Somehow I imagine that the only conclusive proof along these lines would require a representative fossil from each generation. After all, as a hypothetical example, the fish's fins may only morph by a millimeter every thousand years or so. I'm sure you wouldn't want to miss any intermediate steps, or the whole theory would be shot to hell, at least according to your [il]logic. If you start in the Cambrian period, when most modern phyla began to appear, you have roughly 500,000,000 years of fossils to examine. Assuming an average generation span of ten years for each creature (somewhat generously in my opinion), you would have 50,000,000 generations to inspect. I am going to assume that you wouldn't want to devote more than ten years of your life on this quest. If you require "a nice line-up of fossils showing the stages of, say, a fish changing slowly into a gorilla", all you would have to do is examine one fossil every six seconds, or ten per minute, every minute of every hour of every day for ten years and you would be in a position to affirm or deny evolution. Presuming you would choose to sleep, eat and recreate during this investigation, that ten years would turn into thirty. Spend thirty seconds evaluating each fossil and you are now at one hundred fifty years. Since you place such an absurd burden of proof on science to validate evolution, at least for you, it would be physically impossible to inspect each specimen in your "line-up". As if it were even at all reasonable to expect such a "nice line-up of fossils" to be available in the first place. I am quite confident that you believe in a myriad of ideas based on far less evidence then what actually exists for evolution of species. Bottom line, you are simply stating that there is no reasonable proof of evolution that you would accept. Your mind is absolutely closed to this subject for all practical purposes. Therefore, to engage in any further conversation or debate is futile. Good day...
I don't place the burden, science does. "Science" is not about guessing or speculating about something without providing some form of proof. I do, yes. But I'm not science! Big difference. No, my mind is not closed to the subject. In fact, I'm rather interested in the subject, but have yet to come across any "scientific" evidence. There's lots and lots of "scientific speculaton", but that's nothing mroe than educated guesses ....which is NOT science. I was interested in DNA until I came across a few comments that the DNA of humans is much like the DNA of other animals ...it's sometimes expressed as a minute percentage of differences. Now I'm even questioning DNA as evidence! Baron Max
I'll leave it to others to explain the scientific method, and how your fanatical perception of it is not a fair representation. I have no idea how you can question DNA evidence. The percentage difference between bonobos and other close related species is about 0.5%,. Where does this pose a problem for evolution? I suggest you do some reading up on genetics. I suggest a nice long book like Stephen Pinker's "the blank slate" to keep you busy.
HAHAHA now that is funny... So you are trying to actualy go with the idea that people thousands of years ago who worshiped the sun and thought the earth was flat, and a giant god held up the sky....on and on.... You truly think they had any idea what happened millions of years ago? We know this from neat little things called fossils. If people would read books( not just 1 but a bunch.) they might gain intelligence, then maybe we could get some decent non-dumed down TV shows.
You are correct in a sense. The scientific method has a few requirements, such as that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, results are reproducible, etc. However, the level of "proof" that turns speculation into general accepted theory is dependent upon the individual, or rather the consensus of a group of individuals. For instance, science can "prove" that the world is round, but that does not force anyone to believe it. Some folks may have insisted that they circumnavigate the globe before accepting the theory as "fact". Others may have waited for a view of the big blue marble from space. For some, no amount of evidence will serve as proof, because it is quite self-evident that the world is flat - just look around! See, it's flat! All the rest is delusion and fakery. (e.g. we never went to outer space or the moon) Hence, you end up with a spectrum, with the gullible at one end, reasonable people in the center and the whacko conspiracy theorists at the other end. Be careful where you want to end up on that spectrum, Baron... See above comments. There is plenty of evidence available, you just choose not to classify it as such. Instead, you refer to the conclusions as "educated guesses". By definition, scientific theories are just that - theories. Whether one chooses to accept a given theory as "fact" is up to the individual. This is why you were asked what you would accept as conclusive evidence - you, Baron, not the scientific community at large. Evolution is already a generally accepted theory. The question is, what would you accept as a preponderance of evidence sufficient to convince you that it is indeed, "fact"? The level of proof you seem to require is, IMHO, unreasonable. In fact, as I pointed out before, if such evidence was actually available in a nice neat "line up", you would not physically be able to inspect it all in your lifetime. Don't you think that's a bit unreasonable, Baron? Remember that spectrum... You've lost me here. I would think that the great similarity, coupled with the differences that do exist, would add great weight to the affirmation of evolution. Common ancestor, and all that bit? Apparently you interpret things differently. Again, see above comments... You are on the "fringes" of the scientific community on this one, Baron. Which is fine, I suppose, each to their own.
He doesn't know enough to be able to evaluate the available evidence. His opinion is uninformed and based mostly on a desire to be contrary.
That's a WTF. Even if not one fossil were ever discovered, the similarities and unique differences in DNA between one living thing and another proves that they are all related. Using DNA analysis, you can even show the order in which they evolved, and how long ago one species split from another!
Ahh, then the theory of evolution has finally been proven with real, honest, scientific, valid, concrete evidence? ...and there ain't no need for all that silly, wild speculations of what happened millions of years ago? Damn, Spider, why didn't you say so before?! Okay, now where is the nearest Church of the Evolution? I need to go pray and confess. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
What do you mean, proven? Evolutionary biologists don't even talk in those terms. It's not math. There are only degrees of probability. However, DNA does show beyond a reasonable doubt that all living things share a common ancestor. You want all this evidence that isn't even necessary.
