Proof evolution is real?

[BamHurgler]

[BrosefMengele]

Evolution is a pagan myth.

[Travis99]

A better question would be; “where did RNA come from?”

[dakensta]

Don't tell me what to do.

I'm outta here.

[Skythes]

If professors of holy books have to continually re-interpret scriptural verses in order to conform them to latest scientific discoveries, then theology is also, like science, under revision.

Yeah, but its not supposed to be lmao. Thats the whole point.

[CalmWind]

This makes no sense; I always interpreted that passage as the children of Seth marrying the daughters of Cain, which would make "sense"'; otherwise you need to explain how angels, which are spiritual beings, created bodies, and mated with humans creating new humans with souls. It is too convoluted and ridiculous. There is a reason this passage is an overlooked passage. .

You didn't know that Angels are capable of taking physical form? Angels taking physical form is well established in the Bible.

- The 2 visitors who came to Lot, in human form, in Soddom and Gomorrha, were Angels. They had human bodies, they ate food, and the evil people of Soddom and Gomorrha wanted to have sex with them.

Hebrews 13:2 makes this teaching crystal clear. Read the quote below.

Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

- The book of Jude also backs this up

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

P.S.

and it's not just the good angels who can take physical form. The Bible says that the evil ones, including Satan, like to masquerade as Angels of Light to deceive people. They CAN manifest in our physical world and even speak to you.

[thorpowers]

Only microevolution can be verified using the accepted protocols of the scientific method (direct observation, measurement, replicability,ect). Microevolution is a fact, because it can objectively be verified and observed.

Macroevolution cannot be verified using the scientific method. Macroevolution being defined by changes above the species level, i.e. a fish changing to land dwelling animals over millions of years. No one has ever observed a human produce anything but a human, a whale produce anything but a whale. When someone says "it takes millions of years". Right at that moment you just left observable reality, and you have a hypothesis that cannot be verified.

These grander scale Evolution hypotheses is a religion to these people, they believe humans share a common ancestor with a banana. They believe that life came from a soup billions of years. That inanimate matter can become animate. Even though we have never observed any of this, they take it at faith because it's their religion.

[Sakeoe]

Only microevolution can be verified using the accepted protocols of the scientific method (direct observation, measurement, replicability,ect). Microevolution is a fact, because it can objectively be verified and observed.

Macroevolution cannot be verified using the scientific method. Macroevolution being defined by changes above the species level, i.e. a fish changing to land dwelling animals over millions of years. No one has ever observed a human produce anything but a human, a whale produce anything but a whale. When someone says "it takes millions of years". Right at that moment you just left observable reality, and you have a hypothesis that cannot be verified.

These grander scale Evolution hypotheses is a religion to these people, they believe humans share a common ancestor with a banana. They believe that life came from a soup billions of years. That inanimate matter can become animate. Even though we have never observed any of this, they take it at faith because it's their religion.

There is however no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

[thorpowers]

There is however no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

If there was no difference then there wouldn't be two different words. Microevolution is changes within a species over time via natural selection, or selective breeding. The variation between the dogs is an example of microevolution. But they are all still dogs. That doesn't mean dogs share a common ancestor with a coconut tree. To make that leap of faith requires imagination and assumptions that can not be verified using accepted protocols of the scientific method.

[Sakeoe]

If there was no difference then there wouldn't be two different words. Microevolution is changes within a species over time via natural selection, or selective breeding. The variation between the dogs is an example of microevolution. But they are all still dogs. That doesn't mean dogs share a common ancestor with a coconut tree. To make that leap of faith requires imagination and assumptions that can not be verified using accepted protocols of the scientific method.

There are many words that mean the same thing. Microevolution and macroevolution are identical. It's like making a difference between micro growth (1 month) and macro growth (20 years) of a child.
Lets take your example of dogs. There are plenty of dog breeds that are already naturally incapable of breeding with a wolf (Whether they can artificially and then produce fertile offspring has not been done for every breed, but is assumed so). This keeps their gene pool separated. That means further separation will happen with each generation. In due time (or maybe they already have) will end up at a point like horses and mules, or horses and zebras. Or tigers and lions etc. Being able to produce infertile offspring, at which point they are truly a separate species.

