Has Evolution Been Proven to be True ?

[brekk]

Evolution is not nearly as complex as many people think.

Random mutations + survival of the fittest = WINNAR

[Zeste]

Has evolution been proven to be false?

[Prime]

I hate when people say that evolution is just a conspiracy by the elite scientist. I am pretty sure every scientist in the world would love to be able to scientifically disprove evolution. They would be the most famous person on the planet and would be the new Darwin. That's the difference between science and religion, science is constantly tinkering their theory, they are trying to disprove it or make it better. Religion is static and doesn't try to refine itself.

[GaliemVaelant]

I would say that it has, but what one believes about the earliest days is still on them. The scientific method is very specific, so I'll explain why I believe it has been proven.

We all know what a hypothesis is, but not everyone knows that a hypothesis only becomes a theory when it leads to predictions that come true. This could be longitudinal (predictions about the future) or retrospective. Darwin's hypothesis made accurate retrospective predictions, as supported by the fossile record, hence making it a theory.

A theory is proven when it is found, over the course of years, to be accurate (always within a slight margin of error) and continues to be used to explain phenomenon and make predictions that are found to be true. For example, the classical theory of gravitation is still tested in early-level university physics labs, but there are predictions it makes that are not true on the cosmic scale. Einstein's picture of gravitaition is still a theory even though it explains those discrepencies because predictions it makes (gravity waves, to be specific) have not been found to be true yet.

According to the theory of evolution, small changes in conditions necessary for survival make certain members of a species better suited for it, as we know, and that small genetic mutations that are advantageous lead to members of the species surviving and breeding with greater ease, thus slowly improving the species. This happens and has been very well documented in many cases, including cases that involve human beings. So, longitudinal predictions have come true up to a point.

The summation of these minute changes over large spans of time differentiate various species in a family, according to the theory. This has not been outright proven simply because we haven't been around long enough to see it happen first-hand. But, the fundamental, short-term predictions of evolution are proven. Therefore, yes, evolution has been proven.

However, if one chose not to believe that humans' ancestors were monkeys, that's on them. My personal opinion is that austrolipithicus (our earliest known ancestor) was more animal-like than we are, but wasn't an animal per se.

Now, having posted more than I ever should in one post, I'll add that I'm not a biologist after any fashion, much less an evolutionary one, so there are those here who are much, much more qualified to answer the question. I just wanted to take a stab at it because I know where this topic leads, and I mourn that often religion and science are thought of as mutually exclusive when they're really not.

[Soriak]

Evolution mandates that humans evolved from something else - with perfect information, we would be able to trace our lineage all the way back to a single-cell organism. There's no scientific reason to believe humans are different from all other life on the planet, not given how much evidence there is to the contrary. (reproduction, cell function and so on)

DNA analysis is going to make this a lot easier to prove as it becomes cheaper to sequence the entire DNA. The more similar two species are in their DNA, the more recent they have diverged and therefore the closer related they are. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

edit: from the article

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

[Celebrindal]

Anyone remember the "debate" we had with Actovus? That shit was hilarious.
Reread through that thread, it's golden.
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/milli...tml#post714585

[Screamfeeder]

Damnit Cel I was hoping to reuse those rants and now you went and spoiled it.

Oh and Aych, thanks but I know the definition I just wanted to hear what Flight thought it was because I guarantee you his definition is wrong.

[Tea on tuesday]

Hey, guys!

[Eomer]

^you're doing it wrong:

HAY GUYZ

[Araxen]

This thread would be more entertaining with Lumie around.

[Screamfeeder]

Oh look, the gang is all here.

TEAM SCIENCE....FORM MECHA-DARWIN!

[Araxen]

Originally Posted by Sharmai

From above ... Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Massive wall o text about evolution. Over 200 citations. I'd say its been well researched.

This article might prove better for this thread.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Oh look, the gang is all here.

TEAM SCIENCE....FORM MECHA-DARWIN!

.

[Astrocreep]

evolution is real but i dont want to think man comes from a stupid monkey. i rather think man was cross bred with little space men of superior intelligence. i dont really believe that, but thats what i want to think.

[Ninajrr]

Evolution is logical fact. Genetics and change is what needs to be proven (that isn't to say I don't think it has been, merely that Evolution is logical fact which is derived from change; argue against change, not evolution)