Has evolution been proven ?

I would say that the record of life on this planet is that if there is a niche to fill that something will take the offer up -- look at all the extreme ecologies of bacteria that keep showing up.Consider that there is absolutely no barrier to plant life migrating from the sea to the land, as a gradual progression from tidal to estuary to mudflat etcetera is available ... any mutation that allows a first pioneer to survive in the slightly different environment will succeed massivly (no competition and no predators).For the same reason any form of life that is a predator of the plant colonists will have the same massive success for the first pioneers, no matter how sluggish.and they would, of course, be followed by predators of their own, and the race would be on ....

Yep. Yer preaching to the choir, Abby.

ahahaahaaaaand I thought I was conducting ... oh well, I can Handel that later.

Oops, Quetzal. I was referring to the IOW sentence in post 21. Looks like I have another distinction to learn - legs, ray-fins, and something else.I found the first book on-line. May have to go to the U bookstore to find the second?Denetia, (horrible memory so sorry if the spellingis wrong). thanks for your post also. I can imagine a showcase of thousands of teethy little jaws!!Read you all soon (like see you all soon).
BAE

Well, I'd say unless you have some particular desire to buy the books, you should be able to get both from your uni library - they're pretty much standard texts. Looking forward to your reply when you're ready.

I, lacking thorough knowledge on the topic of evolution, may perhaps be wrong, but it seems that the foregoing arguments all fail on one point: you all are using statements that can not possibly been proven true (e.g. similarities in the salamander and fish; large amounts of oil, etc) as your crucial premises (granted, there are philosophical problems with the concept of truth, but since we are making world judgements regarding evolution and creation in the first place, we must presuppose that documented evidence of evolution would essentially constitute evolution being proven true). Rather than making arguments that employ judgements regarding precabrian fossils, you should focus on the present.I have been under the impression that for macroevolution to be true, there must be documented instances of speciation. Indeed, there have been. In 1905, Hugo de Vries witnessed Oenothera lamarckiana (the evening primrose) speciate into a new species which he called Oenothera gigas; he could not breed the two, and thus the former had macroevolved into the latter. Countless other examples exist, including those involving a number of flies, beetles, a lab rat worm, and bacteria. A more detailed article concerning these documented instances is available at Observed Instances of Speciation and although some will tell me to argue my own point, citing that internet articles are likely specious, the article is backed up by dozens of PUBLISHED sources (for those of you who consider the publishing industry the crux of altruism).We all have DNA that governs the development of our body. A mutation in that DNA can cause a child to have no bones in his arm--or even no arm at all. All it takes for that fish's fin to turn into a leg is a change in the fish's genetic material, and all of the documented instances of speciation support the notion that a fish could evolve into a salamander. Just as the evening primrose is extremely close in genetic makeup and physical appearance to oenothera gigas and the two are unable to mate, the lobe-finned fish is close in genetic makeup and physical appearance (with some obvious difference) and yet the two cannot mate.

Obviously, I agree with you that observed speciation and genetics pretty conclusively show beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has occurred, as do mutualisms and other symbioses, predator-prey relationships, antibiotic and pesticide resistance, community assembly, biological succession, etc. None of these by themselves "prove" anything. It's the accumulation of these completely independent lines of evidence that lead inexorably to the same conclusion that makes evolutionary theory so robust.Unfortunately, in general that's not the creationists' argument. They will confidently proclaim that all the examples you'd care to give of speciation don't represent macroevolution (hence mangling the terminology for their own ends). So it is necessary when arguing with them to show that the predictions of evolutionary theory (or if you prefer, retrodictions) have been borne out. The only way to do that is to reference the historical record of life on Earth - the fossils. In spite of its terrible patchiness, incompleteness, and highly skewed distribution (i.e., many more easily fossilizable marine organisms than land animals, etc), the fascinating fact is that what we do have fits perfectly into the evolutionary framework. We CAN predict that, if swimmers became land critters for instance, we should find fossils of the 'tween organisms that show this transition - and we have.I don't think it's a futile argument, except in the sense that just about any argument with a True Believer (tm) is futile. It is, literally and in a nutshell, the route that was taken by scientists in the present and past to derive the theory of evolution in the first place.

I understand that for the theory of evolution to work, the fossilized evidence must align itself with the basic premises of the theory, but I don't understand why documented cases of microevolution (e.g. my mother has 4 wisdom teeth [or had, before they were removed], I have 3, and my friend has none; finches evolving in the Galapagos to adapt to their surroundings), combined with documented cases of speciation, cannot suffice evidence of evolution. Granted, the past is a rich resource, but the present is provable. There will always be "missing links" in the history of evolution (e.g. where is the common ancestor shared by chimps and humans; where is the common ancestor shared by humans and dogs; where is the common ancestor shared by humans and fish, etc.). Don't you see how this approach to proving evolution will be infinitely problematic and subject to argument by creationists? I guess what I'm asking, Quetzal (or especially any creationists out there), is to explain how documented cases of microevolution and speciation (i.e. the documented evolution of the species that have been observed to do so) do not prove evolution by themselves; what is the hole in this argument? I believe that fossils should indeed be used as evidence for evolution, but by all means they should not (and cannot) prove evolution alone.