[EdwardTheGreat]

There is no God.

We should lock this guy and "provetheclaim" in a room together to debate each other.

It would be like watching 2 retards humping a doorknob and placing bets on who would cum first LOL

[thorpowers]

There are many words that mean the same thing. Microevolution and macroevolution are identical. It's like making a difference between micro growth (1 month) and macro growth (20 years) of a child.

Even in your example those two words, or concepts, have different meanings. There is a clear distinction.

Lets take your example of dogs. There are plenty of dog breeds that are already naturally incapable of breeding with a wolf (Whether they can artificially and then produce fertile offspring has not been done for every breed, but is assumed so).

They are still the same species.

This keeps their gene pool separated. That means further separation will happen with each generation. In due time (or maybe they already have) will end up at a point like horses and mules, or horses and zebras. Or tigers and lions etc. Being able to produce infertile offspring, at which point they are truly a separate species.

This is you applying a time scale to it, assumptions, and things other than observation. No one has ever bred a kind of dog that would produce infertile offspring with other dogs. Even if they did, it still doesn't prove that dogs and coconut trees share a common ancestor.

So the study of DNA is a religion now? Neat.

Two organisms sharing similar genetic codes doesn't mean they share a common ancestor, that is scientists interpretation of the evidence. The very same evidence could be used to support an intelligent design hypothesis. All the English books in existence share the same 26 letter alphabet, because they have the same creator. A ford truck is similar to a toyota truck...

[Sakeoe]

Even in your example those two words, or concepts, have different meanings. There is a clear distinction.



They are still the same species.



This is you applying a time scale to it, assumptions, and things other than observation. No one has ever bred a kind of dog that would produce infertile offspring with other dogs. Even if they did, it still doesn't prove that dogs and coconut trees share a common ancestor.

Well yeah it does. As soon as one dog breed would produce infertile offspring when crossed with wolfs or other dogs, it is officially a separate species. This is the kind of observation we'd maybe be able to see on a very short time span (hundred to a thousand years. Perhaps even shorter with some species.) if we were to specifically breed for separation.

And what exactly is the clear distinction between growing 1 month and growing 20 years? Its all the same process.

[thorpowers]

Well yeah it does. As soon as one dog breed would produce infertile offspring when crossed with wolfs or other dogs, it is officially a separate species. This is the kind of observation we'd maybe be able to see a very short time span (hundred to a thousand years. Perhaps even shorter with some species.) if we were to specifically breed for separation.

Bolded is why you have a hypothesis. In order to be verified you would not "maybe" be able to see something, but you would definitely have to be able to observe it and it would have to be repeatable, and falsifiable. If you just say "oh well it takes hundreds or thousands of years" then that's not falsifiable, and if its not falsifiable then it's not science.

And what exactly is the clear distinction between growing 1 month and growing 20 years? Its all the same process.

The confusion seems to be in the difference between the word micro, and the word macro.

[Sakeoe]

Bolded is why you have a hypothesis. In order to be verified you would not "maybe" be able to see something, but you would definitely have to be able to observe it and it would have to be repeatable, and falsifiable. If you just say "oh well it takes hundreds or thousands of years" then that's not falsifiable, and if its not falsifiable then it's not science.




The confusion seems to be in the difference between the word micro, and the word macro.

Actually this timescale is observable. It is also repeatable and as such falsifiable. You might have to dedicate your entire life to it though.

The confusion is that you don't seem to grasp micro and macro refers to the timescale and not the process itself.

edit:
If you truly wanted to test this it might be better to use some sort of insect that breeds far faster generations than dogs.

[thorpowers]

Actually this timescale is observable. It is also repeatable and as such falsifiable. You might have to dedicate your entire life to it though.

The confusion is that you don't seem to grasp micro and macro refers to the timescale and not the process itself.

edit:
If you truly wanted to test this it might be better to use some sort of insect that breeds far faster generations than dogs.

It has been attempted in laboratory conditions with fruit flies. No speciation occurred even after 35 generations the separated populations could still produce fertile offspring, even after hundreds of generations...

Second, nothing you've said would have verified dogs sharing a common ancestor with a coconut using the scientific method.

