Prove to me evolution is true

[FishFace]

If evolution and bajillions of years true, prove it to me, prove that it's true, and don't just say, "because all the scientists say it's true", because that's not proof.

Oh dear, a hit n run. First look at talkorigins, as everyone else has told you. Now lets address some of these babies.

The Law of Biogenesis- that life that has a beginning can only arise from other life

That is not a "law" and as a matter of fact, experiments are being done into precisely how life arose from non-life. The question is not "did it?" but rather "how did it?"
Regardless, if God zapped the first bacterium into existence, evolution would still happen.

The fact that mutated traits are more often harmful than beneficial

Almost all mutations are neutral. There are a smattering of beneficial and harmful ones. As long as there are a few beneficial ones every once in a while, evolution will happen.

A BIG ONE: The Fossil Record, show me proof of intermediate species, has anyone ever found a fossil of an intermediate species, and that really is one, not all those ape skeletons they keep finding in Africa.

I have a different challenge for you: Show me proof of a NON-intermediate species. News - all species are transitional. Aside from that, the talkorigins page we all linked to has 5 transitions. Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx are also transitional.

And Irreducible Complexity- organisms could not have evolved new body parts, abilities, etc. over time. They would have had to have them all perfectly in the first organism of their kind, because that organism would have died if it did not have all the necessary body parts and functions, and it's descendants, which would have the same problems if that organism could reproduce at all, would also die.

Irreducible Complexity is an argument which states, "I don't know how X could evolve, therefore X didn't evolve." This is called an argument from ignorance, and is invalid. We know pretty much how several rather complex structures evolved.
The classic organ is the eye, which even Darwin thought was pretty amazing. But after considering how difficult it might be, he said that, if it could evolve progressively with tiny alterations, each providing a benefit, there is no problem. And sure enough, that is what happened.

The best arguments for evolution in my book, by the way, are genes which worked in, say, monkeys, but are "broken" in chimps and humans. Moreover, they're broken in the same way. Check talkorigins on pseudogenes for more info.
Also rather amazing is the fact that certain virus insert their own genetic information into our DNA. We can find these insertions at hundreds of different places right through our genome but, guess what - we also find them in the same places in our ancestors. For example, we and chimps share almost every single one of these little insertions. If you find an insertion that is shared between chimps and gorillas, it is guaranteed to also be in humans. There is simply no explanation for this other than evolution. Check talkorigins on ERVs for more info.

 

[tanzanos]

If evolution and bajillions of years true, prove it to me, prove that it's true, and don't just say, "because all the scientists say it's true", because that's not proof.

Another one who has never bothered to read the theory of Evolution. Also this one goes a step further and refuses the proof of Science???

OK! My answer is:

Evolution is true. Why? because .................. If you really want an answer then read the theory because there is not enough space in this forum to cite it!

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If evolution and bajillions of years true, prove it to me, prove that it's true, and don't just say, "because all the scientists say it's true", because that's not proof.

1) Proofs are for math and alcohol. All science can do is find out which ideas are best supported by the current body of evidence.
2) The concept of evolution is the backbone of the modern understanding of biology. Without evolution, nothing really makes sense. It is also through evolution that all field of biology are connected. microbiology and animal behavior could scarcely be more different, but they both require evolution to explain what is going on.
3) The idea that the earth and universe are billions of years old, is backed up by nearly all of geology, astronomy, and biology. Evolution can only account for the current state of diversity if the earth is billions of years old and paleontologists have found species that are billions of years old. Geologists have found rocks well older than 3 billion and even traces of 4 billion years. Geologists can't account for what is seen in the geologic record without the time frame of billions of years. Astronomers have seen supernovae, for stars to have reached the end of their lives requires millions of years even for short lived stars. And if any are like our sun, that's easily 10 billion years. Finally here's the kicker... the speed of light is one of the few known constants of the universe and the distance it can travel in a year is a lightyear. Astronomers have seen stars that are billions of light years, in order for the light to get here it must have been traveling for billions of years and thus the universe is at least that old.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Evolution must be true: because T-tex soft tissue defies the laws of forensic science in decomposition.

