Is there any proof for evolution?

Im just sitting here watching BBC news 24 and im watching and interview with some politician nutjob. He is backing Palin and her beliefs that the world is 6,000 years old. When the interviewer heard this his mouth dropped (mine too,) here is this aged man who is obviously educated who is blatantly discrediting the theory of evolution, and said that he could assure that no matter how long he debated, he could debunk the theory.

Now personally I think he is a madman, but it got me thinking. CAN we actually prove the theory of evolution? We laugh at these people who say that we all lived with dinosaurs etc, but when you look through history, MANY people were laughed at for their beliefs. The theory of germs, the earth being round, all these were ridiculed, but they ended up being right. Now whose to say that just because the theory of evolution is the most popular theory, and that everyone who thinks differently to us is a madman.

I was watching 12 monkeys yesterday -I would definatley recommend watching- and the movies ponders the idea that the only reason that these theories are seen as "truth" is that because the majority believe in it. Whenever someone contests these "truths" they are called a madman. the creator of the theory of germs Leeuwenhoek from the 1600's, was originally called a madman. Here was a man who had made a groundbreaking discovery that will go down in the history books, and we can now prove that he was right. But in his time all this talk of "tiny tiny little blobs that float about and make us sick" was simply insane, and since there was no way to prove he was right, was society right to think he was mad? I mean, if they believed every single person with theories with no proof there would be no such thing as science. Personally I believe in evolution but I would like to hear other peoples opinions on it. Is it right to believe in something, just because everyone else does?

 

probably not.

 

So is it right for us to call it truth, wholey because everyone thinks it is? The earth being flat was completley sane and intelligent in 500bc, all evidence pointed to the fact that it was flat and anyone who said otherwise was laughed at. But they were wrong, so whos to say that we arent about evolution? all evidence points to it, but we cannot go into space and show that evolution is right like we can with the earth being round. Heres a wee scenerio because I am bored.

Mesopotania - 270 B.C

Medicine Man: Hi everyone, Id like to talk to you about my theory on how the human body is made up of tiny cells, constantly reproducing until death

Vast Majority: hes obviously a madman, everyone knows that our bodies were molded by the gods like clay, anyone who believes otherwise is a lunatic. His ideas are proposterous, and all evidence is against him

*the vast majority then proceed to pelt the medicine man with rocks*


London - Present Day

Scientologist: Hi everyone, Id like to talk to you all on my theory of the creation of the universe and that the reason humans have advanced so far is because of the souls of extra terrestials who have inhabited all our bodies as souls.

Vast Majority : Are you serious? every intelligent person believes that humans have slowly evolved from animals, and there is no such thing as a soul, only hormones flowing through our body, anyone who doesnt believe that is a lunatic. In terms of what societies stance on science decrees, these ideas are propostorous and all evidence is against him

*The vast majority then proceed to launch a scathing media attack on the Scientologist and his church, openly mocking him and ignoring him because of his beliefs*

I know these are probably bad examples in terms of ethics, but they are both examples of radical thinking peoples coming up with new theories on our existence. And history has proven that the greatest discoveries have been made by those who think outside of the box.

 

On the Kola Peninsula, in Russia, it was during at least one time extremely filthy (and probably still is about as filthy), and during this time a white butterfly went through a mutation that caused the mutated ones to become black. Normally mainly white birch trees were present in the area (probably still are), but the pollution caused them to become covered with blackening filth. This lead to that the mutated, black butterflies had an advantage to the white ones from becoming prey, which caused the white ones to die out (or at least become heavily reduced in numbers). This is an absolute case of evolution. Unfortunately, I heard about this well over a decade ago, so I cannot provide a source. Evolution, or devolution, for that matter, if that is a term that commonly is used, is an obvious fact and anyone with a decent intellect should see this. I always keep a sceptical mind to matters where evolution is applied, however; there are many matters that leave unanswered questions. For instance, how did two chromosomes disappear during humanity's evolution from chimpanzees? I am not convinced that humanity's origin is from chimpanzees... or at least the evolution from them has been much more complex than what commonly is described. Furthermore, why haven't chimpanzees evolved, since, as well? At least it seems like there is such a standpoint; humanity comes from chimpanzees, NOT beyond prehistoric chimpanzees.

 

depends on what you consider evidence. If you want a clear this was A, and now we have B, then probably not. But there is genetic support for mutations that have resulted in a new species, similar but different than another species. Plants are the best examples of this as are insects but I focus on mammals so I can't quote a specific species. I guess a good example would be what made darwin think in the first place, the galapagos finches.

No good scientist will ever tell you that evolution is the end all and be all of how life has come to be what it is today, since all science is unending and leaves room for furthering. But it is the most up to date and understood theory. And after all, the theory of gravity is still just a theory and can be changed but I doubt you'll find many who argue that it's wrong since it's just a theory.

The point is that we should doubt what we are told and ask for people to find a better way to support it but we should move forward, not backwards when looking for alternatives. The biggest problem with evolution is that it is a highly complicated process and the average person doesn't understand it properly and can't without learning advanced biology, chemistry and genetics.

Anyone who still believes that everything on this planet showed up at the same time and nothing new has come since, deserves to be laughed at.

 

What you described Hae-gi can be also be a case of simple mutation, there is no way to prove that the butterflies evolved in an attempt to stay alive.

