Proof of evolution ParalaxMan: This thread is about evolution. Science of evolution. Proof of evolution. There should be no reams of copy and pasted material. This will be removed. Opinions are good, and factual posts must be supported with a link the source material We don’t want any creationist claptrap. There are other threads for fairy stories of magic sky men. Let’s keep it on topic. It’s good to argue - that’s how learn from each other, but no silly falling out please. (Edited by ParalaxMan) ParalaxMan: Transitional features - Understanding Evolution A fossil that shows an intermediate state between an ancestral trait and that of its later descendants is said to bear a transitional feature. The fossil record includes many examples of transitional features, providing an abundance of evidence for evolutionary change over time. evolution.berkeley.edu ParalaxMan: ParalaxMan: There’s no denying that life evolves. There’s so much proof. We were once fishes then elementary mammals, apes and now humans. Our bodies contain the remnants of earlier form, some now obsolete, and eventuality these organs and features that we no longer use will disappear. Some obsolete features of the human body: Wisdom Teeth. ... Coccyx. ... The External Ear. ... Male Nipples. ... Arrector Pili. ... Plica Semilunaris. Spleen If we had been created by God then why is so much of our physiology unused? It is obvious that, as we evolved through different forms, parts of us were no longer needed and, sooner or later, we will lose them completely. The race is on. The virus is quickly evolving to become the dominant species. Sure, we use our immense brains to develop vaccines, but each time we introduce a new defence, the virus again evolves an immunity to it. There are some humans, however, that are naturally immune to these viruses. they are evolving. The others will not survive. We are still evolving. ParalaxMan: The beginning of birds Birds evolved from a group of meat-eating dinosaurs called theropods. That's the same group that Tyrannosaurus rex belonged to, although birds evolved from small theropods, not huge ones like T. rex. Why are birds the only surviving dinosaurs? nhm.ac.uk (Edited by ParalaxMan) ParalaxMan: Smithsonian national museum of natural history How are humans and monkeys related? A distant relative https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/frequently-asked-questions ParalaxMan: Apes and Humans While Apes and humans do not have external tails, they do have internal remnants of them at the While Apes and humans do not have external tails, they do have internal remnants of them at the lower end of their vertebral columns. These consist of the sacrum and the coccyx bones. lower end of their vertebral columns. These consist of the sacrum and the coccyx bones. The Primates: Apes palomar.edu ParalaxMan: Archaopteryx - the transitional fossil https://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html ParallaxMan: Why Scientific Creationism Fails to Meet the Criteria of Science The supposed conflict between science and religion as set forth by modern creationists cannot be evaluated unless one knows certain characteristics of scientific knowledge and compares them with certain characteristics of religion. This comparison leads informed, rational people to conclude that creationism is not a part of science and that the conflict between science and religion is not very significant. The unlimited ranges of religious experience, for those who grasp them, are bound to make the limited ranges of science seem small. Thus, any conflict-apparent or real-will be small or nonexistent. Scientific Knowledge In order to understand the limitations of science, one needs to know some general characteristics of scientific knowledge and a few things about the record of works that developed this knowledge. Scientific knowledge is organized around many hundreds of sets of ideas. The number of ideas in a set is few, usually from five to ten. A theory consists of one set of ideas plus many facts plus many lines of reasoning by which facts are used to support the ideas and by which facts are explained or predicted. The ideas, often called postulates, are human made and are established, by consensus, through the centuries. Ideas about the mystical and the supernatural are excluded from science. All reasoning in science hinges around sets of ideas which are assumptions about nature. If the ideas seem reasonable in light of the facts available, if the ideas make it possible to explain many facts, and if the ideas make it possible to predict facts that are not yet known, then we say that we have a good theory. The ability to explain and predict facts leads scientists to think there is some truth in the ideas. But scientists aren't satisfied. Truly, they are obligated by their discipline not to be satisfied. When possible, they question and test the ideas directly. They question the explanations of facts that others have given. They make predictions and test them by extensive observations and experiments. And - page 8 - they continue these operations until they have (1) disproved a theory, (2) changed the theory by modifying its assumptions, or (3) established the range of its applicability and limitations. Theories, even the best of them, are never universal, perfect, or complete. Each theory applies to a limited range of human experience and, even within this range, it may be impossible to make certain kinds of predictions because the theory is too imperfect. With large theories it is impossible to follow out