In the deep ocean, some fish have evolved superpowered vision

[AV1611VET]

Evolution.

Adaptation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Adaptation.

Nope. You are talking about a change in a population and not an individual.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The correct term is "evidence" and there are literally mountains of it for the theory. Your excuses are no better than that given in the cartoon. Humor stings when it is accurate.

Then the evidence has proven to you evolution is a fact? If so, I would suggest you are entirely too easy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then the evidence has proven to you evolution is a fact? If so, I would suggest you are entirely too easy.

If you ever thought that someone was guilty of any crime then you are even easier.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Those that cannot approach an idea without fear can never learn.

I've been approaching it head on since I started posting on this thread. It's you all who are too fearful to even make an attempt to prove it, just excuses, something that you've been very fearful of from the start, and even more fearful after watching what happened each time someone actually tried.

That's exactly what I've seen here anyway.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you ever thought that someone was guilty of any crime then you are even easier.

You didn't answer the question

 

[essentialsaltes]

I think you misunderstood my post, I was looking for something that proves evolution to me

The way you are using the word is a bit loose. With respect, what you are saying is that you are, so far, unconvinced by the arguments in favor of evolution, and would like to see further evidence that might convince you.

There is no need for me to provide something that proves the Pythagorean Theorem to you. A valid mathematical proof exists, using the rules of Euclidean geometry, and that's the end of it.

Your meaning is more like... "The criminal charges were proved in a court of law." Certainly, the combination of evidence and reasoning convinced 12 people on a jury to vote unanimously, but this is not the same as mathematical proof. Juries can be wrong.

In this looser sense, evolution was proven more than a century ago. The jury was composed of the worlds' experts in biology.

Obviously, you do not agree with the jury.

Fortunately, in science, when the verdict is in, it is not carved in stone and worshipped as dogma. When new evidence comes to light, it can be examined in light of our theories. For the past century, evolution has become stronger; in particular, genetic evidence unavailable a century ago has made the mechanisms of evolution much clearer.

The discovery in the OP is another piece of new evidence. These facts about the world were unknown and unsuspected, and yet these facts immediately have an obvious interpretation in light of evolution. The theory of evolution provides a framework for understanding facts in the natural world. These new facts dovetail splendidly with our framework. To reverse the verdict, a competing theory must explain 150 years worth of facts better than evolution does.

To be sure, there still remain a few people who are undecided. Or skeptical. Or doubters. Scoffers, even. Some congregate here.

And so people of good will continue to provide evidence (as in this thread) that supports our understanding of evolution. In order to show the skeptical that we who accept the theory have reasons and evidence for doing so. We sat in our personal jury box and came to this conclusion, and (since here we are in a debate forum) we provide evidence and reasoning to attempt to convince those who have not yet been convinced.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. You are talking about a change in a population and not an individual.

I'm saying a fish is still a fish, regardless of where its eyes moved to.

Tell me: Is that fish still the same genus?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The way you are using the word is a bit loose.

Actually, the intention was to tighten it up/be more detailed on what I mean by proof.

Yes, I know, Atheists are people of Good Will and Christians are dishonest, bad people. Ho hum

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, I know, Atheists are people of Good Will and Christians are dishonest, bad people. Ho hum

That is not what I said. Obviously, many Christians accept evolution and are posting helpful information here just as I do.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Actually, the intention was to tighten it up/be more detailed on what I mean by proof.

Would you agree with my courtroom analogy (that others have also discussed)? That for us to "prove something to you" means we must convince you as a 'juror'?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm saying a fish is still a fish

Fine, but when you are discussing plants and Roundup, you see that within a species, some plants were favored and others were not.

 

[pitabread]

It's you all who are too fearful to even make an attempt to prove it, just excuses, something that you've been very fearful of from the start, and even more fearful after watching what happened each time someone actually tried.

Yet again, here are free courses and course material with which you can use to learn all about biological evolution including how it is supported by evidence:

Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera

Your continual refusal to partake of such material suggests the only one afraid is you.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think you misunderstood my post, I was looking for something that proves evolution to me, not to those who choose to believe it, and need no solid proof.

That's cute. You are unable to give serious consideration to the possibility that evolution just might real. Nothing will convince you of its reality. I dare say you get some personal satisfaction, or perhaps security from your pretentious objections and assertions, but from the outside looking in your mindset is just rather sad.

What would it take to get you to seriously examine the evidence?

 

[pitabread]

What would it take to get you to seriously examine the evidence?

Based on his track record, the answer appears to be nothing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Based on his track record, the answer appears to be nothing.

Absolutely, but his commitment to intransigent ignorance needs to be repeatedly put on record so that lurkers can see the weakness of his argument, or rather lack of argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been approaching it head on since I started posting on this thread. It's you all who are too fearful to even make an attempt to prove it, just excuses, something that you've been very fearful of from the start, and even more fearful after watching what happened each time someone actually tried.

That's exactly what I've seen here anyway.

What do you mean by "head on"? I seriously doubt your claims. We would probably have to start at the beginning since you do not seem to understand the sciences.

One quick question, are you aware that there are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution and none for creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't answer the question

Wrong, I did.

But since you appear not to understand the basics are you willing to start to learn?

 

[pitabread]

Absolutely, but his commitment to intransigent ignorance needs to be repeatedly put on record so that lurkers can see the weakness of his argument, or rather lack of argument.

Indeed.

Although in deference to Kenny, he really has nothing to gain and everything to lose here. His belief system is such that only creationists are True Christians(TM) and therefore destined for heaven. Learning about evolution would put his own beliefs in jeopardy so he can't risk that. Ignorance is a necessity in his mind in order to preserve his immortal soul.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

yes it has never been shown to be wrong. Has it been proven that there are not higher dimensions than the 3rd and 4th dimension (space/time)? Have you read the book "Flatland" by Abbott Abbott. This book influenced Albert Einstein greatly.

M theory (the meta-superstring theory), posits 10 dimensions of space and one of time. But the 'extra' dimensions are curled up at around the Planck length, so are not directly detectable.

If you enjoyed 'Flatland', you'll enjoy 'Flatterland' by Ian Stewart, it's 'Like Flatland, Only More So'.