Has evolution been proven ?

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.

quote:

---

As already stated, the evidence is the same. We DO deal with the same evidence, we just look at it differently. You say the Grand Canyon ws layed down slowly over millions of years. We say it was layed down rapidly by water (they are sedimentary layers). Same evidence, different view.

---

This is simply not true. Scientists (evos, old earthers, etc.) look at ALL of the evidence and form theories that fit ALL of the evidence. YEC's filter out evidence if it leads to conclusions that go against their theology. This is the biggest difference, throwing out evidence BECAUSE of a religious faith. Scientists leave out personal, emotional, and religious bias. I take that back, scientists do have some bias. They are biased towards theories that can be tested and theories that fit ALL the data.If you think YEC's have the same credibility, show us the testable theory of creation and how it is tested. Also show us how the YEC model fits all of the data, including such things as the sorting of fossils, ERV's, and pseudogenes to name a few.The YEC model should also be able to explain what we call convergent evolution, or the production of similar mechanisms by separate means. One example would be the thylacine wolf. In this case, genetically, humans are more closely related to N. American wolves than the thylacine wolf is to the N. Amer. wolf. Why would this be? Common Designer/Common Design would require the thylacine wolf and the N. Amer. wolf to be more closely related than N. Amer. wolves and humans. This is what I mean by YEC models having to fit all of the data, instead of coming up with ad hoc hypotheses fit just for certain situations but in the end unable to explain the whole.EDITED TO ADD: Not all interpretations are equal with respect to reality. The theories of electromagnetism and Zeus as sources for lightening were both based on evidence. However, electromagnetism won because it was based on ALL of the evidence and not on excluding evidence, which is what the Zeus theory would have required.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-30-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-30-2004]

quote:

---

Good illustration, bad application. The DNA in our body's link us back to our parents and grandparents and so forth, but they do not link us back to an ape-like creature or any other "common ancestor"

---

Yes it does. Through the study of pseudogenes, ERV insertions, and overall similarity, it does lead to the conclusion of common ancestory. Also, as mentioned by Mr Hambre, there is a correlation between genetic differences and time since common ancestory. This is a correlation between radiometric dating, fossil stratigraphy, and genetic sequence, all of which are independent of each other. If three different, independent metrics are all consistant with one theory, you have a well supported theory. Common ancestory is that theory.

quote:

---

Look at a porsche and a VW, they are very similar cars because they had the same designer!

---

And cars are not imperfect replicators, they don't reproduce. The only known mechanism for creating a car is through human ingenuity. This is a logical fallacy, an argument from analogy. Your theory of common designer/common design rests on the fact that cars are designed. In nature we see a designer, a blind algorithm that designs reproducing organisms to better fit their environment. That algorithm is evolution. There is no need to insert any other designer, other than feeling better about one's requirements to believe in the theology of the Bible.

quote:

---

Anyone can make figures say what they want, and anyone could say that on the basis of 97 chosen genes, humans and bananas are the very same species, since they are 100% identical. But of course we know this is proposterous to suggest.

---

Show me one gene that is base for base identical between bananas and humans and I will be stunned. There are identical genes, but their sequence is divergent. It is this divergence in sequence that allows us to construct phylogenies that are independent of the fossil record, and yet the two phylogenies (genetic and fossil) are identical.

quote:

---

They don't accept it on scientific terms, they accept it on the word of scientists. People thought the practice of blood letting was a good medical treatment too, not because there was scientific evidence for it, but because the scientific community thought it was good.

---

And this is why evolutionists find creationist literature so dangerous. People agree with creationist pseudoscientists because it makes them feel better about their faith, not because of the reliability of the science. Real science is peer reviewed and can be challeneged by anyone at anytime due to the openness of scientific literature. Everything you need to replicate someone's work is in the primary literature. No one is hiding behind credentials, much less hiding behind trust gained through a common religious belief as is the case within creationist literature.

quote:

---

Religions accept evolution NOT based on the evidence, but based on the word of evolutionists.

---

I will agree that this does happen, no doubt about it. Understanding evolution takes time and effort, something that not everyone is able to do. People trust in science because of the peer review system and the intrinsic competitiveness within science. You are rewarded for reliable and trustworthy science, which is measured by the quality of your publications and the insight it allows into the natural world. Scientists will not let other scientists be right unless the evidence is compelling, such is the nature of peer review and competition. Creationist literature has none of the above, only a cursory check to make sure the conclusions state that special creation 6,000 years is the only viable option. Evolution is evidence first, conclusion last. Creationism is conclusion first, and then whatever evidence fits the conclusion. This is why religions trust real science, and are quickly moving away from the pseudoscience that creationists practice.

quote:

---

Agreed, but you are assuming that humans and chimps are related and were created with those mistakes. But they weren't created with those mistakes, they were created perfectly and seperately and accumulated those mistakes over time.