1) Evo`s=It must have been trapped in somekind of chemical stew as yet undefined.
2) Soft tissue was not subject to embalming or lead coffin burial.
3) it only takes 36/48 hrs to get a DNA result and maybe weeks longer for deeper analysis if one might get smaller amounts. A quick google search does not seem to indicate such a test being done either way to confirm or deny.

This post is off-topic, a non sequitur, and, if the latter two didn't get the message across, totally irrelevant.
What does this have to do with Evolution?

If DNA was found would that confirm thousands of years instead of millions?

If your God came out of the Heavens and explicitly stated the he did, in fact, Create all Creation in but 6 days, approx. 6000 years ago, would this have any bearing on Evolution?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.
Case closed.

 

[bindaniel]

This post is off-topic, a non sequitur, and, if the latter two didn't get the message across, totally irrelevant.
What does this have to do with Evolution?


If your God came out of the Heavens and explicitly stated the he did, in fact, Create all Creation in but 6 days, approx. 6000 years ago, would this have any bearing on Evolution?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.
Case closed.

It has something to do with the theory of evolution:

Dino existed 65 million years ago according to evolutionary theory. Yet if it contains soft tissue, blood vessels. it cast doubt on the millions of years theory as it defies the science of forensic pathology/anthropology.Why no Carbon dating on this dead tissue, cause it wont give millions of years.
A body put into the ground without coffin/ embalming wil be truly skeletal in 7-12 years, hard bone in< 50 years.
With extended preservation already known with regard peat bogs. One can only estimate thousands of years
Merely putting it into the thousands of years category.

They have had this find for at least 8 years. A simple DNA test takes 36/48 hrs or just weeks. Why no DNA test? Cause to test for DNA will indicate that it is not millions of years old, DNA does not last that long.
so they keep repeating the mantra that it is 65/70 million years old cause of the rocks it was found in.

So evolution must be true

 

[notto]

It has something to do with the theory of evolution:

Dino existed 65 million years ago according to evolutionary theory. Yet if it contains soft tissue, blood vessels. it cast doubt on the millions of years theory as it defies the science of forensic pathology/anthropology.
A body put into the ground without coffin/ embalming wil be truly skeletal in 7-12 years.
With extended preservation already known with regard peat bogs. One can only estimate thousands of years
Merely putting it into the thousands of years category.

They have had this find for at least 8 years. A simple DNA test takes 36/48 hrs or just weeks. Why no DNA test? Cause to test for DNA will indicate that it is not millions of years old, DNA does not last that long.
so they keep repeating the mantra that it is 65/70 million years old cause of the rocks it was found in.

By this logic, we should be able to find lots more unfossilized dinosaur bones . Why can't we?

Can you explain to us why finding miniscule remnants of soft tissue or heme in the deepest and most air tight part of the bones defines science?

You don't seem to really be familiar with the find. Where did you read about it? Can you tell us in detail what was found?

If you could, then you would understand why there was no DNA test. There was no DNA found.

The tissue wasn't soft when found. It had to be stripped of fossilization minerals and softened.

We didn't find any intact blood. We found traces of blood born molecules.

We didn't find any in tact tissue that can be tested for DNA.

Why can't we if dinosaurs are only as old as the human fossils in which we can find DNA and tissue and hair?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It has something to do with the theory of evolution:

Dino existed 65 million years ago according to evolutionary theory.

You are wrong in your very first step. Evolutionary theory says nothing about timescales; even Common Descent merely says something like, "All life is related through a common ancestor".

Boom boom.

 

[bindaniel]

By this logic, we should be able to find lots more unfossilized dinosaur bones . Why can't we?

