Can anyone tell me if evolution has ever been shown correct on any occasion?

[Dragar]

One example:

At around the time of Darwin, and prior to some crucial theories of modern physics, a chap named Kelven (one of the most brilliant physicists of the time, and perhaps all time) estimated the age of the Sun using the best physics of the time. He concluded (correctly, based on his premises) that it could only be around 30 million years old.

At the same time, theory of evolution required far, far longer - and Kelvin actually dismissed Darwin's theories at the time ("What then are we to think of such geological estimates as [Darwin's] 300,000,000 years for the "denudation of the Weald''?").

However, guess who turned out right? When modern physics eventually came into play, we found out Kelvin's premises were wrong, and better estimates placed the age of the Sun into the billions of years old. In other words, the theory of evolution predicted that current physics was lacking crucial elements in its understanding of stars, and it was demonstrated correct in that prediction many years later.

 

[Donkeytron]

hey fellas, can we avoid a dogpile on this thread? So far so good, but if someone is just getting their feet wet in the biological sciences, they have a whole lot to learn. lets try not to scare her off

 

[TheInstant]

hey fellas, can we avoid a dogpile on this thread? So far so good, but if someone is just getting their feet wet in the biological sciences, they have a whole lot to learn. lets try not to scare her off

I thinks it's too late.

 

[Grengor]

We'll wait and see.

 

[Doppelganger]

I'll be surprised if anyone can.

Some one mentioned the pesticides vs. insects as an example. That is one of the main reasons why pesticides are rotated regularly to maintain their effectiveness. However, have you ever heard Doctors complaining about the over use of anti-biotics? The theory, or fear for that matter, is that people are actually causing more harm to themselves by using anti-biotics for every minor problem. The harm they're causing, is that the viral strands are developing a resistance to it and will eventually become immune to it.

 

[Guywiththehead]

How can you feel qualified to cast judgement on evolution when your only knowledge of it comes from your high school Biology class? (Which, if it is anything like some Biology classes, might cover very little of evolution's various components and evidence and lump abiogenesis and other theories along with it.) How can you feel more qualified than the millions of people who have committed their lives to the field of evolution?

As for the topic question, few educated Creationists deny that evolution has been shown correct on many occasions. Micro-evolution is accepted by all but the most ignorant or self-delusional of Creationists.

 

[Grengor]

Guy, they also accept Macro, they just don't know it.

 

[truth above all else]

Did you pay attention to what evolution is? Your OP made it somewhat unclear exactly what you're looking for evolution to prove.

We can observe speciation and evolution in a lab setting and in nature if you want proof that it occurs.

speciation as a process in time does produce new species, but the term species is an arbitrary term defined to complement evolutionary theory

any change to the intrinsic properties of a species such as pesticide resistance or colouration does not mean that the species barrier will be broken with time , what we are observing is variation within a kind , such variations never produce anything new.

 

[Guywiththehead]

Guy, they also accept Macro, they just don't know it.

The actual, biological definition of macro-evolution doesn't exist in Creationism, despite whatever you tell Creationists. They define it as the directly observed evolution of any taxon whose evolution has not been directly observed..

 

[Edx]

speciation as a process in time does produce new species, but the term species is an arbitrary term defined to complement evolutionary theory

any change to the intrinsic properties of a species such as pesticide resistance or colouration does not mean that the species barrier will be broken with time , what we are observing is variation within a kind , such variations never produce anything new.

http://locolobo.homestead.com/chelicerates.html

So all you see hear is just change within a species?

Ed

 

[Phred]

speciation as a process in time does produce new species, but the term species is an arbitrary term defined to complement evolutionary theory

Speciation is the key because once a population can no longer mate with the original population the changes that population undergoes cannot be transferred back to the original population. There is no way they can avoid becoming more and more different.

You can't avoid this... IF change happens, and it does... and IF speciation happens, and it does. Then "macro" evolution MUST take place. There is no barrier to stop it. Unless you consider disbelief to have an effect upon biologic processes.

 

[mikeynov]

we have just covered it in school this year and i dont agree with it. they keep saying that it has been proved correct countless of times. But science cant and never will be proven.

Says the girl typing a message on the internet. :\

 

[Dragon02]

This thread is now about your favorite type of pie. My favorite is apple pie, mmmmmmm... apple pie.

