Evolutionists, Please provide a positive proof for Evolution ....

[Smidlee]

Selection cannot create new species but random mutations and interbreeding can do that. As was said many times, natural selection chooses the fittest variation to survive, not create a new variation.

Supernatural selection can create new species. Natural selection is just as limited as artificial selection but supernatural selection has no such limits. Supernatural selection gets it's power from the sun.

 

[Keachian]

Supernatural selection can create new species. Natural selection is just as limited as artificial selection but supernatural selection has no such limits. Supernatural selection gets it's power from the sun.

I would hope that supernatural selection got its power from God, otherwise it'd just be natural selection all over again, or are you saying that God is powered by the sun lol.

 

[Schroeder]

the whole foundation of the theory is evolution. They show many many many examples of evolution in process and make it seem to prove the theory of evolution. there is a huge difference form the theory of evolution and just plain old evolution. I dont believe there is any biological evidence to prove the theory. they use the fact of evolution combined with natural science or old age earth. combine the two and create the theory.

 

[begt]

the whole foundation of the theory is evolution. They show many many many examples of evolution in process and make it seem to prove the theory of evolution. there is a huge difference form the theory of evolution and just plain old evolution. I dont believe there is any biological evidence to prove the theory. they use the fact of evolution combined with natural science or old age earth. combine the two and create the theory.

Some obvious evidence:

1. DNA: animals and plants share the same genetic code and it creates a perfect hierarchy of evolution. Even if there were no other evidence to be found it would still be enough.

2. Lots of vestigial features. Us humans have the following e.g:

The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that would have been used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors.

The tailbone, wisdom teeth (we had larger jaws in the past to chew plant tissue; wisdom teeths do not fit in our small jaws), the plantaris muscle, ear muscles....

3. Fossils: Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Java man (Homo Erectus Erectus (and other so called missing links).

 

[gluadys]

What evolution cannot explain among many other things is an ultimate cause.

So what? Neither can gravity or thermodynamics or the atomic theory of matter. All scientific theories are limited to explaining particular phenomena and I don't see you raising any objection to other aspects of science because of that. Why the double standard for evolution?

Selection cannot create new species but random mutations and interbreeding can do that.

Selection is absolutely necessary to creating new species. New species are not created by interbreeding, but by the opposite: the cessation of interbreeding--by factors which prevent interbreeding. Those factors, along with selection, generate new species. Random mutation and interbreeding would normally prevent the formation of new species. But a mutation that prevents interbreeding would be helpful in generating new species. Some such have been found.

One interesting case is hybridization accompanied by polyploidy; hybridization involves interbreeding between two closely related species, but polyploidy prevents back-crossing into the parental species, so further interbreeding is not possible. So where there were two, now there are three species.

As was said many times, natural selection chooses the fittest variation to survive, not create a new variation.

A new variation is not a new species. Without selection a new variation will only be an addition to the existing varieties in a species.

 

[Incariol]

Hi there Evolutionists

I'm curious if you can provide a positive proof for evolution that does not require any assumptions (Especially unprovable, unobservable ones), does not violate laws of logic and can be tested, observed and repeated in test conditions....

Cheers

T

Experimental evolution of multicellularity

 

[Incariol]

Supernatural selection can create new species. Natural selection is just as limited as artificial selection but supernatural selection has no such limits. Supernatural selection gets it's power from the sun.

Feel free to back up your claims anytime now...

 

[Smidlee]

Experimental evolution of multicellularity

"But this is just one experiment under admittedly contrived conditions. “What remains to be seen for me is how relevant is it to actual transitions to multicellularity,” said Srivastava.
Indeed, the authors of the PNAS study admit that selecting for yeast cells or clusters that settled most quickly isn’t exactly a “natural” selection pressure. "
Evolving Multicellularity | The Scientist

Shaking yeast like mad every 24 hours causing the daughter cells stick to the parent cell isn't exactly natural. This is the same when building the basic building blocks of life as there's no doubt man can produce them in the lab using artificial means.

