made some sort of assumptions or speculations. Both camps of people are actually similar, just different stand.

1.) Because science is about finding out the truth from evidence that is there, you don't solve a crime by saying that suspect A's fingerprints are missing from the door knob therefore there's a "gap" in the evidence, even though his fingerprints are on the knife

2.) Tons of transitional species have already been discovered, they don't rely on the undiscovered species because there are already tons of discovered species that have been observed to evolve from fossil evidence. If we havent discovered species B and E yet, it doesn't matter when we find it because species F-Z has already been discovered, so you wanna ignore those species only because two havent been discovered yet?

3.) "Creationists believe what they believe in based on faith." thats the problem, faith by definition is to believe without evidence. If you want to have faith in creation thats fine, but don't try to pass it off as science. And there is plenty of evidence for evolution, no scientist has 'assumed' the existence of species B or E and uses it for evidence. the evidence for evolution range from a.) genetics b.) geography c.) fossil evidence

even if evolution is proven to be false tomorrow, It doesn't make creationism true because they still don't have evidence for it. Creationist tend to poke holes in evolution instead of trying to find evidence for creationism, that is simply unscientific

 

[taypeng81]

just another of my 0.2 cts - natural selection and genetic variations within a species is not disputed here. Within a species there are variations within certain traits and this is actually required for the species to adapt and survive in different/changing environments and colonize niche habitats.

What is disputed is that random mutation can lead to enough change in a genome over a period of time to enable a species to take on a different trait or characteristic such that is can be distinguished as a distinct separate species. In my view, on the simple math of probability its not possible.

Evolution is of course not a complete theory because its needs more explaining and support. THats where biogenesis and big bang theory etc comes in. and with regards to that, no one has seen the "biological soup" (where amino acids, DNA supposedly originate from). Neither has there been any documented report of anything alive originating from a lightning strike, if you know where im coming from.

i suppose creation was somehow included in this thread because if evolution cannot explain the origin of life then the next best explanation would be a Creator at work?
in that case, any evidence of a Creator would be the evidence we need for creation.

 

[taypeng81]

1.) Because science is about finding out the truth from evidence that is there, you don't solve a crime by saying that suspect A's fingerprints are missing from the door knob therefore there's a "gap" in the evidence, even though his fingerprints are on the knife

i think for something to be validated as fact/truth all evidences should agree/add up under scrutiny. people are just pointing out flaws with the theory.

can you shed some light on the transitional species that you mentioned?

 

[predz23]

scrutinizing a theory to validate it is completely fine in science but creationists scrutinize it to try to prove their theory, which isnt even a valid scientific theory. By debating creationists its going to make people think that creationism and evolution are both equal theories because the creationists are given a stage. Why would a geographer for example debate with someone who thinks the earth is flat? this will then cause people to think the geographer and the flat earth guy are having a real scientific discussion. But at the moment there is A LOT of evidence to support evolution, the public has got no idea how many fossils museums across the world actually have. Evolution is now pretty much a fact among scientists, the only thing they're arguing are the certain ideas WITHIN evolution, not evolution itself.
As for the transitional species I dont know where to begin, "tiktaalik" is the fish with legs. Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Australopithecus afarensis, archeopteryx to name a few.

 

[taypeng81]

i dont think evolution is on a totally different field than creation (faith) because so much of it is also based on unproven theories and some of these are almost like folklore/legends.

scientist have proposed that organic elements were once scattered about in a biological soup on earth and as a result of a lightning strike they came together to form dna strands, amino acids which eventually linked together into the metabolic systems that we know of. I think that takes a certain amount of "faith" to accept dont you think?

i also once saw a program on tv explaining how the galapagos tortoise might have gotten there. (the islands are formed by volcanic activity and the nearest land mass is many miles away) and one scientist suggested they might have gotten there by hitching a ride on driftwood.

...

sometimes scientists are really very smart haha.

 

[fehlupkid]

wikipedia/youtube/google (with the exception of google scholar) should not be used as 'evidence'. The accuracy and validity of scientific information is questionable, these internet sources are widely discouraged for use at the tertiary level of education.

i agree with you.
but if you are referring to my post, i was just using wiki to show who has been involved in the research, not as prove of any theory.

anyways, like i said, it's sharing someone's else's perspective. not here to make claims.

 

[predz23]

Its funny that you laugh at scientists for making hypothesis. Everything you use in your life was made by science. Go laugh at your toothpaste, go laugh at the furtiliser, go laugh at my glasses for making me able to see, go laugh at them saving millions of lives with medicine. The animals on the galapagos have a lot of resemblance to the animals in the mainland and share a lot of genetic commonality with them too. As I saw on TV as well Krakatoa the volcano in Indonesia was repopulated with animals after some time. But how? Driftwood is the only way and the TV show I watched even caught some animals stuck to driftwood while they were on the boat

Evolution is not based on unproven theories. Its as simple as that, its nonsense to even say that because evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence and not unproven faith.

and the primordial soup requires faith? no not really http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm

 

[growlingsoulpup]

I think all the people who are pissing their pants out of fear for a "religion vs science" war on SOFT should chill really. Factual discourse and intellectual exchange, sounds like the Sound Of Friends Together to me.

 

[taypeng81]

im not saying scientist dont make useful contributions but i think the things they propose go against the grain of common sense at times. i mean how often do tortoises climb onto driftwood on the sea and what are the chances? chill la bro