Has evolution been proven ?

quote:

---

Evolution can not be proven true because it is false.

​

I can give you two examples you can work on your own which might show you that evolution could not have happened.

---

I'm not sure whether you're saying that evolution is impossible or merely involves difficulty. You're right when you say that certain developments 'could not have been accidents,' because the concept of natural selection is not about luck.When we look at modern species, we're looking at the current standings of a tournament that has been going on for billions of years. There are countless species that didn't make the cut and most likely will not even show up in the fossil record. Natural selection rewards the winners of each round with almost certain failure in the next round. The cumulative effect of all this weeding out is the dazzling diversity and baffling complexity we see today. I think the unlikelihood and eccentricity of the designs we see in nature is just what we'd expect from a mindless, deterministic process like evolution.Your incredulity is a little amusing. Is it hard for you to 'imagine' an acorn growing into an oak tree? How about a fertilized egg developing into a human baby? A popular evo catchphrase is that "Evolution is smarter than you are." What you lack in imagination, Nature more than makes up for in novelty and ingenuity.regards,
Esteban "Imagine That" Hambre

Bob, et. al.The title of my post was 'Incredulity,' and that's what I was discussing with the acorn-to-oak and egg-to-baby examples. I could sit at a table looking at an acorn and express my disbelief that an oak tree could ever come from such an object. "Where are the branches? Where the enormous trunk? Where are those millions of leaves? This is clearly impossible."Quetzal has done a fine job of showing you the evidence that, despite your assertion that it's impossible, a salamander is a design modification from a lobe-finned fish. Since we're well aware of the power of DNA recombination and cumulative natural selection, the fish-to-salamander transition requires no miraculous, supernatural explanations.reagrds,
Esteban

CreationMan,Keeping an open mind means at times you may have to change it. I gather there's no chance of that as far as you're concerned.That said, you're absolutely correct that the theory of evolution by natural selection can't be proven true. Data doesn't 'prove' anything. The notion of a scientific theory is that it's a framework for organizing data, generating testable hypotheses, and guiding future research. The vast majority of observations are illuminated by this framework: there is a comprehensible order to life on Earth, and the basis of the interrelations among life forms is common ancestry.If evolution were a religious belief system, I wouldn't expect to see people from every conceivable philosophical and religious background who accept its validity. Check out posts from people on this very board and you'll find Christians, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and atheists arguing in favor of Darwin's theory. It seems that creationism is the religious belief system, since its proponents are overwhelmingly religious fundamentalists.Creationists should deal with the same evidence as evolutionists, but unfortunately they're in the habit of merely ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit their concept. And conspicuously absent from the debate is evidence to support the plausibility of creation ex nihilo of species or life forms.I think it's safe to say you're oversimplifying the debate.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

That is your interpretation of the evidence, but I would interpret it NOT to be common ancestry, but common design.

---

Oh, I see. The genetic evidence we use to establish common ancestry is the exact same evidence that establishes paternity in court. Perhaps you'd tell the jury that your client's DNA is so similar to his alleged child's DNA not because he's the father, but because of 'common design.' That might work.Incidentally, I didn't imply that evolution had been proven because a lot of people believe it. What I said was that it can't just be a religious belief, because people of every religion (or lack thereof) accept it on scientific terms. Plenty of people believe in God and accept evolution, so your accusation that evolution is based on people's philosophical predisposition against religious explanations is null and void.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Just because there are similarities in DNA between species of organisms (i.e., man & chimp) does not imply that they have a common ancestor. Rather it argues stronger for a comon (sic) designer.

---

Really? So why would there be differing degrees of correlation among genomes? Evolutionists say that the degree of correlation would be indirectly proportional to the time that has elapsed since the two organisms shared a common ancestor. What would the creationists say?Back to court, where you're defending a client from a charge of plagiarism. Although your client's article has fundamental differences from the alleged original (like your client's name on the top), there are spelling and punctuation mistakes that are identical to mistakes in the original. Do you advise your client to plead innocent, even though it stretches the bounds of credulity to claim that the same mistakes occurred during separate acts of creation?Then consider this. Between the human genome and a chimp's, there are differences. However, the exact same nonfunctioning pseudogene (like the wrecked vitamin-C gene) in the exact same place in both genomes cannot conceivably support an assertion that these are separate acts of creation. A much more plausible explanation is that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, from whom both species inherited the pseudogene.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

you are assuming that humans and chimps are related

---

No, you're assuming that they're unrelated, despite the fact that you've interpreted other genetic similarities as pointing to common ancestry. This is creationism, as I said: interpreting some evidence, but ignoring what doesn't support the hypothesis.

quote:

---

MrHambre: A much more plausible explanation is that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, from whom both species inherited the pseudogene.

​

Creationman: That's your interpretation.

---

Strange that your interpretation of genetic similarity changes at will. Two genomes are nearly identical, you can tell they're father and son. Two genomes are very similar, you can tell they're from two members of the same species. Two genomes have telltale similarities that can't be explained by anything except common ancestry, you choose to deny the conclusion of common ancestry. How convenient. But the jury is in, and it doesn't look like they agree with you.regards,
Esteban Hambre[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 04-01-2004]

CreationMan,The evidence is there, but as I started out saying, creationists don't look at all of it. Your evidence for a young Earth is that strata in the Grand Canyon are sedimentary. JonF made it clear that you are choosing to ignore the strata that are metamorphic, etc., and the features that can't be explained by speedy processes. If you only interpret some of the evidence, or interpret the same evidence different ways depending on your prejudices, you can't construct a very useful or consistent scientific framework.You're agreeing that the similarities in various genomes suggest and are explained by common ancestry, as long as you've already agreed that these organisms are scripturally allowed to share ancestors. Since humans and chimps aren't allowed, you dismiss the same exact evidence that would strongly suggest common ancestry if you didn't know from which organisms the genomes were taken.You "choose to deny," all right, but you have no scientific basis for doing so. Expecting others to deny the same conclusion assumes that they have the same religious agenda as you. You'd better hope the jury chooses to deny, otherwise your client is in big trouble.regards,
Esteban Hambre

CreationMan,Evidently you're all done with this debate?I'm interested to know, since you mentioned you're a biologist, about your education and work. What sort of research do you do?regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

A part of the world which exists but can not be described or measured: the taste of salt.

---

I see no reason why the taste of salt can't be described. In fact, the reason we call something 'salty' is because we know what it tastes like. (Unless we're talking semi-meiosis, which is tasteless.)And in fact, we know which part of the human tongue responds to bitter, and sweet, etc. So it's a testable property. And the level of salinity is measurable.I think you need to come up with a better example.regards,
Esteban "Bad Taste" Hambre