Can you explain to us why finding miniscule remnants of soft tissue or heme in the deepest and most air tight part of the bones defines science?

You don't seem to really be familiar with the find. Where did you read about it? Can you tell us in detail what was found?

If you could, then you would understand why there was no DNA test. There was no DNA found.

The tissue wasn't soft when found. It had to be stripped of fossilization minerals and softened.

We didn't find any intact blood. We found traces of blood born molecules.

We didn't find any in tact tissue that can be tested for DNA.

Why can't we if dinosaurs are only as old as the human fossils in which we can find DNA and tissue and hair?

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php?page=3

From there you wil find that the phrase making "assumptions about decay" come into play. Yes you will find talk about creationists jumping on the band wagon. Geologists cite 65-70 million years cause of the rocks.What would a forensic pathologist make of it?
However what does not seem to be evident is whether DNA testing was carried out despite mentioning the possibility in the article as if it was a dare not speak its name moment. "a terrible question". is that because of the implications?
Also that more of these types of finds are happening.
You say no DNA present why take so long to tell us.With use of royal "Our" in the text.Assuming of course your not Ms Mary Shweitzer of course, (beats hasty retreat over hill)

 

[m9lc]

To the OP, I won't repeat what others have already said. But the fact is, there are mountains upon mountains of evidence that support evolution. There is far less evidence (I'd actually say zero evidence) and far more gaps in creationism, than you will find in evolutionism.

And to Lucretius and Lemmings, don't generalize ages. And he could be a junior next year as well (I am).

 

[FishFace]

If your God came out of the Heavens and explicitly stated the he did, in fact, Create all Creation in but 6 days, approx. 6000 years ago, would this have any bearing on Evolution?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.
Case closed.

It would, because evolution carries with it that certain things evolved from other things. 6000 years is not enough time for that to be true.

 

[FishFace]

Dino existed 65 million years ago according to evolutionary theory.

No, dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago, as evidenced by dating fossils and the strata in which the fossils were buried.

Yet if it contains soft tissue, blood vessels. it cast doubt on the millions of years theory as it defies the science of forensic pathology/anthropology.

Only if there's some scientific reason that soft tissue (no actual blood vessels or blood cells were confirmed) must decay completely after a certain length of time.
No such reason exists.

They have had this find for at least 8 years. A simple DNA test takes 36/48 hrs or just weeks. Why no DNA test?

How do you know there's been no DNA test, by the way?

Cause to test for DNA will indicate that it is not millions of years old, DNA does not last that long.
so they keep repeating the mantra that it is 65/70 million years old cause of the rocks it was found in.

I would like to know how you would explain why radiometric dating is consistent with all different radiometric methods, and also with non-radiometric methods, too.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It would, because evolution carries with it that certain things evolved from other things. 6000 years is not enough time for that to be true.

No, it doesn't. Evolution is a phenomenon that in a group of one or more imperfect replicators. Nothing more, nothing less.
True, the standard model for the evolution of modern terrestrial biological diversity does make use of the 4.5 billion years evidenced by all archaeological sciences. But a 6000 year old Earth does not have any bearing on Evolution itself.

 

[RedBalfour]

A lot of posts in a few short hours since i posted my last.

Have we won yet? And will we get to 5 pages before the OP comes back OR closes the thread in shame?

 

[bindaniel]

No, dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago, as evidenced by dating fossils and the strata in which the fossils were buried.

Only if there's some scientific reason that soft tissue (no actual blood vessels or blood cells were confirmed) must decay completely after a certain length of time.
No such reason exists

.

How do you know there's been no DNA test, by the way?
[quote

]

Ist point : so geology and paleontology have nothing to say in the crevo debate.

2nd point:Is there a scientific reason why decay rates in radiometric dating must be constant and decay to a uniform assumption, just as assumptions about decay/decomposition exist.

