Has Evolution Been Proven to be True ?

[Vatoreus]

Originally Posted by Flight

Of course the first has been proven to be true. The 'theory of evolution', however, is still just that - a theory.

I can't begin to describe how much I want to beat the ever living FUCK out of people who say this. Just a theory?

[Tyen]

Originally Posted by Tenks

Let me google that for you

winner

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Flight

but the scientific line is still that the 'theory of evolution' is most probably true because nothing else can explain it.

No. The scientific line is that there is a couple centuries of evidence and study that all point to evolution through natural selection over time being a viable explanation of the variety of life on this planet.

The quoted line is totally incorrect. That is not how science works, and uttering it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance of the scientific process, if not outright hostility towards it.

[Vatoreus]

They seriously need to start doing a better job going over what the hell the Scientific Method is and how it develops and how it is applied.


wtf Mal! Now I'll get confused!

[Malakriss]

That would require learning instead of shutting up and doing what you're told.

[Flight]

Originally Posted by Eomer

No. The scientific line is that there is a couple centuries of evidence and study that all point to evolution through natural selection over time being a viable explanation of the variety of life on this planet.

Points to ... indicates .... only viable theory...

These are terms that don't convince. The people who are serious in this conversation know there is no conclusive 'truth' or proven theory apart from mathematics. And even that is up for debate in some circles. What we are discussing is probability of theories being true.

'Pure evolution' - beyond reasonable doubt this is true.

'Natural selection' - again true beyond reasonable doubt.

Emergence of new species due to cumulative evolution - not proven or substantially supported beyond the two 'truths' above and not being in possession of any other 'reasonable theories'.



What I am looking for is proof in the fossil record that supports the spontaneous emergence of the human species through cumulative evolution from other species. To my knowledge there still isn't any ?

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Flight

The simple answer is no, but then neither have numerous other basic scientific principles - of physics, for example.

What evidence is there ?

I'm not a creationist or a religious nutter, but I've yet to be presented with any truth which has persuaded me that evolution is true. Please don't turn this into a religious debate or bigoted thread. Without referring to alternate theories to evolution, or expressing religious views, can anyone put forward any evidence to support or refute evolution ?

By merely asking this question you have proven that you do not understand how science works.

Before diving into a subject that is over your head, I would advise you first study up on what science actually is, how the scientific method works, and how the scientific community functions.

If you don't understand the above, you will find yourself asking silly questions like "has evolution been proven to be true?"

[Flight]

My main purpose in this post was to be underlining that I am not debunking evolution or the theory of evolution. Just looking for an interesting chat with folks with some knowledge of recent discoveries and advances.


However, given earthfell and Vatoreous responses, in particular, I'll add that I find it interesting that the people with scientific training and knowledge are displaying the same bigotry and hostility that Science traditionally holds religious freaks in contempt for displaying.

[Rune]

Evolution is a topic that requires so much education to fully appreciate and understand that once you get on the other side of that hurdle the proof is so obvious it hurts on a molecular level.

I used to think it was simple, but turns out I had no idea how it worked and what qualified as evolution, and a year of painfully dull graduate level classes fixed that. So forgive us, Flight. Like many complex topics, if you're serious about understanding evolution in a scientific context rather than the way it is used colloquially you can't jump straight to it.

Some of the examples I remember is that giraffes have a nerve innervating their face or something, that instead of going from the back of the skull, it goes all the way down to the heart (making no connections or innervations) before looping around the clavicle and traveling back up the very lengthy neck - for no reason at all. Now, in lower level mammals and fish, it isn't a big deal because we're talking about inches and a few milliseconds difference in response time. But the physiology of the giraffe is such that the basic make-up of the skeleton was tweaked so that this small flaw became a glaring mishap.