 

[Incariol]

"But this is just one experiment under admittedly contrived conditions. “What remains to be seen for me is how relevant is it to actual transitions to multicellularity,” said Srivastava.
Indeed, the authors of the PNAS study admit that selecting for yeast cells or clusters that settled most quickly isn’t exactly a “natural” selection pressure. "
Evolving Multicellularity | The Scientist

Shaking yeast like mad every 24 hours causing the daughter cells stick to the parent cell isn't exactly natural. This is the same when building the basic building blocks of life as there's no doubt man can produce them in the lab using artificial means.

I know. What was your point? Whether or not it accurately represents primordial conditions doesn't change that evolution occurred. Obviously, developing a theoretical model for how it happened historically is the next step. Demonstrating a transition to multicellularity was quite ambitious and noteworthy enough for one publication.

 

[Smidlee]

I know. What was your point? Whether or not it accurately represents primordial conditions doesn't change that evolution occurred. Obviously, developing a theoretical model for how it happened historically is the next step.

Like I wrote before all the evidence depends on the person dogmatically believing evolution happen.

Tyronem asked for " a positive proof for evolution that does not require any assumptions" and that link is the best you can do?

 

[Keachian]

Like I wrote before all the evidence depends on the person dogmatically believing evolution happen.

Nope, the whole reason I'm now an evolutionist is because I looked at the facts with an open and questioning mind, it was dogmatism that was keeping me as a YEC/OEC a dogma that I questioned and I'm pretty sure most evolutionists that used to be creationists would also tell of a similar tale.

 

[Incariol]

Like I wrote before all the evidence depends on the person dogmatically believing evolution happen.

No, it depends on whether you read a scientific paper. If people aren't scientifically literate and can't understand the scientific paper, that's their shortcoming, not an issue of scientists supposedly being dogmatic.

Incidentally, your claim in a previous post that all they did was shake the specimen and cause cells to stick together is incorrect. They specifically tested for that.

Many genotypes of S. cerevisiae aggregate into biofilm-like clusters of cells, termed “flocs,” by producing adhesive glycoproteins in their cell walls (25), but we found that snowflake-phenotype yeast do not arise from floc-type aggregation. Individual cells, obtained by enzymatic digestion of snowflake clusters, were tracked via microscopy for 16 h of growth (Movie S1). During this time each cell was seen to give rise to a new snowflake-type cluster, whereas aggregation was never seen, demonstrating that clusters arise via postdivision adhesion and not by aggregation of previously separate cells. Cell adhesion sites were identified by calcofluor staining, which preferentially stains yeast bud scars, confirming that the
group of cells making up the snowflake phenotype arises via successive divisions of component cells (Fig. 2B). Snowflake yeast are also phenotypically stable: we transferred three replicate populations of snowflake yeast (drawn from replicate population 1, day 30, of our first evolution experiment) 35 times without gravitational selection and did not detect invasion by any unicellular strains.

 

[Smidlee]

Nope, the whole reason I'm now an evolutionist is because I looked at the facts with an open and questioning mind, it was dogmatism that was keeping me as a YEC/OEC a dogma that I questioned and I'm pretty sure most evolutionists that used to be creationists would also tell of a similar tale.

Are you trying to tell me evolutionist don't make dogmatic claims? I read them all the time.

Incidentally, your claim in a previous post that all they did was shake the specimen and cause cells to stick together is incorrect. They specifically tested for that.

I should have wrote they used centrifugal force instead of shaking. Also it seems the cluster were less fit which is going in the wrong direction. Yeast is already been known to colonist together.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Hi there Evolutionists

I'm curious if you can provide a positive proof for evolution that does not require any assumptions (Especially unprovable, unobservable ones), does not violate laws of logic and can be tested, observed and repeated in test conditions....

Cheers

T

You are essentially asking for something that is impossible. Evolutionary theory is fundamentally a model that attempts to explain certain sets of observed evidences, but there is no way to demonstrate the biological processes dictated by the Darwinian narrative to even be feasible, forget calling it a fact. Only goes to show how those who believe they are providing such sources of "positive proof" are either misguided or do not understand what evolution is.