5 best proofs of evolution

[JorgeLobo]

There are no "proofs" for evolution - it is a theory.

[biohazard]

There is as much proof on evolution as on any other theory that's been scientifically tested. Strictly speaking you cannot even "prove" that the Earth is round, since this all could be just your dream and that in reality you are a tentacle-faced Martian ant having a millennium-long nap or something, and when you wake up you notice that there even isn't such thing as Earth. Let's all go watch The Matrix now, shall we!

[AstusAleator]

Except that everything is within the context of definable terms, in which we define the earth as the observable planet upon which we live. (of course there are better definitions)
so to say the earth is round is to say that the ground which we observe below us is the surface of a distinct mass within our observable universe that is spherical in shape.
we can only draw conclusions on what can be empirically observed as reality.

[biohazard]

Well, I just meant that you cannot even know whether your observations are correct. Even if you were 99.9999999% sure that what you observe is real (like that the Earth is round), there can always be some catch that never even occured in your mind. The Earth was just an example, of course it's one of those things that we can be sure of if we can be sure of anything. But, "Cogito, ergo sum", like that Descartes guy said. You can only be sure that you exist, all else has a degree of uncertainty ;)

[AstusAleator]

Sure, but that type of speculation (however intriguing) has no place in science. Science is grounded in empirical fact otherwise it cannot progress to further discovery. This is why scientists necessarily have to reject a creator or Flying Spaghetti Monster as non-scientific until such a time as one of these entities chooses to become empirically observable.

To state it in a somewhat mathematical sense: You say that there's a chance that all that we perceive as reality is false. Well if that is true then the probability would be the same for everything within our reality. An apple would be just as likely to be non-real as a monkey. Well when the only tools we have to help us determine reality are the things we can observe, then the relativity of it all renders the possibility of non-reality pointless. See what I'm saying? It's like having the same variable in both the numerator and the denominator. They cancel each other out. Until something empirically calls into question the reality of what we know, there's no point in speculating the possibility of non-reality.

And to end on a positive note: you're right that there should always be speculation as to the truth of scientific fact. But this speculation should arise through observation and testing.

[biohazard]

Argh, now you are taking me bit too seriously. Apparently the talk about Martian ants and The Matrix weren't enough to indicate that I was mostly joking. You are completely correct in what you say and I'm not doubting empirical science.

I originally just tried to point out that there is empirical evidence on evolution just like there is evidence on most other scientifical theories. These evidences may not be as obvious as those we have on the Earth's shape, but nonetheless they can be regarded as "proof" of evolution. Thus I think one can talk about proofs of evolution. You don't have to rely on ancient fossils or such, modern-day laboratory experiments provide proofs as well.

Of course, in science, new evidence emerge, and existing views may need to be corrected, but this applies all science, not just the theory of evolution.

[AFJ]

Argh, now you are taking me bit too seriously. Apparently the talk about Martian ants and The Matrix weren't enough to indicate that I was mostly joking. You are completely correct in what you say and I'm not doubting empirical science.

I originally just tried to point out that there is empirical evidence on evolution just like there is evidence on most other scientifical theories. These evidences may not be as obvious as those we have on the Earth's shape, but nonetheless they can be regarded as "proof" of evolution. Thus I think one can talk about proofs of evolution. You don't have to rely on ancient fossils or such, modern-day laboratory experiments provide proofs as well.

Of course, in science, new evidence emerge, and existing views may need to be corrected, but this applies all science, not just the theory of evolution.

You are deviating from the scientific method. All hypotheses must be tested, if they are tested and shown to be false, they must be adjusted or discarded, and a new hypotheses formed. Evolutionary thought overlays many branches of science and depends on each science to "prove" it.

Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory. It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

The problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate.

[AFJ]

I think I should have wrote the last post like this. The reasoning in the first is not linear. This is better.

You are deviating from the scientific method. All hypotheses must be tested, if they are tested and shown to be false, they must be adjusted or discarded, and a new hypotheses formed. Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory.

The reason many hypotheses are still presented in textbooks and have been rejected by many modern scientists is a testament to the fact that the old hypotheses are untestable. You can not observe them, only provide hard evidence with interpretation which amounts to circumstantial evidence, and speculation.

In another thought, how are you going to "prove" the oxygen catastrophe. You can provide oxidation evidence but it does not rule out every other possibility--which would be required to make a scientific deduction.

It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

The real problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. So most science students can only think and reason within the context they have been presented for years and years.

If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate.
Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory. It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

The problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate.

[biohazard]

Uhuh, scientific fundamentalists are almost as annoying as religious ones. I wrote the word proof with quotation marks (i.e. "proof" and "proved") especially to indicate that it must not be taken literally, but still I get these replies where people take my every word literally... pretty much like religious fanatics do.

If normal people talk about evolution, the shape of Earth or the colour of your gramma's hair, they can for sure use the word proof when they discuss about the evidence that support their view. Who gives a fcuk if it's a scientifically poor choice of word, unless of course you happen to be having that conversation with a bunch of scientific nitpickers to whom it apparently is a matter of life and death :)

Or maybe this forum is just for hardcore scientists where every single word must be used in the exactly right context, and all common sense is strictly forbidden because it may inviolate the mighty Scientific Method. Petty amateurs such as myself or the original poster of this thread are probably better off if they promptly go back to their sandboxes and just keep playing.

Merry christmas everyone :))

[AstusAleator]

Yes, we're playing with semantics, regarding "proof"
Scientific proof is a definable term. Look it up people.

[biohazard]

Like I said, "proof" it was a poor choice of word in the first place, but I did put my proof in question marks to indicate that I wasn't talking about scientific proof or any such exact term - this is not playing with semantics, it was just a word that I though best described what I tried to say (and obviously didn't do so). Hell, why would I have used the question marks if I was talking about a defined term? Instead, I tried to use the word in the context people use it in everyday conversation, which generally just means that proof = something that strongly suggests that a thing is so.

Of course since this is a scientific forum, I guess it's fair to expect that people stick to scientific terms as much as possible. I try to behave myself in the future.

[dingo]

Intelligent Design

We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification -- a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it's meaningless).)

So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)

The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)