Now you're confusing me again! Read your post: "Even if not one fossil were ever discovered, the similarities and unique differences in DNA between one living thing and another proves that they are all related. Using DNA analysis, you can even show the order in which they evolved, and how long ago one species split from another!" If using DNA they can show all of that, and show the time and order of splits from specie into other specie, then it's all done!! What else is there to know? We need nothing else. Baron Max
To be precisely scientific, I should have said it shows with a high degree of certainty that all living things are related. My point is you don't even need any fossils. It's true, your complaints that evolution isn't proven or that it requires more evidence are absurd. The fact that all living things share a common method of heredity is indeed proven. In fact we have more in common with bacteria than certain species of bacteria have in common with other bacteria!
Isn't evolution practically a fact? Now, as to whether or not our evolution is a different case from other creatures, in that it might be guided by E.T's, is a completely different queston
A question that would only remain as a question if you're a woo woo. There is no evidence and no indication to make even asking the question worthwhile.
What happened, Baron, did you miss my post (#85)? Or, perhaps you just deigned not to reply. No rebuttals, or just not worth your time? Beyond all this, let me ask you a straight up question. Why is it that you so vehemently appose the concept of evolution? Some opinions ventured: 1. You are too stupid to understand. 2. It contradicts the role of God in our environment. 3. You just like being contrary. If any of the above, I would guess #3. Perhaps there is an alternate, as yet unexplored, alternative. You are normally logical and intelligent, and I'm sure you recognize when you are on the losing end of a battle. I do not believe that your obstinacy is driven by sheer stubbornness. You must have some sort of agenda, and that piques my curiosity. What is it? You are, for the most part, reasonable (except with SAM); what causes you to be totally unwilling to accept evolutionary theory? The premise is so logical, it seems almost obvious. PM me if you would prefer not to disclose your motives in public. Also, don't "forget" to reply to my post #85... Thanks - Randwolf
No, Spider proved by using DNA that evolution is a fact. Apparently, using DNA, they can tell anything and everything about a specie ...even what happened millions of years ago. I'm not opposed to the concept, I'd just like some proof of it before I begin to worship it as y'all apparently do. I've read numerous articles on evo, and I come away each time thinking, "Okay, that's what he "thinks" might have happened, but how the fuck does he know that?" They never, or almost never, give any actual proof ...it's always nothing more than speculation ...even if it is "educated" speculation. But all of that's now changed for me. With DNA the scientists can tell everything about every specie that ever lived, including when it branched off to become some other specie. Now my problem is going to be finding a Church of Evolution near me so I can worship the theory as y'all seem to do. Baron Max
No, we can't tell everything about every species that ever lived. And no, DNA itself doesn't prove evolution, but it does prove that all living things are more closely related than we ever thought. We can estimate when a species split from another, but this requires calibration with known splits, and so it's not totally precise.
The branching and relatedness information comes from comparing the DNA from different species. There's nothing particularly special about using DNA to determine heredity, by the way. Before DNA, scientists used other methods of taxonomy. For example, if I notice that you look more like your parents than some other random person looks like them, then it is a fair bet that you descended from your parents and the other person didn't. There's a small possibility that based on looks alone I could be wrong. DNA just improves the accuracy. If I compare your DNA and the other guy's DNA to that of one of your parents, I'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are your parents' child. On the species level, if I look at a dog and a cat, for example, I notice that both have fur, four legs and a spine; both are warm-blooded; both give birth to live young rather than laying eggs. And so on and so on. I notice some differences between cats and dogs, sure, so are they related? Well, I can't be absolutely sure just because they are alike in some ways, but I can look at how closely they are related in comparison to something else, just as I can look at how closely related you are to your parents compared to the other guy. For example, I line up a cat, a dog and a starfish. I notice that the cat and the dog have a lot more in common than the cat and the starfish or the dog and the starfish. So, I hypothesise that the cat and the dog are more closely related to one another than the starfish is to either of them. This conclusion also can be made much stronger with DNA analysis. But, you complain, I have assumed that the cat and dog are related in some way, right from the start! How do I know that? (Note: by "related" I mean "share a common ancestor") Answer: I look at the probability that cats and dogs could share so many features in common just by chance. When you consider just how many bodily features they have in common, there's a negligible chance that they are not related. When you look at their DNA, that tiny tiny chance is reduced to an even more negligible figure. But, you say, what if God just decided to create cats and dogs as individual species, and just happened to make it look like they share a common ancestor, when in fact they were each a special creation? At this point you've stopped doing science. By appealing to an omnipotent and devious supernatural Creator, you can account for anything at all. All you need to say is "God did it. God can do anything he likes." Science looks for natural explanations for things, and God is supernatural. Hope this helps. PS The singular of "species" is "species". Two species, one species.
james there have been a couple of species which have fallen into that "negligable" catigory where they looked alike and were thought to be related right up until there DNA was tested and they were found to be from a compleatly different family. Then there are the cases like that fish in victoria lake which had split into heeps of compleatly different "species" untill they were tested and found to be as closly related as dogs are
I don't think so.. Also, fish are far more closely related to humans than they are to lobsters. For always and forever Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
