Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[BCP1928]

My explanation is what they call micro-evolution. What's most notable about your chart of birds is that they are all birds. There are no whales or humans there. I have blue eyes and straight hair. My biological brother had brown eyes and curly hair, and was about an inch taller than me. These are not facts from which to originate a science fiction as Darwin did.

Yes, and if nobody knew any more about evolution than Darwin did, you might have an argument, sort of.

"Micro evolution" is generally assumed to be evolution up to and including speciation. Macro-evolution is nothing more than repeated speciation. The trouble is, you seem to be talking about the higher taxa as if they had some sort of ontological status.

 

[Chesterton]

Genetics. Comparative anatomy. Fossils. Biogeography.

Prease exprain how those things prove the TOE.

How much evidence, and of what type, would be enough to convince you that living things have evolved?

Great question. I don't have an answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My explanation is what they call micro-evolution. What's most notable about your chart of birds is that they are all birds. There are no whales or humans there. I have blue eyes and straight hair. My biological brother had brown eyes and curly hair, and was about an inch taller than me. These are not facts from which to originate a science fiction as Darwin did.

No-one would expect a bird to become a whale or a human. Well, no-one save for the likes of you of course. They'd become whale-like or human-like, but they would still be birds.

And micro-evolution is still evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

Prease exprain how those things prove the TOE.

All those separate lines of evidence are consistent with Evolution being the explanation.

They all work on using very different mechanisms to observe the same pattern, that life falls into a branching tree structure which is consistent with gradual diversification and not specifically consistent with simultaneous design by a common designer.

Great question. I don't have an answer.

Why don't you try to look at specifics and attempt to isolate why you don't accept it?

If you accept adaption for micro scale variation in living species, try to isolate your problems with a larger and longer scale of the same mechanisms. You might find, on reflection, that your concerns and disagreements are separate to that specific scientific discussion and so you should focus your attention on your actual motivation.

 

[Chesterton]

Evolution isn't proven (at least, not in the scientific sense). It's just that none of the available evidence has falsified it.

In the colloquial sense, this sort of thing would 'prove' evolution:

Observed change in gene frequencies in a population over time, leading to novel trait formation. Such as the Lenski E. coli experiment or in various populations introduced to new environments.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13636

Genomic and phenotypic evolution of Escherichia coli in a novel citrate-only resource environment - PMC

Evolutionary innovations allow populations to colonize new ecological niches. We previously reported that aerobic growth on citrate (Cit+) evolved in an Escherichia coli population during adaptation to a minimal glucose medium containing citrate ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0711998105

Observed instances of speciation. Such as in the European flounder or African cichlids:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1615109114

A continuous fish fossil record reveals key insights into adaptive radiation - Nature

This study presents a continuous fossil record, extracted from a series of sediment cores, that shows how haplochromine cichlids came to dominate the fish fauna of Lake Victoria in Africa.

www.nature.com

Presence of mosaic features in transitional ancestor populations, and ancestral featured in descendant populations.

Let's cut to the chase. Given the highly controversial nature of the TOE, in America anyway, since at least the 1920's Scopes trial, if there were any facts to prove the TOE they would be front page news, they'd be the lead story on CNN.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's cut to the chase. Given the highly controversial nature of the TOE, in America anyway, since at least the 1920's Scopes trial, if there were any facts to prove the TOE they would be front page news, they'd be the lead story on CNN.

Except that, logically speaking, since the theory of evolution is taught as basic scientific fact in schools not just in America but across the world, then surely by that simple fact alone, the facts to prove the theory of evolution are sound enough to warrant it being taught as fact.

Any argument against evolution is massively and majorly led by people who come at it from a religious point of view, not a scientific one.

 

[sfs]

My explanation is what they call micro-evolution. What's most notable about your chart of birds is that they are all birds. There are no whales or humans there.

Great -- so you agree that this represents evidence for evolution, just not large-scale evolution. This means that you agree that there is evidence that evolution can produce new species(*) and can produce considerable morphological change (the birds' beaks differ a lot) that is adaptive (the different beaks are well suited to different specific diets). I trust you will object when creationists here claim that evolution can't do any of these things.

Now, where do you think microevolution stops? That is, what exactly are we supposed to be producing evidence for? Could all birds be the product of microevolution from a single ancestral species? If not, why not? What about primates -- they're no more diverse than birds, so are they the product of microevolution?