[thorpowers]

... wat?

You seem to have a habit of ignoring significant portions of people's responses. Are you going to address the strawman you presented? You've made it pretty clear you think religion/religious beliefs are a negative thing so there's no need to address that I guess.

Religion is not a negative thing?

But if you believe in a religion admit it's a religion. People who take a popular hypothesis and pretend like it's a fact or "settled science" are not honest. There's no way to verify or falsify many macroevolution theories, climate model predictions, big bang theory, origins of life (primordial soup)...ect yet people claim it as fact. Microevolution is a fact, life originating from soup is not a fact.

[stfudonny]

there should be a minimum post limit to make threads. would erraticate these throw away accounts.

[CalmWind]

You seem to have a habit of ignoring significant portions of people's responses. Are you going to address the strawman you presented? You've made it pretty clear you think religion/religious beliefs are a negative thing so there's no need to address that I guess.

Meanwhile... that's exactly what you did a just a few replies above.

But I have no respect for your intellect nor post content... so I'm not shocked you would immediately contradict yourself.

[thorpowers]

Except they're entirely different situations. And since this post is actually addressed to me I'm responding to all the points that you have made. So no, there was no contradiction.

Or do you mean to Thor's post? Because I have no interest in engaging with someone who refuses to have an honest conversation. So there's that.

And yet you're the one who has directly addressed me and responded to my posts first, not the other way around. And you claim I'm not honest because I made a strawman, when I didn't.

I said "we have never observed a human produce a non human, or a whale produce a non whale." That's not a strawman, thats a fact.

I was saying that to show that macroevolution cannot be observed, not that the evolution model says that they would expect a human to ever produce a non human. Evolution and creation models both expect the offspring of one generation to be the same species. A strawman would be if I said the macroevolution model argues that they would expect speciation to occur within a single generation. Macroevolution model says that with enough accumulated variations and genetic mutations over the course of thousands of generations, that eventually the organism will become a different species (relative to the ancestor thousands of generations back), and that's what I'm saying has not been observed. It's a hypotheses with a lot of indirect evidence to support it, but it hasn't been verified through observation, thats all im saying.

If this was a court of law, much of the evidence for macroevolution would be dismissed as circumstantial evidence. Most of the fossil record would be, because you can't prove that any of those fossils ever had any offspring, all you can show is that something died. Vestigial organs would be dismissed because they do not exist, every organ has a function, there is no such thing as a vestigial organ. If it was a civil court and the standard was above 50%, then yea I would give macroevolution that, but if it was a criminal court where the standard is beyond all doubt 99%+ then no, the evidence doesn't support that level of certainty. And the thing is that science has an even higher burden of proof than either court, its called the scientific method, and the protocols of observation and repeatability are pretty clear.

[Jryt]

Evolutionary theory made predictions about the nature of the fossil record which turned out to be true.
It also (broadly) made predictions about the nature of inheritance that turned out to be true when DNA was discovered.

The whole point is falsifiability and testable predictions. It hasn't been falsified, but it has had its mechanisms updated with the discovery of genetics and how DNA/RNA work. The fossil record is evidence because the prediction of certain properties it would have were made in advance of their discovery, and there haven't been any predictions made in advance which have falsified evolutionary theory.

[CalmWind]

And yet you're the one who has directly addressed me and responded to my posts first, not the other way around. And you claim I'm not honest because I made a strawman, when I didn't.

I said "we have never observed a human produce a non human, or a whale produce a non whale." That's not a strawman, thats a fact.

I was saying that to show that macroevolution cannot be observed, not that the evolution model says that they would expect a human to ever produce a non human. Evolution and creation models both expect the offspring of one generation to be the same species. A strawman would be if I said the macroevolution model argues that they would expect speciation to occur within a single generation. Macroevolution model says that with enough accumulated variations and genetic mutations over the course of thousands of generations, that eventually the organism will become a different species (relative to the ancestor thousands of generations back), and that's what I'm saying has not been observed. It's a hypotheses with a lot of indirect evidence to support it, but it hasn't been verified through observation, thats all im saying.