---

And again, the plagarism analogy is applied. Out of a 3 billion base genome, why would separately created species have exactly the same mutation which was acquired through separate mutation events in the same gene? It doens't compute. However, if chimps and humans have a common ancestor, then we don't have to depend on the same mutation occuring at the same base within a 3 billion base genome. Instead, it happened once and this trait was passed down through heritability to both branches from the common ancestor. Multiply the problem with just one gene (the vitamin c synthase pseudogene) by the numerous other examples of prallelism between chimp and human genomes that give rise to the same problems when assuming separate, non related species. With just one example we have a 1 in 3 billion chance, imagine the odds if 100 other such characteristics are put into the mix and you will begin to understand the problem with assuming special creation.

Before I dig into your post, a little pat on the back for asking probing questions instead of jumping in like you know everything. This is how science should be approached, so thanks for breaking away from the normal creationist MO. Now to the post.

quote:

---

First: When the research of chimp DNA and human DNA is found to be "SIMILAR" what does that mean? Of course, a common ancestor.

---

Not "of course". The similarities have to match with what we would expect if common ancestory was true. This means not only is their similarity, but the gene sequences are the same as well. Here and elsewhere we have used the plagarism analogy. It goes as follows. Imagine a book containing 3 billion letters (average 5 letters a word, this would be a 600 million word book). Someone else comes out with a book of almost the exact same length. This book matches the other book to a degree of 98%. Not only are they similar, but they have some of the same spelling and grammatic mistakes in the same places. We can conclude two things, that one author plagarised the other author or they both plagarised the same source material, keeping the mistakes of the original and adding some of their own. The least likely conclusion is that both works are original, one HAS to be a copy given the sheer size of the book.In addition to the plagarist analogy, there are also other supporting evidences. As others have mentioned, the genetic data also matches what we see in the fossil record. There is no reason, other than evolution, why these two should match up. So, it is not just similarity but HOW the similarities match up.

quote:

---

Second: When the research of chimp DNA and human DNA is showing "DIFFERENCES" what does that mean? Of course, this is Evolution. Because it shows the "Changes" that occurred between chimp and man.

---

It means that mutations have accumalated, which is a prediction of the theory of evolution. Lack of differences would refute evolution. The more distant the common ancestor, the more differences there should be between the genomes. Again, this matches with what we see in the fossil record. The theory of evolution made this prediction, and it is very reliable in this department. Can you show us what you would predict using a creationist theory with respecet to correlation of genetic data with the fossil record? I would say that creationist theories predict no such correlation, and its presence speaks against creationism.

quote:

---

You see the problem I have with this is that, YOU CAN'T LOSE "EITHER WAY". How does that show a useful consistent scientific framework?

---

Yes we can lose, and like mark24 said, we haven't lost. The predictions made by the theory of evolution are borne out in test after test. If our assumptions were wrong, then the data would not fit. It is much more complicated than similarities and differences both support evolution. It is the pattern of similarity and difference that matter, and is unreconcilable with creationism.

quote:

---

Similar DNA means , common DESIGNER and
Differences of DNA shows, the designer "CONSCIOUSLY" created variety.

---

Show me repeatable and reliable data that evidences a designer. Show us scientifically testable hypotheses that can test for a concious designer. There is a designer that can be tested for, the blind algorithm of evolutionary mechanisms, and its presence can be detected. Why should we move to a designer that can not be detected when we have already detected one?

quote:

---

I understand what CreationMan is showing that the common ancestor for dogs are "dogs". The variety we see in dogs shows a common ancestor of the "SAME" species. You can still interbreed dogs. You can't do that with a Chimp and Human, and if you could would you...euw

---

Dogs are dogs because we call them dogs. If a new breed of dog was created and we called it a doggeral, would that make a separate species because we call it a different name? However, interbreeding is an important distinction. So, if we were able to show speciation that resulted in two populations that were no longer able to interbreed, would this be the evidence you seek? This has been observed. Example of speciation into noninterbreeding populations.

quote:

---

In reply to my own post, I have come up with a way to prove which of the two is the truth. Ok, here's the plan, we all just believe what we want, live our lives, and die. If evolution is correct, nobody will know b/c we'll be dead and no longer exist. However, if Creationism is true, then everyone will know b/c we'll be face to face with the Creator and He'll be asking us why we should be allowed into Heaven.

---

Here is a better test. Erase everyone's memories and burn every page that has writing on it. Which theory will be rediscovered, evolution or creationism? Evolution can be rediscovered since the evidence is in the ground and written in the DNA of organisms. Christian creationism can not be rediscovered since it is stringently supported by a book that would not be rediscovered.