(*) Which, incidentally, is the realm of 'macroevolution' in the terminology of evolutionary biologists.

 

[Shemjaza]

Let's cut to the chase. Given the highly controversial nature of the TOE, in America anyway, since at least the 1920's Scopes trial, if there were any facts to prove the TOE they would be front page news, they'd be the lead story on CNN.

Why should people believe if they don't want to?

There are many facts that millions of people disbelieve despite overwhelming evidence.

 

[Astrid]

There's no proof, yet you asked for a disproof. A little confusing, don't you think?

Maybe we don't confuse so easily in Hong Kong?

Try this. You see ten thousamd crows.
All or black.
Have proved all crows are black?

What would disprove it?

 

[Astrid]

Let's cut to the chase. Given the highly controversial nature of the TOE, in America anyway, since at least the 1920's Scopes trial, if there were any facts to prove the TOE they would be front page news, they'd be the lead story on CNN.

It's only " controversial" to the ignorant.

 

[BCP1928]

Prease exprain how those things prove the TOE.

Great question. I don't have an answer.

Maybe we're not asking the question correctly. You said that you accepted that speciation can occur; nothing ever happens in evolution besides that: Repeated speciation, that's all there is. What do you think is not evidenced enough for you to accept evolution?

 

[Gene2memE]

Let's cut to the chase. Given the highly controversial nature of the TOE, in America anyway, since at least the 1920's Scopes trial, if there were any facts to prove the TOE they would be front page news, they'd be the lead story on CNN.

That's add odd way of acknowledging 'Why yes, Gene2meme, those thing DO provide proof of evolution".

How about engaging with the evidence presented?

 

[Astrophile]

Please explain how those things prove the TOE.

Great question. I don't have an answer.

The pattern of similarities and differences in genomes and anatomy between different species, genera, families, orders and classes provide evidence of the degree of relationship between species, genera, families, etc. and therefore of the time since their most recent common ancestor was alive. For example, in 1863 T.H. Huxley argued from the anatomical similarities and differences between humans and the other great apes that orang-utans are more distantly related to humans and the African apes than humans and the African apes are to each other. Genetic analysis of the great apes has confirmed Huxley's conclusion.

The succession of fossils from the Cambrian to the Holocene shows that there have been great changes in living species during that time. For example, none of the species of trilobites that lived during the Silurian period existed during the Cambrian period. Similarly, none of the living species of great apes were alive during the Miocene epoch.

Biogeography, for example in groups of islands, shows the early stages of speciation due to geographical separation, for example in the finches of the Galapagos Islands and the honey-creepers of Hawaii.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe we're not asking the question correctly. You said that you accepted that speciation can occur; nothing ever happens in evolution besides that: Repeated speciation, that's all there is. What do you think is not evidenced enough for you to accept evolution?

I accept microevolution.

I do not accept macroevolution.

 

[sfs]

I do not accept macroevolution.

Speciation is macroevolution. If you want to reject some form of evolution, you should find another word for it.

 

[Astrid]

That's add odd way of acknowledging 'Why yes, Gene2meme, those thing DO provide proof of evolution".

How about engaging with the evidence presented?

Isn't it better to avoid using the word " proof" in science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Speciation is macroevolution. If you want to reject some form of evolution, you should find another word for it.

Microevolution = Adaptation

 

[sjastro]

It’s not getting through theories cannot be proved only disproved.

For about 250 years it was thought the moon followed a repeatable Keplerian orbit around the Earth which is a two body problem.
Newton’s gravitational theory successfully predicted the moon’s orbit first by the use of astrometry then its distance from the Earth using radar.
Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the moon to permit very accurate measurements of the distance using lasers.
It was found the moon is moving away at a rate of 3.78 cm/year which clearly disproves it is moving in a repeatable Keplerian orbit.
A theory is only as good as the quality of the measurements and observations which support it at the time.

 

[sfs]

Microevolution = Adaptation

You're the one who complains about astronomers changing the definition of 'planet'. Imagine how silly it would be for biologists to change the meaning of 'microevolution' just because you don't know the existing definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're the one who complains about astronomers changing the definition of 'planet'. Imagine how silly it would be for biologists to change the meaning of 'microevolution' just because you don't know the existing definition.

QV please:

Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan.

SOURCE