all of the logical consequences or predictions because of the limited time, tools, and resources available. Large theories are always incomplete. A theory which has become widely accepted has a history recorded in the scientific literature. In order to decide if a theory is truly scientific, one must be able to find adequate answers to questions like the following. What are the names of the people who have spent years of time developing and testing the theory by field work or laboratory experiments? What is the reference to the paper or book in which the theory was first published? What are the references to papers in which the various aspects of the theory were tested? What are the references to papers which describe applications of the theory that show its capacity to explain facts? What are the references to papers that describe substantiated predictions derived from theory? What are the references to papers that delimit the theory and show its limitations? The work described in these kinds of papers must meet the rigorous standards of accuracy, clarity, and logicality typical of science. Descent with Modification In order to illustrate some aspects of science described above, let's examine the theory of descent with modification. This theory is one of the major theories of evolution. The other, which deals with mechanism of evolution, is the modern modified form of the theory of natural selection. The postulates of the descent theory are as follows: All life evolved from one simple kind of organism. Each species, fossil or living, arose from another species that preceded it in time. Evolutionary changes were gradual and of long duration. - page 9 - Over long periods of time, new genera, new families, new orders, new classes, and new phyla arose by a continuation of the kind of evolution that produced new species. Each species originated in a single geographic location. The greater the similarity between two groups of organisms, the closer is their relationship and the closer in geologic time is their common ancestral group. Extinction of old forms (species, and so forth) is a consequence of the production of new forms or of environmental change. Once a species or other group has become extinct, it never reappears. Evolution continues today in generally the same manner as during preceding geologic eras. The geologic record is very incomplete. The postulates set the major limitations of this theory as they do with all theories. The theory is concerned with living and fossil organisms. It is concerned with changes that occurred in living organisms through the vast reaches of geologic time. It is not concerned with cosmic evolution, inorganic evolution, or human cultural evolution. It is not concerned with the origin of life, because it assumes the presence of a simple form of life in the beginning and it says nothing about where this simple form of life came from. Other theories in biology deal with that subject. Postulates 7, 8, 9, and 10 can be individually tested by searching for evidence. Paleontologists have studied extinction in the fossil record and can in some cases account for it in terms of geologic changes. Extinction of species has occurred quite frequently during the past century, so biologists know something about it. Extinction of subpopulations of species is an active study in ecology today. In general, the facts support postulate 7. Postulate 8 is well supported by the fossil record, and strong indirect support has come from the growing understanding of reproduction and inheritance in terms of the genetic substance DNA. Postulate 9 is supported by many field and laboratory studies in microevolution and by the origin of a few new species in nature during the past century. Postulate 10 has gained support by the increase in knowledge of the fossil record, but it has been questioned to a degree by the development of the theory of allopatric speciation. So postulate 10 might be restated thus: "The geologic record is incomplete in part because the major steps in evolution occur rapidly (on the geologic time scale) in quite small subpopulations of species." This illustrates how scientists may modify the postulate of a theory. Postulate 3 is somewhat modified by this restatement of 10, but still stands to the extent that we recognize that gradual and rapid change measured in geologic time is of long durations when measured in terms of years or centuries. In geologic time, rapidlycould mean hundreds of thousands of years instead of millions of - page 10 - years, but this kind of rapid change is still of "long duration" by the time standards of daily existence. Despite these modifications, most aspects of the theory stand as before. Postulates 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 gain their support indirectly as a part of the functioning of the whole set. So we find in the study of the geographic distribution of living and fossil organisms, in taxonomy and phylogeny, and in paleontology that there are hundreds of successful subtheories of the descent theory. This means that each subtheory uses the ideas of the descent theory explicitly or implicitly in its reasoning and applies them, along with an additional set of postulates, to a limited situation. Since it is possible to construct these rational patterns of thinking-these subtheories that are acceptable to biologists-each new successful subtheory adds support to its superior theory: the descent theory. Because the descent theory provides the basis of explaining many facts, such as the biochemical unity of life