If this was a court of law, much of the evidence for macroevolution would be dismissed as circumstantial evidence. Most of the fossil record would be, because you can't prove that any of those fossils ever had any offspring, all you can show is that something died. Vestigial organs would be dismissed because they do not exist, every organ has a function, there is no such thing as a vestigial organ. If it was a civil court and the standard was above 50%, then yea I would give macroevolution that, but if it was a criminal court where the standard is beyond all doubt 99%+ then no, the evidence doesn't support that level of certainty. And the thing is that science has an even higher burden of proof than either court, its called the scientific method, and the protocols of observation and repeatability are pretty clear.

Funny thing about vestigial organs.

For decades, evolutionists said the appendix was proof of evolution.

And then, it came out that the appendix actually has a legit function in the digestive system and is not vestigial at all.


Same thing with "Junk DNA". When I was a little kid in the 90s, all I heard about was that humans had a lot of Junk DNA, leftover from evolution.

Lo and behold, ever since the Genome Project was completed, there is no Junk DNA. All of the DNA is functional.


But hey.. evolutionists just move on and pretend they never did that.

[thorpowers]

Funny thing about vestigial organs.

For decades, evolutionists said the appendix was proof of evolution.

And then, it came out that the appendix actually has a legit function in the digestive system and is not vestigial at all.


Same thing with "Junk DNA". When I was a little kid in the 90s, all I heard about was that humans had a lot of Junk DNA, leftover from evolution.

Lo and behold, ever since the Genome Project was completed, there is no Junk DNA. All of the DNA is functional.


But hey.. evolutionists just move on and pretend they never did that.

Exactly. Hear it all the time from them that the Appendix is vestigial and "people get it removed all the time". That's not even a strawman thats a legitimate argument they make.

Ok? And you can get your eyeballs removed too and still live, that doesn't mean eyes are vestigial organs. A doctor could remove your legs and you could still live...the appendix also helps the immune system. All organs have a function, and just because humans have not discovered the function yet, doesn't make it vestigial.

Or they claim that the pelvic bones in whales are vestigial structures, even though muscles attach to those bones, muscles necessary for the whale to reproduce.

[Jryt]

Exactly. Hear it all the time from them that the Appendix is vestigial and "people get it removed all the time". That's not even a strawman thats a legitimate argument they make.

Ok? And you can get your eyeballs removed too and still live, that doesn't mean eyes are vestigial organs. A doctor could remove your legs and you could still live...the appendix also helps the immune system. All organs have a function, and just because humans have not discovered the function yet, doesn't make it vestigial.

Or they claim that the pelvic bones in whales are vestigial structures, even though muscles attach to those bones, muscles necessary for the whale to reproduce.

Vestigial structures definitely exist. There are muscles in your pinna that do nothing. Palmaris longus is a muscle that flexes the palmar aponeurosis, which if it were bigger would improve grip strength (as it does in other apes), but only really exists now to (very weakly) stabilise the skin in the event of a degloving force. 15-20% of people don't have this muscle. Orangutans still use this muscle for its grip strength function and so they don't have the same variation as humans and other animals that don't.
There are marsupials that have eyes that are literally covered by their skin because they don't use sight. Photoreceptors that will never be exposed to light.
The pelvic bones in whales are underdeveloped compared to other mammals, but are still used. However they have remnants of femur and tibia in place, with muscles attached to them, and these bones allow almost zero movement, yet they are still there.
The reason these things are evidence for evolution is because there was a prior prediction, and explanation, of their existence.
Obviously the fact that people commonly have a structure removed doesn't make it vestigial.

The junk DNA argument is not a prediction of evolutionary theory, but rather a hypothesis made by early geneticists. It was wrong and has spawned the field of epigenetics. Notice how junk DNA has been thrown out but evolution hasn't, I know you didn't bring it up but you did quote it, but using junk DNA as an argument is dishonest.