3rd point: It appears no DNA test took place because the text indicates possibility of DNA contamination by other organisms. so protein analysis took place.
thoughts about DNA testing cited as the "awful question"

However, if one was to apply that principle in criminal cases no-one would be convicted on DNA evidence due to contamination. The whole forensic science community would be up in arms as would the judiciary.
Therefore evolution must be true.

 

[ciaphas]

You don't seem to realise that any scientist would give their right arm tto find proof that the theory of evolution is wrong, because it means that there are so many more things to find out on the topic. Many biologists would be fighting to find another explanation. The reason evolution is trusted as a valid theory is because it has stood up to such a slating over the years. Every bit of science is being re-evaluated all of the time. A few hundred years ago the best scientists thought the world was flat, then someone found evidence to the contrary and our knowlege of the world increased.

 

[FishFace]

No, it doesn't. Evolution is a phenomenon that in a group of one or more imperfect replicators. Nothing more, nothing less.

But even YECs aren't so stubborn as to deny evolution that can be observed. The debate is not whether evolution occurs, only whether it is the source of genetic variation.

 

[bindaniel]

You don't seem to realise that any scientist would give their right arm tto find proof that the theory of evolution is wrong, because it means that there are so many more things to find out on the topic. Many biologists would be fighting to find another explanation. The reason evolution is trusted as a valid theory is because it has stood up to such a slating over the years. Every bit of science is being re-evaluated all of the time. A few hundred years ago the best scientists thought the world was flat, then someone found evidence to the contrary and our knowlege of the world increased.

Fair point Caiaphas.
However what drives some in the evo camp is the "facts do not speak for themselves they are read in light of theory". SJ Gould

in the case above first impressions lead me to question why no DNA testing. When it is good enough for the forensic community despite crime scenes having multiple dna cross contamination traces.
They don`t just do protein analysis.
so the fact that other professionals are quite happy to excise DNA and isolate it in areas of potential contamination. It "appears" they did not do so in this case instead they let theory take preeminence when the facts were pointing elsewhere.

 

[FishFace]

Ist point : so geology and paleontology have nothing to say in the crevo debate.

I didn't say or imply that. It is radiometric dating, not evolution, which tells us how old rocks are.

2nd point:Is there a scientific reason why decay rates in radiometric dating must be constant and decay to a uniform assumption, just as assumptions about decay/decomposition exist.

There are three reasons it is a good idea to believe that they're constant. First, they've been observed to be stable for the entire length of time we've been observing. It's philosophically unsound to assume things change when we've no evidence. (Actually, they do vary... very very slightly.) Second is cross-verification; for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, they're validated by tree ring, coral couplet, lake varve and ice core data. It would be a ludicrous fluke for all of those things to all match up when they don't use the same mechanism. Furthermore, different radiometric methods rely on different decay mechanisms, so you're trying to tell me that decay rates of different elements varied in different ways to achieve an overall compatible result.
Thirdly and finally, if you increase the rate of decay (as required for a younger earth) then you also increase the rate of nuclear reactions, and nuclear reactions release heat - we'd all have been cooked.

3rd point: It appears no DNA test took place because the text indicates possibility of DNA contamination by other organisms. so protein analysis took place.

Think - if the test results came back "negative; no DNA" would it be all over the news? Of course not - it would be no surprise that there was no DNA. If they didn't do a test, then you already have the reason - because DNA decays relatively rapidly, so why bother looking for it? If you want to set up your own lab and waste your time and funds, then no-one will object.

However, if one was to apply that principle in criminal cases no-one would be convicted on DNA evidence due to contamination. The whole forensic science community would be up in arms as would the judiciary.

I take it you have no experience in either paleontology or forensic science, and therefore have no idea about comparative contamination risks, or the methods used in each field. Assuming this is correct, you have no reason to believe the risks are the same in each case.

Therefore evolution must be true.

Thank you, you can stop trying to be facetious.

 

[JBJoe]

Evolution must be true: because T-tex soft tissue defies the laws of forensic science in decomposition.