 

[TeddyKGB]

speciation as a process in time does produce new species, but the term species is an arbitrary term defined to complement evolutionary theory

any change to the intrinsic properties of a species such as pesticide resistance or colouration does not mean that the species barrier will be broken with time , what we are observing is variation within a kind , such variations never produce anything new.

It is rather duplicitous of you to criticise the alleged arbitrariness and convenience of the definition of species, then turn around and use "kind" as if it was not the term that actually suffered those problems.

 

[truth above all else]

It is rather duplicitous of you to criticise the alleged arbitrariness and convenience of the definition of species, then turn around and use "kind" as if it was not the term that actually suffered those problems.

i like you choice of words "duplicitous" wonderful term, nevertheless the term 'kind' as revealed in Genesis does not suffer from duplicity whatsoever ,it divinely describes in simple terms the kinds of creatures the earth brought forth.beasts and cattle and everything that creeps.

 

[TeddyKGB]

i like you choice of words "duplicitous" wonderful term, nevertheless the term 'kind' as revealed in Genesis does not suffer from duplicity whatsoever ,it divinely describes in simple terms the kinds of creatures the earth brought forth.beasts and cattle and everything that creeps.

Stop pretending. There is no exhaustive list of kinds in Genesis and you know it.

 

[Nightson]

i like you choice of words "duplicitous" wonderful term, nevertheless the term 'kind' as revealed in Genesis does not suffer from duplicity whatsoever ,it divinely describes in simple terms the kinds of creatures the earth brought forth.beasts and cattle and everything that creeps.

So the three kinds are beasts, cattle, and everything that creeps? What about fish and birds?

 

[truth above all else]

It is rather duplicitous of you to criticise the alleged arbitrariness and convenience of the definition of species, then turn around and use "kind" as if it was not the term that actually suffered those problems.

the term 'species' is alien to scripture a modern artificial term at best which can excite biologists into believing that they have discovered or created or forced a mutation onto an organism thus proving microevolution.A cyclicle proof ,that is to say "I have discovered a new species because our definition of species say so"
whereas scripture describes living creatures according to their kinds,the beasts, cattle, creeping things etc.

 

[Apos]

Species is a term developed to introduce a measure of accuracy into terminology for living things. The term certainly has it's problems: but then, a perfect definition for species is exactly what evolution makes impossible.

In general, the most common understanding of species is that it refers to the natural interbreedability of populations. If two populations or individuals can produce viable offspring, they are the same species. If they do not (and there is some debate over whether we should use "do not" or "can not" since there is a wide diversity of behaviors and possibilities even here) then they are classed as different species.

What makes this whole issue so amusing in light of the creationist position (that the creation of new species: that is, two or more genetically incompatible populations emerging from a single founding one, is supposedly impossible) is that the actual genetic mechanisms of speciation are actually not that mysterious.

And guess what? They are exactly the same as the mechanisms that cause othre slight variations. If you concede that natural selection can, via the selection of mutation, cause genetic changes within a species, then you are conceding to the exact same mechanism that leads species to diverge genetically when they are separated.

What makes species unable to interbreed are, in general, changes in the genes that control their reproductive functions. Sometimes the changes are very minor (a single point mutation) sometimes dramatic (like a chromosome fusion) though still simple, and sometimes a long accumulation of steady disjunctions. It's just the same mutation and genetic drift that's the cause of all other microevolution.

Face reality kids. There's nothing at all implausible about single species diverging into new species. We understand
pretty darn well the sorts of genetic differences that make mules sterile, or some abalone species being unable to mate with others (minor changes in the exact formulation of the lysine proteins in their eggs). If you were under the impression that speciation involved some uncrossable barrier, you're dead wrong.

 

[Silent Bob]

the term 'species' is alien to scripture a modern artificial term at best which can excite biologists into believing that they have discovered or created or forced a mutation onto an organism thus proving microevolution.

Not quite so. The definition of species is the description of the barrier between two populations after which they can no longer share genetic material. If you had an understanding of evolution you would know just how important this barrier really is.

I have a question are we absolutely sure that humans and chimps are different species? Has anyone ever given a chimp a shave and a date and see if we can interbreed?