One of the common things in embryology they bring up is something, I think it was ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. See the attached drawing:

Bottom line is this isn't something that we can spoonfeed you to your satisfaction. You've got to spend the time on it to understand it, and most likely you won't because it's not worth it. To give you the understanding you outline, as to how new species come about, you would need to learn how genetic modification works, selfish dna, mutations, transposons, retro-transposons, critical areas of dna which can drastically alter the appearance of the organism (homeoboxes maybe? It's been a while)

Chimps for example share something like 97% or 99% of human DNA, but a few small changes in a few genes drastically altered our appearance, if not our behavior (lol). Understanding what, exactly, the rest of that DNA does is critical to understanding evolution. Anyway, my point is it would probably take a good ten hours for me to write out even a basic outlining of evolution, how it works, and the evidence - without going into the controversies which are minor and only of significance to academics trying to vie for tenure.

You benefit thousands of times a month from medically significant biological progress fundamentally based on evolution - Do you really need to understand it for it to work?

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Flight

My main purpose in this post was to be underlining that I am not debunking evolution or the theory of evolution. Just looking for an interesting chat with folks with some knowledge of recent discoveries and advances.


However, given earthfell and Vatoreous responses, in particular, I'll add that I find it interesting that the people with scientific training and knowledge are displaying the same bigotry and hostility that Science traditionally holds religious freaks in contempt for displaying.

I think you are misunderstanding. We are exposed to scientific thinking in elementary school, and we learn the details about science and the scientific method in the 6th grade. SIXTH GRADE. You getting yelled at for not understanding science is the same as the person in another thread getting yelled at because his paragraph post is one fucking run on sentence.

There is just a basic level of education people are expected to come out of high school with. What we have today are millions of people in America with no understanding of science who always have something to say about it. Hence, it is natural for those of us who do to be irritable.

[Vatoreus]

How am I being bigoted? I'm bigoted against stupidity, yes. You sit here and talk about things ''just being a theory'' when in science, a theory is about as close to fact as it gets. I don't give a shit you're asking for info, by all means do, it's called learning. Just don't sit here and be retarded at the same time by mucking up the definitions of scientific terms. If you're coming to learn, come with the correct tools to learn.

[brekk]

Originally Posted by Flight

However, given earthfell and Vatoreous responses, in particular, I'll add that I find it interesting that the people with scientific training and knowledge are displaying the same bigotry and hostility that Science traditionally holds religious freaks in contempt for displaying.

There's a difference. Religious people are hostile against us because of stories in a book written many centuries ago about a magical man.

Scientists are hostile against close minded people who take some words in a magical book as fact, with equal or greater validity then the work of many thousands of scientists over multiple centures, many spending their entire lives working on this exact issue.

Don't misunderstand. There is bigotry on both sides. However the side of science is right, religion is wrong.

[Regime]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Oh look, the gang is all here.

TEAM SCIENCE....FORM MECHA-DARWIN!

Fuck ya Scourge and the Sweeps baby

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by Eomer

No. The scientific line is that there is a couple centuries of evidence and study that all point to evolution through natural selection over time being a viable explanation of the variety of life on this planet.

The quoted line is totally incorrect. That is not how science works, and uttering it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance of the scientific process, if not outright hostility towards it.

And your answer states that people who don't practice the scientific method have no business speaking about science unless they learn all the practices and terminology involved.

Tolerance is understanding that not everyone understands things in the same way you do. Tolerance can also manifest as empathy toward that persons way of understanding in such a way as to allow that person to understand you.

Your reaction is intolerant of Flight's understanding of the topic. You're basically telling him to "Google it" before you'll let him into the club. If you want people be on your "side", the best tactic is to actually assume they have some intent to do so. Attacking them when they ask for a helping hand might add to your club's exclusivity, but it doesn't increase overall understanding in the general population.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by brekk

There's a difference. Religious people are hostile against us because of stories in a book written many centuries ago about a magical man.

Scientists are hostile against close minded people who take some words in a magical book as fact, with equal or greater validity then the work of many thousands of scientists over multiple centures, many spending their entire lives working on this exact issue.

Don't misunderstand. There is bigotry on both sides. However the side of science is right, religion is wrong.

Science is right about scientific things.

Religion is right about spiritual things.

Religion needs to and usually does stay out of scientific matters. Science needs to and usually does stay out of religious matters. Both of them need to learn how to get along, not tell each other who is right or wrong.

I know you hate and fear religion. We hate and fear what we don't understand. It's perfectly normal.