and the distribution of fossils in geologic formations, and because it has spawned hundreds of subtheories which in turn have made it possible to explain and predict thousands of facts, the descent theory is a fruitful theory. Fruitfulness is the major criterion of the goodness of a theory. Since the theory of descent with modification and the accompanying theory of natural selection have been exceedingly fruitful, and since they encompass millions of facts and lead to the discovery of thousands of new facts each year, they are accepted today as the major theories in biology. This acceptance does not mean that biologists don't question all aspects of the evolution theories. The discussion of postulate 10 above is an example of this questioning. If a biologist could imagine a better theory that would replace the descent theory, he would do it immediately because he looks at all theories as tentative, humanmade intellectual constructs to be manipulated by thinking people. He does not consider them to be universal truth and wisdom. Science and Religion One great difference between science and religion is religion's fundamental concern with beliefs that are accepted on faith, whereas science is concerned with humanmade ideas that are tested in various ways, sometimes discarded, often modified, and always of limited applicability-that is, they do not purport to be universal or absolute truth. Although many ideas in science remain in science for a long time, their limitations are ultimately discovered and they may become subsumed under a new set of ideas that, in turn, has its limitations. Religious beliefs do not function in the tentative, limited way of scientific ideas. Since religious beliefs are not accepted as tentative, humanmade ideas and since science excludes mystical and supernatural ideas or beliefs from its sets of ideas, anyone can see that religion and science belong to two vastly different - page 11 - realms of thought. They are as different as poetry and accounting or architecture and horse racing, or beefsteak and sand. If we wish to stretch at the fringes, I am sure we can find some conflict between the members of these pairs. But will the conflict be of any lasting significance? Life contains many excellent realms of thought that cannot be completely reconciled or integrated. Does this necessarily mean that some of the realms are wrong or bad? No, it simply means they are different. If biologists consider their theories to be tentative, limited, and incomplete, why do they look with such disfavor at the so-called theory of "scientific creationism" as set forth by a group of creationists? They do this because, in the first place, the creationists' postulates include ideas about the supernatural, and scientists long ago decided that in their limited fields of scientific thought, observation, and experiment they could not successfully use supernatural and mystical ideas. Second, the creationists' theory does not meet the rigorous standards that accompany the growth of an acceptable scientific theory. One can search without success for references to papers that would answer the above questions as applied to the theory of "scientific creationism." To my knowledge, there is not one practicing biologist who has been active for years in field or laboratory research and who has published papers that describe work designed to test the postulates of the creationist theory or to test the logical consequences of that theory. Thousands of such papers by hundreds of biologists have been published on the theory of biological evolution, and these can be cited to provide answers to the above questions. See Evolution, Process, and Product by Dodson and Dodson for these references. On the above grounds, one is forced to say that scientific creationism does not exist, and those who do say so are being misled by their ignorance of science and their ignorance of the criteria by which scientists decide what constitutes science. If people choose to hold beliefs or ideas outside of science which cause them to reject scientific ideas and theories, they are exercising their rights in a free society. And in a free society, these people have the right to try to influence others to accept their views. But if, through ignorance or chicanery, these people try to propagate an untruth such as the notion that there is a scientific theory of creation, they are posing a false conflict. By Ralph W. Lewis https://ncse.ngo/why-scientific-creationism-fails-meet-criteria-science  axocanth: @ ParallaxMan Do you endorse the article that you have posted directly above? Among other things, the article tells us that what distinguishes scientific truth/knowledge claims from religious claims is that the former are 𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆, whereas the latter are "carved in stone", if you like. Scientific claims, no matter how well supported, unlike religious dogma, always continue to be questioned. E.g. QUOTE This acceptance does not mean that biologists don't question all aspects of the evolution theories. The discussion of postulate 10 above is an example of this questioning. If a biologist could imagine a better theory that would replace the descent theory, he would do it immediately because he looks at all theories as tentative, humanmade intellectual constructs to be manipulated by thinking people. He does not consider them to be universal truth and wisdom. [ . . . ] Religious beliefs do not function in the tentative, limited way of scientific ideas. UNQUOTE Assuming that you endorse the