I haven't seen anyone point this out yet, so let me just throw in: the tissue wasn't soft when they found it. They soaked it in a solution to de-mineralize it. This isn't the first time fossilization has created resinous structures out of soft tissue. In short, the only difference between what was found and what you have been told was found (and are now arguing) is: they're completely different.

1) Evo`s=It must have been trapped in somekind of chemical stew as yet undefined.

Or the structures were replaced with resins and covered by mineralization, so they weren't soft at all until a "chemical stew" was added to remove the minerals and make the resin flexible.

2) Soft tissue was not subject to embalming or lead coffin burial.

Nope, it was subject to fossilization. Something someone embalmed or buried in lead does not have access to.

3) it only takes 36/48 hrs to get a DNA result and maybe weeks longer for deeper analysis if one might get smaller amounts. A quick google search does not seem to indicate such a test being done either way to confirm or deny.

Well, if you studied some forensics and genotyping, you'd know the answer to that one. Even humans that have been buried for a hundred years are extremely difficult to sequence. The usual place we look for intact DNA in them is the soft tissue in their teeth. Now consider that you have something that has undergone mineralization followed by an acid wash.

If DNA was found would that confirm thousands of years instead of millions?

Nope. But it would be awesome if we could find enough DNA to sequence several genes and look at how they have drifted over 65 million years and see which ones have essentially remained the same. But that's the geneticist in me talking.

 

[sfs]

There are three reasons it is a good idea to believe that they're constant. First, they've been observed to be stable for the entire length of time we've been observing. It's philosophically unsound to assume things change when we've no evidence. (Actually, they do vary... very very slightly.) Second is cross-verification; for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, they're validated by tree ring, coral couplet, lake varve and ice core data. It would be a ludicrous fluke for all of those things to all match up when they don't use the same mechanism. Furthermore, different radiometric methods rely on different decay mechanisms, so you're trying to tell me that decay rates of different elements varied in different ways to achieve an overall compatible result.
Thirdly and finally, if you increase the rate of decay (as required for a younger earth) then you also increase the rate of nuclear reactions, and nuclear reactions release heat - we'd all have been cooked.

Additional reasons:
1) Light spectra from distant stars look the same as those from nearby stars, including our own. The spectrum is determined by the nuclear reactions going on in the stars; if nuclear reactions were different in the distant past (when light coming from distant stars was generated), then the spectra would be different too.

2) The lingering light from supernova 1987a was expected to be from the radioactive decay of cobalt-56. The light intensity fell off at a rate matching the half-life of cobalt-56. Since supernova 1987a was located 150,000 light years from Earth, that means that the decay rate of this element, at least, has been unchanged for 150,000 years.

2) Nuclear reactions in the Oklo natural reactor (in uranium deposits in Gabon), which operated intermittently around 1.7 billion years ago, appear to have behaved exactly the same as nuclear reactions today. This is strong evidence that nuclear phyiscs, including nuclear decay rates, have not changed significantly during that period.

Think - if the test results came back "negative; no DNA" would it be all over the news? Of course not - it would be no surprise that there was no DNA.

Actually, I would be very surprised if the test came back negative, and would immediately conclude that the test was defective. It's hard to find anything that doesn't have DNA of one sort or another on it; any speciman that has been out in the open or handled by humans will certainly have DNA present. DNA studies of ancient bones where there is some hope of finding original DNA (i.e. bones that range from a few thousand to tens of thousands of years old) have to cope with great quantities of bacterial, fungal, human and other DNA. What would be remarkable would be to find DNA that you could positively identify as dinosaur in origin in ancient bones. But how could you positively identify it?

Note that this has nothing to do with forensic DNA testing, which isn't looking for the presence of human DNA, but is looking at specific highly variable markers in human DNA that can distinguish between individuals. It is not uncommon to find DNA from more than one individual in forensic cases, but that usually makes little difference to the usefulness of the test.