It truly beats the hell out of me. No matter how many times I've posted or read someone else's post where the evidence - right there in front of their eyes - is presented to a creationist to no effect. I was convinced that evolution was the best explanation for the diversity of life by my own observations of nature. The framework of the TOE provides the sole best available explanation for what we see all around us. Populations change at both the microscale and macroscale. No one who isn't blind, IMO, would be able to deny it with a little effort at getting out in the field and LOOKING. So if you can figure out why they ignore the evidence of their own eyes, let me know. It is really beyond my comprehension.The fossil record is really only necessary to demonstrate that what we see today operated in the same fashion millions of years ago. I don't disagree with you that fossils "don't prove evolution". The record of past life is simply one more - independently derived - line of evidence in favor of the theory. A strong one, perhaps, but the 25 species of Tenrecidae on Madagascar or the mutualistic relationship between Acacia acacia and Pseudomyrmex spp, provides as good.

EoHC,Hey, I had 8 wisdom teeth. When they asked me if I wanted anathesia, I thought they were being rhetorical. Thank the stars for general anathesia!

quote:

---

I guess what I'm asking, Quetzal (or especially any creationists out there), is to explain how documented cases of microevolution and speciation (i.e. the documented evolution of the species that have been observed to do so) do not prove evolution by themselves; what is the hole in this argument?

---

The fact of evolution is what we can observe today. Observed speciation, natural selection, beneficial mutations, etc. The theory part is whether or not these present day, observed mechanisms led to the biodiversity we see in the fossil record. Short of having the entire genome of every species to ever live, we will never know this with 100% certainty. However, genetic and morphological characteristics of extant species does allow us to peer backwards into the fossil record and apply the rules of common ancestory. This has born out well, as is shown by the corroboration of phylogenetics, morphology, and genetics. Three independent variables always lead us to the same conclusion: common ancestory. I think the theory of common ancestory is very well supported, especially in the light of new fossil finds, each of which could throw the theory out the window. The mechanisms of evolution, natural selection and random mutation, are a little sketchier. The strength in using these mechanisms for past speciation, as well as other mechanisms such as genetic drift and assortive mating, is that there are no other mechanisms that have been observed. There has never been an observation of speciation that is tied to anything other than observable natural mechanisms. Suggesting a supernatural mechanism, such as intelligent design, is as specious and arbitrary as leperchauns affecting buffer pH.What science has done is chosen natural mechanisms for natural phenomena. It seems to have worked so far, and I see no reason why it isn't valid for looking into the past, evolutionary heory included. Otherwise, convicted murders could get themselves off by saying that DNA acted differently in the decade that the murder took place, so they should be let off. This is the same consideration that creationists want, doing away with natural mechanisms not because they do no work today, but that they could not have worked in the past because they conflict with their presuppositions. Again, specious and arbitrary at best.

Hi Quetzal,The problem this True Believer (tm) has is different than you state above. The evidence for evolution is there, alright, but it is a subset of the same evidence that God created it.Just as I dismiss the conclusion that evolution is the better answer, my conclusion that creation is the better answer is dismissed. The latter dismissal occurs even though I have perfect evidence of the existence of God, as compared to the admitted imperfect evidence of evolution - not counting the nullification of the TOE by the existence of God.Which would I rather be: a ridiculed TB or a praised follower of tToe? The answer is obvious from the outside. From the inside, there is no comparison between the peace and joy I have in my life from knowing God personally and a pat-on-the-back from my associates.To update you on the status of my seeking Caroll's book, the county library system is trying to get it.It's always a pleasure.
Bob, Alice, and Eve

"Refuted" would be the better term. There is, after all, a difference. Funny, I only began to feel truly at peace and joyful when I realized that God doesn't exist. If your feelings are proof, then mine must be too, but how can we both be right?Maybe feelings aren't much evidence of anything?

