-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is this proof of evolution?
- Thread starter klubbhead024
- Start date
DontWorryBeHappy
New Member
Technically you can't prove anything because theoretically we don't exist.
CelticRavenwolf
She Who is Lost
I wouldn't really call it proof nor evidence. Unless they have found fossils of the exact species from millions of years ago, like the coelacanth, then it's just another undiscovered species.
So far we have no solid proof of evolution. There is lots of compelling evidence, but nothing that has truly shown evolution - a substantial alteration in a species ultimately resulting in the birth of a new species - without doubt.
So far we have no solid proof of evolution. There is lots of compelling evidence, but nothing that has truly shown evolution - a substantial alteration in a species ultimately resulting in the birth of a new species - without doubt.
CelticRavenwolf
She Who is Lost
I think that I do. Don't get me wrong - I'm firmly in the evolution camp. I think that with the amount of critters that have been on this Earth compared to how many fossils and skeletal remains we find it's such a tiny fraction that it's no surprise that we haven't found any "missing links." The evidence that has be amassed is certainly compelling, and I don't think it's unrealistic at all, but there is still no solid 'proof' as it were.
But finding a descendant of a relatively unaltered ancient species does not prove evolution - after all, it's from a species that didn't evolve in millions of years!
But finding a descendant of a relatively unaltered ancient species does not prove evolution - after all, it's from a species that didn't evolve in millions of years!
Mister_T said:
Yes; and that's not all. Because of the technology, cameras can do down to depths they had hitherto been unable to reach. There is a world we know nothing about deep down.
As far as "Is this proof of evolution?"....I would answer "Do we feel the need for one?"
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Solid proof would be observing the process in action, which is obviously impossible considering the time constraints of a human lifetime.Jaiket said:
Any scientist who tells you that evolution has been proven to be the way life came to be in its current state, is not a good scientist.
It is the best theory we have available to us, all the evidence supports the theory, but it can never be proven in the same fashion that i could prove to you that white light is composed of a spectrum of colours - i.e. through experimental observation.
It most certainly has evolved, life cannot continue to procreate over time without evolving. Just because it may look the same as its fossil ancestors does not mean that there has not been a change in gene frequency within the population, which is the technical definition of evolution.CelticRavenwolf said:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
michel said:Yes; and that's not all. Because of the technology, cameras can do down to depths they had hitherto been unable to reach. There is a world we know nothing about deep down.
As far as "Is this proof of evolution?"....I would answer "Do we feel the need for one?"
And the answer is "YES"
Well, maybe not so loud......
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I'm not sure this is any better evidence of evolution than many other relict species.
Now the Hammerhead shark, there is a good one to study for evolution.
He is recent, odd and from the genetic studies 'opposite'' of what you might first expect.
The big heads are the oldest and then the smaller headed species branched off afterward. It seems that one freakish mutation actually worked really well and spawned a new group of species.
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/d_hh_origin.htm
Granted it is always fun to get glimpses of the very rare and very wierd critters down in the deep.
Few have been seen since it was offically named in the 1800's.
wa:do
Now the Hammerhead shark, there is a good one to study for evolution.
He is recent, odd and from the genetic studies 'opposite'' of what you might first expect.
The big heads are the oldest and then the smaller headed species branched off afterward. It seems that one freakish mutation actually worked really well and spawned a new group of species.
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/d_hh_origin.htm
Granted it is always fun to get glimpses of the very rare and very wierd critters down in the deep.
Few have been seen since it was offically named in the 1800's.
wa:do
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
I would have to voice my agreement with the earlier posts (I am new and have not yet figured out how to do a direct quote although I guess its not too impotant now...) that this does not constitute 'proof' of evolution since if it is a relatively unchanged ancient species it has not evolved much. Of course there is reason and evidence that supports evolution but proof in the scientific sense would have to come from direct obeservation thats how science works, empirical evidence observed in nature.
As for the required time needed to observe evolution in nature it is a matter of generation. Human generations, and many other large species are measured in terms of years and years, while thousands of generations are needed for change to accumulate, or so it would seem. Smaller species such as bacteria however measure genrations in terms of days or even minutes. evolution could occur in such lifeforms much quicker than larger species. This is where the best proof of evolution is to be found, in bacterial resistance to antibiotics for example. Or insects would be good too like the fruitfly work done by Theodosius Dobzansky (I believe it was him) and others.
As for the required time needed to observe evolution in nature it is a matter of generation. Human generations, and many other large species are measured in terms of years and years, while thousands of generations are needed for change to accumulate, or so it would seem. Smaller species such as bacteria however measure genrations in terms of days or even minutes. evolution could occur in such lifeforms much quicker than larger species. This is where the best proof of evolution is to be found, in bacterial resistance to antibiotics for example. Or insects would be good too like the fruitfly work done by Theodosius Dobzansky (I believe it was him) and others.
CelticRavenwolf
She Who is Lost
Halcyon said:
Touche, Halcyon. Touche.
Though I don't think that is quite the evolution that we're talking about. Sure, gene frequency etcetera may be a given, but the physical characteristics that make it a species are unchanged. That shark is this the same type of shark - physical appearance, size, etc - that it was millions of years ago. Essentially, unchanged. It is the same species.
When we speak of evolution in the sense of evolution vs. creation, we're talking about one type of species evolving from another to the point where they are no longer related and thus cannot reporduce together. For example, since we're talking about sharks, a great white cannot reproduce with a hammerhead.
Jaiket said:
As I understand it, a 'missing link' would be a creature that was clearly the catalyst for a switch to a new species. In theory it would be a creature that shows traits from the original species, but with specific differences that would be previously unseen in that species.
The only solid proof that the public as a whole will accept is that if something evolves in our documented history, which, to my knowledge, hasn't happened yet. Darwin's Galapagos finches are a great example and as far as I know the closest visual evidence that we've seen, but they are still able to interbreed with their mainland counterparts, and as such are not a different species, despite natural selection changing beak sizes.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
The problem with missing links is that when you find one you create two more.
species 1 missing link? species 2
species 1 missing link? link found missing link? species 2
With the incerdible difficulty it takes to become a fossil (especially if speciation occurs on the timescale of punctuated equilibrium) it is unlikely that a perfect chain from one end to the other will ever be found there will inevitable be missing links. I don't think that this presents a problem to the theory of evolution however.
species 1 missing link? species 2
species 1 missing link? link found missing link? species 2
With the incerdible difficulty it takes to become a fossil (especially if speciation occurs on the timescale of punctuated equilibrium) it is unlikely that a perfect chain from one end to the other will ever be found there will inevitable be missing links. I don't think that this presents a problem to the theory of evolution however.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
CelticRavenwolf said:
Check into the research done on fruitflys and stickleback fish. And do you think that bacterial resistence to antibiotics resulting in new strains of bacteria constitutes documentation of the evolution of one species of bactertia to another?