article you have posted, why, then, is your thread entitled "Proof of Evolution"? For you to say that evolution has been 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏 (whichever of the writer's postulates you have in mind) is to say that it is 𝒏𝒐𝒕 tentative, indeed you apparently contradict the writer's assertion that " . . . biologists . . . question all aspects of the evolution theories". It might even be said that your claiming that evolution is proven, thus no longer questioned, implies that it might as well be carved in stone! Which is it then? (i) Proven -- thus not tentative and therefore 𝒖𝒏𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 (by the standards of the writer), or (ii) Tentative (Edited by axocanth) axocanth: Ok. But if, as you say, evolution has been proven, then there's nothing tentative about it, right? In which case you are contradicting what the writer says about the nature of scientific knowledge claims, right? And you haven't specified which of the writer's "postulates" you regard as having been proven. One of them? Some of them? All of them? axocanth: Your claim that evolution -- whichever postulate(s) you have in mind -- has been 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏 also sits very uncomfortably with this: "The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions" - Albert Einstein, "The New Quotable Einstein", p225 Do you feel Einstein is wrong about this? (Edited by axocanth) ParallaxMan: Scientists should never immediately take results at face value. It is always important to check and check again. You’re correct that one day the theories of evolution might prove to be wrong despite evidence to the contrary. I’ll give an example: in 2016 scientists at the gran sasso neutrino detector, beneath the apennine mountains in Italy, collected neutrinos from cern’s large hadron collider and discovered they had arrived earlier than predicted. Said scientists rushed to publish their findings that Einstein was wrong and the particles had travelled faster than light. Some time later, they published again, meekly explaining that Einstein was correct, after all, and their results were due to a leaking fibre optic cable and a faulty atomic clock. In all events, considering the volume of supporting evidence, evolution is a fact. But it’s always important to question these things. axocanth: Well, what you're essentially saying now is that evolution -- you still haven't specified which postulate(s) -- is a fact . . . but it might turn out not to be a fact. Right? No offence, but some people might giggle at your suggestion that facts can turn out not be facts. Would it not be more sensible to say something like "We have good reason for thinking [insert claim here] is a fact"? Similar concerns apply to your proof claims. You're essentially saying "[Insert evolutionary claim here] is proven to be true . . . but it might turn out not to be true . . . we might come to learn that it wasn't proven at all". Would you really want to be caught in public saying something like that?  The red faces can be easily avoided by just saying something like "We have good reason for thinking X is true. Definitive proof, however, is something that science cannot deliver. All conclusions are, at least to some degree, tentative." Woddya think? ParallaxMan: The weight of evidence supports the fact of evolution. The total absence of evidence ridicules claims that a divine sky magician created life. (Edited by ParallaxMan) axocanth: How would you justify the last sentence above? Is this just a personal opinion of yours? Or are you appealing to some objective standard of evidence? If the latter, can you tell us what this standard is? ParallaxMan: What is your opinion? Evolution or creation? It’s ok to disagree with me, but I’d like to know your position, or are you merely filling the time between meals? axocanth: What I'm doing is asking you questions which you repeatedly evade. For your information: I'm not religious. Evolution? - depends how you define it. Among other evasions, you have repeatedly avoided telling us precisely which of the writer's postulates have been "proven". Now, to repeat my most recent question that you evaded . . . You tell us in no uncertain terms that there is no evidence for a god "creator". Clearly, a great many people out there disagree with you. They feel there is evidence. Is this merely a difference of opinion? In that case I have no more reason to accept your opinion than theirs. Or are you appealing to some objective standard of evidence? If so, what is that standard? (Edited by axocanth) ParallaxMan: It is not my intention to educate you, and it’s not a subtle point this thread is making. Read the posts and arrive at your own conclusion. You don’t need my help. axocanth: It may not be a subtle point you're making, but perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived -- Albert Einstein -- clearly does not agree with your claim that a scientific theory can be 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏. Another question that you evaded is: What's Einstein's problem? Is he wrong about this and you right? How so? (Edited by axocanth) ParallaxMan: A young physics student once suggested to Einstein that he carry a notebook and pencil, then he could keep a note of his good ideas. Einstein replied, in my life I have had only few good ideas axocanth: Should that be read as "Einstein is wrong about scientific theories being unprovable and ParallaxMan is right"? | Science Chat Room 7 People Chatting Similar Conversations |