BobAliceEve, There's a fundamental logical flaw at the root of your argument; untestability. It is perfectly logical to form a hypothesis based upon the existence of everything that God did it. But this as it stands has an explanatory power of zero. Why? I could just as easily say the existence of everything popped into existence five minutes ago as is. The problem is that we have to turn our as yet untested hypotheses into tested ones, & therein lies the rub. There is no observation that we can make that favours our hypotheses over any other.I may as well claim that God made some objects but not others, or that God exists but created nothing. Both of those statements are as good as the one that claims "because things exist, God must have made them". They are unsupported & meaningless.There is a reason religions are considered faith based. Well let's have this evidence of God, then!The fact is, that you have no logically sound evidence that supports your contention. Yet anyone can make a logically sound argument based upon borne out predictions in favour of evolution.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-30-2004]

On the other hand, what evidence - other than an individual's subjective feelings, which are unreplicatable - exists that allows a person to differentiate between the two explanations? You and I can easily go out in the woods, or to an isolated archipelago, or to the fossil-rich badlands of western North America or southern Africa, and literally touch with our own hands and see with our own eyes the facts of nature and the diversity of life. How does "godidit" provide a better explanation of what we see than the ToE? What piece of evidence, or line of evidence, explains the myriad of utterly independent lines of evidence that all lead to the same conclusion? Remember, you not only have to show that natural processes provide an insufficient explanation for the facts, but show how a supernatural process actually manifests itself to the exclusion of natural processes if you're going to make the case that God is a valid alternative. Otherwise, you're falling back on a weak "god of the gaps" and "argument from personal incredulity". I don't "dismiss" the supernatural explanation. If it could be shown that completely arbitrary discontinuities existed that could not be explained (not "haven't been explained yet") by current theory, then I'd drop it like a hot rock and start looking for other explanations. Unfortunately for the True Believer (tm), such discontinuities have not been shown to exist. Indeed, special creation was the reigning paradigm for almost 1500 years, and was reluctantly abandoned when the evidence started accumulating that it didn't, in fact, explain the observations. Many of the most brilliant naturalists of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries expended considerable effort to reconcile special creation with the mounting evidence unearthed during the Age of Exploration. Many of them, like Lyell and Wallace (among many others) remained uncomfortable with the evidence to the ends of their days - but were honest enough and had enough integrity to admit that ideas of special creation and a young Earth were incompatible with what they themselves saw.As to "perfect evidence of the existence of God", I think you should post it. You'd literally be the first in recorded history to do so. However, that discussion would not be appropriate for this thread, and it's quite unlikely that I would argue with you about it - I find metaphysics and philosophy to be about as interesting as watching paint dry, and have come to the conclusion that arguing about the existence or non-existence of a particular deity is tantamount to arguing over the square root of a duck - pointless in the extreme. OTOH, if you can demonstrate the operation of the supernatural by referring to concrete, repeatable, physical manifestations, then I'd be happy to join in. Show us the evidence that the supernatural explanation trumps the natural explanation. LoL. Sorry, I'm not laughing at you. Your statement about back-patting just struck me funny. You've obviously never been to a symposium where a controversial detail of the ToE has been dissected. Read up on the history of MacArthur/Wilson vs Lack vs Whittacker, or PE vs Gradualism (Dawkins/Dennett vs Gould/Lewontin et al), or Margulis/Sagan/Lovejoy vs the world. Backpatting is about as far from what occurs as I can conceive of. In any case, I DON'T accept the ToE as the current best explanation for the diversity of life because of its "popularity". I accept it because I have literally spent years "in the field" making my own observations. I consider it the best explanation because it does - explain what I have seen, that is. The ToE provides a coherent framework for understanding everything I've observed and pondered over from community succession to species diversity in heterogenous rainforest to plant-insect symbiosis to ecosystem and metapopulation dynamics. I can identify keystone species in a fragmented habitat - and make a prediction on minimum viable preserve size - based on the evolutionary relationships between the components. It allows me to rationally determine the likely outcome of ecosystem disruption. It lets me predict the potential cascade effect of the loss of one or more components of a natural community. It allows me to understand extinction with an eye to preventing it. The list is endless as to what can be derived from application of the theory.How can reference to the supernatural or divine intervention or even the existence or not of a deity do the same? And how does it do it better?Edited to change Denton to Dennett - hey, they both start with "D", gimme a break - and a couple of stupid typos.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-30-2004]

Hey sniggitydiggity,I'm Just giving you some quick simple answers.1) Evolution has not and cannot be proven true. Evolution is a philosophical/religous belief system about the past that is used to interpret scientific evidence.2) Creation has not and cannot be proven true. Creationism is a religous belief system about the past that is used to interpret scientific evidence.Both Creationists and Evolutionists study the same evidence. We both study the same trees, rocks, earth and universe, but the reason we come to opposite conclusions is because we INTERPRET the evidence based on our belief system.Evolutionists believe that single-celled organisms gave rise to multi-celled organisms and multi-celled organisms gave rise to invertabrates and invertabrates gave rise to vertabrates and vertabrates gave rise to ape-like creatures and ape-like creatures gave rise to man. And they interpret the evidence based on this presupposition.Now I belief the Bible to be true and interpret the evidence based on that.Ultimately it comes down to faith. I beieve it takes less faith to believe in God and the Bible than it does to believe in evolution.It's good that you are searching this stuff out. Keep an open mind, have some fun, and THINK a whole lot!!!God Bless

---

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"Creation Man