|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has evolution been proven ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sniggitydiggity Inactive Member |
Hello all. I'm very new here and there seems to be an extremely high intelligence level on this site and I like that.
Without getting into technical terms and what not, can the question, "Has evolution been proven" be answered? I know a simply yes or no wouldn't be so "simple" in this case, but I'm asking if you could try. I'm very curious about evolution and personally don't think creationism or evolution has been "proven." Am I correct? I'm only here to learn, not debate. Thanks,Sniggs...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
There has been a lot written here on this sort of thing already.
I'll post this and then come back to add links to relevant posts by edit later. That evolution happened has been proven to as great an extent as anything has been proven in science. How evolution occured has been worked out to a very great extent. However, "proven" isn't something one applies to the "how's" (that is theories) in science. Creationism (as in young-earth, flood, all life created at once) has been "proven" false. That is easier than proving something true. To actually discuss this it is necessary to get into some hairy philosophical issues about the meaning of "proof" and other terms which appear, at first glance, to be simple, but are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sniggitydiggity Inactive Member |
Thanks NoseyNed, I understand what you mean, and I knew it would be a long if not, difficult answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The posts I most want seem to be lost in the huge amount of stuff. If you really want to find them I will do more searching.
Meanwhile TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy has something on "fact", "theory" and "proof". Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sniggitydiggity Inactive Member |
Great, thanks for the link. As far as the information you're looking for, it's no big deal, i you find it I would love to read it, if not, I can do some research.
Thank You !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It's a shame. There is so much good information here but it is buried in long, long topics.
You might want to browse the posts of the month forums. Then jump to each of the nominated posts. They cover a lot of ground and frequently have a good succinct explanation of something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Quoting biochemist Duane T. Gish :
"Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in Pre-cambrian rocks ! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have never been found." The lack of fossils in the pre-Cambrian period, or the sudden explosion in the Cambrian speaks for itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Two words: Ediacaran fauna.
There are fossils found in preCambrian rock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5395 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
Hi Snippy,
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. Imagine or draw a fish on the left and a salamander on the right. If you draw then the pictures can be stick pictures; just something to help you organize your thoughts. Now, focus on the on the fin of the fish and the front leg of the salamander. Again, a simple drawing is adequate for organizing your thoughts. Now, imagine or draw some detail on the left and right. On the left you will note a straight, flat, nearly weightless, boney material. On the right you will note two comparatively heavy bones, at least two muscles, associated cartilege, and a cushion inside the joint. Finally, logically disassemble the elbow then try to reassemble it "in thousands of changes over millions of years" (Darwin). You might see the difficulty of a fish or a salamander having part of a leg. Now, step back and see that the foot, wrist, the elbow, the shoulder, and supporting skeleton all had to exist at once. Stephen Gould's puncuated equilibrium is God's equilibrium with no punctuation. The second example is the 38 trillion barrels of oil found in an oil field in Iran in 2003. You can do the arithmetic. What you will find is that a huge pile of plant-life (9 cubic miles if I remember my numbers correctly) for a long period of time did what no plant-life does normally (changed to oil instead of topsoil) then quit - to fill a 12x12 mile by 1000 feet deep hole that waited to cover itself until the plants stopped doing what they do not do normally. Please think on these yourself. You might come to the conclusion that they could have happened by accident - or you might conclude that they could not have been accidents. If not, then the only alternative is Creation is it not? Thanks for reading,Bob, Alice, and Eve
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Imagine or draw a fish on the left and a salamander on the right. If you draw then the pictures can be stick pictures; just something to help you organize your thoughts. Now, focus on the on the fin of the fish and the front leg of the salamander. Again, a simple drawing is adequate for organizing your thoughts. Actually, this isn't a bad exercise. However, it might be more appropriate to examine a basal crossopterygian (lobe-fin fish) and a basal tetrapod, rather than modern salamander. Let's see if this image works:
Note the close resemblance between the structure of the lobe-fin's limbs (from a modern Latimeria chalumnae skeleton) and a tetrapod (from, I think, an Ichthyostega stensonioei). The amphibian's bones are a bit larger, but all of them have a close (like, one-to-one) correspondance with the bones in the crossopterygian. Since the "modifications" were minor, there's no apparent reason why darwinian processes couldn't have made the tetrapod from a fish. Gee, it sure looks like the concensus scientific opinion is right that "fishy went a-walkin'" back in the Devonian, and the ones that did were lobe-fins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Hi there,
I'm new on this forum and not familar with english language.Seeking this forum, I'm surprised that some people seem to be convinced that evolutionary events don't exist! I'm sophomore and studying evolutionary events on fishes.I can assure you that evolution proofs are concrete and based on scientific data (counted by billions). Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Denesha,
Welcome to evcforum! Hope you enjoy your stay. If English is a second (or more) language, then feel free to ask for clarification of something someone writes - most of us are willing to explain.
I can assure you that evolution proofs are concrete and based on scientific data (counted by billions). Here's an example of a language problem. In English, scientists seldom talk about "proof", because the connotation is "mathematical certainty" - something that science simply doesn't have. It's better to talk about "evidence", in which case your statement would be completely correct. The evidence for evolution is pretty convincing, IMHO. edited 'cause even in English I can't spell... [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-15-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
To be honest, Quetzal, I'm not really sure this is entirely true. I think scientists routinely talk about proof and proving; they just don't mean absolute certainty type proof. Certainly this is the impression I garner from scientific magazines, text books and popular science books.
Proof in science is closer to proof in law, I guess. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Hi Quetzal,
Yes you're right. I'll spend more time on my text next time.If it's too comic to read, this will ruin the aim of my message and certainly finishes to badly affect my enthousiasm. Next ones will be far better.I've seen many interesting topics. Must read all that first. Sincerely, Denesha [This message has been edited by Denesha, 03-15-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024