Species is an arbitrary distinction drawn by human observation of genetic expression. The DNA doesn't care about whether we consider an organism to be a certain species it just does whatever it wants. All life is just expressions of different genetic codes. Our classification of species is just our own pattern-recognising imposed upon it. Observing speciation or not would fundamentally just be a matter of definition.
Would you say speciation is occurring here or do bacteria not count? There are different ecotypes arising. Separate genetic trajectories occur, as long as the mutation is outstripping recombination.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../361/1475/2039 or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660680/

[thorpowers]

Vestigial structures definitely exist. There are muscles in your pinna that do nothing. Palmaris longus is a muscle that flexes the palmar aponeurosis, which if it were bigger would improve grip strength (as it does in other apes), but only really exists now to (very weakly) stabilise the skin in the event of a degloving force.

So it has a function as you yourself admit in the same sentence.

15-20% of people don't have this muscle.

Doesn't make it vestigial, as you already admitted it has a function. There are humans born with no hands, or no eyes, and they still live full lives, does that mean any of these structures are vestigial?

The pelvic bones in whales are underdeveloped compared to other mammals, but are still used. However they have remnants of femur and tibia in place, with muscles attached to them, and these bones allow almost zero movement, yet they are still there.

I agree with you, they have a function, therefore not vestigial.

The reason these things are evidence for evolution is because there was a prior prediction, and explanation, of their existence.

What things? Nothing you listed was actually vestigial, as you yourself admitted. I do admit that there is a lot of indirect evidence to support all known eukaryotes sharing a common ancestor. My point is that it cannot be verified with the scientific method.

There are marsupials that have eyes that are literally covered by their skin because they don't use sight. Photoreceptors that will never be exposed to light.

Since you don't mention the species, I will assume you are referring to marsupial mole rats? Because I've seen others try to use them as an example, and it's been demonstrated that these mole rats can actually distinguish light from dark with their eyes, just as a human with their eyes closed can still tell if its light or dark, therfore it has a function.

(as it does in other apes)

Referring to humans as apes is meaningless, because according to the current evolution model humans are fish too. As you say it's just an arbitrary distinction drawn by human observation of genetic expression.

Would you say speciation is occurring here or do bacteria not count? There are different ecotypes arising. Separate genetic trajectories occur, as long as the mutation is outstripping recombination.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../361/1475/2039 or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660680/

Are bacteria animals? Then no. What I would like to see is a bacteria evolving into a multicellular organism and developing a digestive system. And if this can't be tested, then it can't be falsified, then it's not science. Science must be falsifiable. As soon as you add a time stamp on it and say it occurs over millions of years, or it occured millions of years ago, or it will occur in millions of years then it is no longer science.

[Mr Beer]

Are bacteria animals? Then no. What I would like to see is a bacteria evolving into a multicellular organism and developing a digestive system. And if this can't be tested, then it can't be falsified, then it's not science. Science must be falsifiable. As soon as you add a time stamp on it and say it occurs over millions of years, or it occured millions of years ago, or it will occur in millions of years then it is no longer science.

Sounds as though statements about anything that occurs over periods of time longer than human civilisation are not scientific by your definition.

[Mr Beer]

Same thing with "Junk DNA". When I was a little kid in the 90s, all I heard about was that humans had a lot of Junk DNA, leftover from evolution.

Lo and behold, ever since the Genome Project was completed, there is no Junk DNA. All of the DNA is functional.

Proof?

[thorpowers]

Sounds as though statements about anything that occurs over periods of time longer than human civilisation are not scientific by your definition.

Correct, but it's more nuanced. It can be scientific in the sense that we can use existing evidence to infer things based on assumptions. What we can not do is verify these inferences as objective facts. In order to verify the scientific method must be used. Microevolution can be verified with direct observation and repeatability, to deny it would be to deny observable reality. Things that take millions of years to happen cannot actually be verified using the accepted protocols of the scientific method. Assumptions must be made.

Again, we can't test for something that would require a million year long experiment, and if we can't test it then we can't falsify it. If we can't falsify it, it isn't science. If we can't observe it and we can't falsify it, it's just a hypothesis.

[Mr Beer]

Things that take millions of years to happen cannot actually be verified using the accepted protocols of the scientific method.

That sounds as though astronomy and geology are much more unscientific fields of study than I had previously imagined to be the case.

[adimare]

If we can't test it then we can't falsify it.

Evolution is falsifiable, find a single rabbit fossil in the precambrian, and evolution would have to go.