A mother black bear gives birth to an albino baby bear in the summer, she decides to rear it. Now summer has passed and the mother black bear is carrying her cub to a den for hibernation when she encounters an adult male black bear, she runs (black bears are naturally aggresive towards each other.) As she is running, she drops the cub in the snow, she cannot run back to the cub because the male is right behind her. The male eventually gives up and wanders off, it could have eaten the baby cub but it couldnt see it. Why? because its albino fur made it camofluaged in the snow and he ran right passed it. The mother did not decide to have an albino cub, it was just pure coincidence and by darwins theory, albinism should have shortened the cubs life rather than lengthened it. Both cases can be described as abnormal mutations, that coincedentally have proven fortunate in their enviroment.

 

good post and what makes it better is you illustrate many of the reasons why evolution is misunderstood and therefore often criticized by those who don't understand it (I think u have a decent grasp).

1) the butterfly is a good example but just want to add to make clear that no choice to evolve is involved. It is completely random and under no influence that the mutation occurred in some of the bugs

2) We did NOT evolve from chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor that is commonly referred to as the missing link. Both humans and chimpanzees are a separate evolved species. Think of it as a fork in the road. We're one path and they're the other. Neither has evolved since neither has experienced a random mutation that resulted in an advantage. We have had "microevolutions" though, that can be seen in the size, shape and other characteristics that are distinctive within the species but based on advantages for different areas.

3) Evolution often takes 100's of thousands to millions of years to occur and our society as we know it hasn't been around enough to allow for evolution to take place.

 

even with a mother caring for it, the cub likely wouldn't survive the summer. And if it did, albinism would have to be heritable and prove useful for all others born with it. Some have suggested this is exactly what happened with polar bears. They started as grizzlies, had a mutation for white fur and eventually became a separate species.

please see previous post I made

 

But the black butterfly is going to stick out like a sore thumb when it is flying, or when it lands on a tree has has not succumbed to the pollution. Because the theory tells us that it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, it is simply to long for us to find proof, in this lifetime ayway, and there is no way to prove that these cases arent just fortunate accidents.

 

hence behavioural patterns of avoiding dangerous times of flight (plus white stands out just as much as black in the air) and also it being restricted to the areas where trees are now permanently darker

 

Has it been proven that these black moths were following these rules? and also, The white reflects the sun, which confuses predators

 

Well technically there are no set rules and it's hard for it to be properly described by me or Hae because it's off of memory and we can't show pics and stats and many other things that are included in a scientific paper.

 

Evolution IS mutation. The mutants with the better traits survive and produce more mutant offspring who then become the norm and further mutate (evolve) and the cycle continues. Evolution happens randomly.

 

Also isnt the Cancer virus the biggest piece of evidence to support evolution? Because cancer cells are so small they reproduce 1000s of times faster than mammals do, so evolution is much much quicker. The reason its nigh impossible to treat cancer is because it is constantly adapting to any antivirus that it comes into contact with. Its adapting to its enviroment, at an incredibley fast rate.

Now my question is, how the hell can there be university educated scholars and politicians, who still openly deny the evolution theory? Maybe there is a Christian who believes in the theory that all animals began at once who can share his/her belief? We cannot simply call these people idiots, because they have obviously got enough intelligence to have such a great career. There must be some way to believe in this, some sort of explanation.

 

The evolution theory incompasses many different beliefs. Many scientists actually disagree on what evolution actually is. Is it an adaptation to the environment, or is it a mutation that simply turns out to be beneficial? The latter makes more scientific sense.

I don't know anyone who thinks the worls is only 6,000 years old, regardless of religious affiliation.

 

other than sarah palin you mean. and the nitwit on the telly that anon
was watching earlier. that's 2.

 

Just one point. No society with knowledge of trigonometry ever thought the earth was flat - this includes medieval Europe. The idea that medieval Europe had this idea was propagated in the 19th century, and was never seriously considered in reality.

And... Cancer virus? What the hell?

I guess more than one point. Abiogenesis != evolution. Evolution is clearly seen in the natural world, and it is UNQUESTIONABLE. Creationism does NOT conflict with evolution, which is the adaptation of species to match their environments. I honestly don't get the shit about the 6000 year old earth, since I don't think the Bible supports that, and I'm absolutely certain the earth is older than that. "Days" is ambiguous, as far as I'm concerned; I don't see why it didn't take God 13 billion years to create man - why not?

 

Yes.

The proof is you (and me).

Why do some folk choose not to accept evolution as fact? Because they do not want it to be true as it threatens their beliefs (of whatever flavour).......although strangely not all the "Believers" have this problem. Maybe different editions of the Book(s)?


Of course "the one true religion" © explains away evolution quite well.........

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power.....................What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore..........."

His Noodliness is also on YouTube:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PW596ZlGk

Stick that up yer cassocks :tongue:

 

Eh, if you remove scientific buzzwords from science you also get absurdity. Pointing out that this works with FSM versus God doesn't really change the idea.

See, all matter is made up of tiny reptilopoli. Within these reptilopoli, there is a centremabob comprised of great shields and uberturtles. An uberturtle is made by the combination of a great shield and an antisnake. Flying around the centremabob are inconstant and probabilistic snakes, which, being opposite in femorality to uberturtles, are attracted towards the centremabob.

Oh, and don't get me started on physiology. That's nuts even with the proper terminology.

 

Fair enuf.

So, should I put you down as a Spagnostic? :tongue: