Please disprove the theory of evolution to me

[Jesrad]

Just pointing out a little something:

Evolution is a fact, it's something we can observe and measure. We observe that there are elephants in Africa alive today, and that there are no mammoth alive in Europe. We observe that there were dinosaurs everywhere on the planet millions of years ago, and we observe that the only dinosaurs left now are the small feathery ones we call birds. To push this concept further, we've also experimented with making evolution happen in labs, and that's how we have observed both micro-evolution where the same species acquire new traits over several generations, and macro-evolution where individuals descended from common ancestors micro-evolve in different ways to the point where they are not the same species anymore.

Survival of the fittest, neo-lamarckism and all manner of ideas about how genetic and epigenetic alterations *may* work, are theories to explain these facts. You can disprove these theories but not make evolution disappar anymore than you can disprove Newtonian physics (by making observations on relativistic objects), but cannot make gravity stop pulling you towards the Earth.

[lajoswinkler]

There's plenty of theories that are better proven than the theory of evolution. Atomic theory being a most obvious example (we basically can "build" new atoms on our own now). Or if you want something from a field of biology - cell theory comes first in mind.

Most of the question marks about the theory of evolution focus around the very early stages, like the evolution of first living cells, a very long period between the appearance of first prokaryote and eukaryotic organisms, or one of the most common examples - the studies of probability combined with our lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life.

Atomic theory and cellular theory are no way near the magnitude of evolutionary theory in both the claims and implications.

No, you're wrong. People questioning theory of evolution are _____(insert "holy" book of choice)-thumpers who disregard the immense body of knowledge, experiments and findings many sciences have.

Things you mention is the stuff scientists are investigating while never even thinking that the base of the current theory is wrong. Very, very complex stuff thumpers can't even begin to grasp.

[xcorps]

We observe that there were dinosaurs everywhere on the planet millions of years ago, and we observe that the only dinosaurs left now are the small feathery ones we call birds.

No we don't. We observe fossilized remains of animals and we deduce that they are reptilian in nature and many other characteristics, and we deduce that birds are descendants of dinosaurs based on a logical examination of what has been observed and what is consistent with our current observations. We did not observe dinosaurs anywhere millions of years ago. We did not observe reptiles evolve into birds.

We did not observe the Chixulub impact, but we can reasonably make deductions about it that fit the evidence.

[Brethern]

First of all: Evolution is not "just" a theory. http://www.notjustatheory.com/ Also, you don't believe in science. http://theweek.com/article/index/265653/why-you-should-stop-believing-in-evolution It's true whether you want it to be or not.

That first site has to be the perfect definition of a chewbacca defense.

[Godot]

...

We did not observe the Chixulub impact, but we can reasonably make deductions about it that fit the evidence.

The Planet-Designers of Magratea did a very good job with placing the evidence to lead us to these conclusions

[PakledHostage]

The Planet-Designers of Magratea did a very good job with placing the evidence to lead us to these conclusions

I thought it was the devil? I was told by one creationist that the devil placed all the evidence that the world was over 6000 years old in order to trick us away from belief in The Truth^tm.

[BagelRabbit]

Hello!

A little earlier today, I stated that a passage in Kings strongly implied that pi is equal to three. I also said a lot of other things, but apparently having pi be equal to three was the bit that people seemed to latch on to. So, here's the reason why I chose that particular example.

Recently and in multiple places, people have attempted to equate pi to some number other than 3.1415926536 (rounded off, of course). Even now, there are some solid Christians who think that our school system is corrupting our youth by making the value of pi a bit different than the Bible indicated. This has been spoofed, and indeed, it seems like an ideal point to poke fun at. Anyone with a circular object and a bit of string can see that this isn't quite correct. And yet, there are comments like the one at the bottom of this article, under the heading "The wisdom of Solomon: Not what it's cracked up to be." "You're a heathen... you should have checked with the ultimate reference." This person was, apparently, serious. It is sad.

And yet, people are saying the exact same thing about evolution, which has more backing than almost any other scientific theory. (I would compare its irrefutability to pi's, but unfortunately, only mathematical concepts can be 100% proven.) It is sad that people are dubious of mathematical proofs that will never fail, simply because they take the words of a 2,000-year-old book at face value. Sure, the writers of the Bible may have rounded off their estimate for pi, but today's passionate Bible studiers don't see it that way. Every word in their precious book is the Truth, beyond any shadow of a doubt. This is what causes the problems.

I know it's a little different with the people who doubt evolution's influence on every single life-form on Earth. But, sadly, it's really much the same. They dont let facts stand in the way of the Truth; they are staunch and unyielding in their interpretations; and in the end, they look like complete fools.

*sigh*

[ZedNova]

Here's something many people who deny evolution are confused about:

Evolution is an observable fact, the word itself just means "Change over time". Things have, and are always changing. There's no dispute over this.

The theory's proper name is: "The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". Natural Selection is an acute observation of nature on Earth made through the fossil record, genetics, and living animals. The theory has been revised over time with new discoveries to better explain Evolution. There are other theories that attempt to explain Evolution, but Natural selection is the most supported one.

My father thinks natural selection makes sense, but that evolution is total garbage. How this makes sense to him, i don't know.

Edited August 13, 2014 by ZedNova

[Red Iron Crown]

The great thing about scientific facts is that they don't require anyone to believe in them to be true.

Science doesn't deal in facts, there is no such thing as "scientific proof" or "scientific fact". I pretty much dismiss any article or such that uses either of those phrases as it shows a lack of understanding of how science works.

[vger]

It shouldn't but the anti-science crowd will say, "well, if there's a margin of error of 10%, why couldn't the error be a million percent? If you're wrong about this, you're wrong about everything."

Heh, if you really think about it though, this same logic gets applied to the other party in evolution debates as well.

This, to me, is the amazing and beautiful thing about evolution: That somewhere along the line our ancestors clicked over a hump and diverged towards the type of intelligence that allows us to rationalize as successfully as we do. Science is about asking questions and seeking answers based on evidence rather than faith. It is about using the gift that we've been given, whether one believes that it was given by a creator or by blind luck. There are multiple streams of evidence for evolution. Whether it be comparative anatomy, fossil records or the more recent DNA evidence for it, they are all consistent. How anyone could deny the validity of evolution in the face of such broad evidence is beyond me.

I think the answer to that falls under social science, and it's a lot more complicated than something as simple as religion vs. science. I've given a lot of thought to how or why society has gotten so polarized in this regard. To me anyhow, it doesn't really seem to be an issue of gods vs science. But consider the statement in the previous quoted example: "If you're wrong about this, you're wrong about everything." When someone religious uses that mentality against science, there's an obvious reason for it. Because if science is even somewhat right, then it means something in the Bible is wrong. And then that same logic applies to the Bible. If the Bible is wrong about this, then the Bible is wrong about everything. There is where the problem lies with people who fight so vehemently over these issues. There's no in-between. It's either 0% or 100% One side or the other HAS to lose absolutely.

Edited August 13, 2014 by vger

[Godot]

...

I know it's a little different with the people who doubt evolution's influence on every single life-form on Earth. But, sadly, it's really much the same. They dont let facts stand in the way of the Truth; they are staunch and unyielding in their interpretations; and in the end, they look like complete fools.

*sigh*

But that is not really a surprise IMHO.The belief of many forms from (especially american) christian fundamentalism is, that the bible ism literally true.

Which includes the old testament and the conclusions a certain priest drew from it (about the age of earth according to the generation count in the bible)

Therefore, if something contradicts the Bible must be per definitionem false, because else, the bible (or rather, the belief of the christian fundamentalists in the literal truth of the bible) is false ... which, of course, cannot be

(I honestly have to say that , even without the contradictions between bible and scientific theories and the bibles internal inconsistencies, there is a lot wrong with a belief in the literal truth of the bible ... just look at the depictions of god in the old testament ... as a being which orders genocide (the Armalekites), treats women as wares and supports slavery to name just a few)

So, their fight against the ToE is more a fight for the survival of their personal faith

[Mr Shifty]

Science doesn't deal in facts, there is no such thing as "scientific proof" or "scientific fact". I pretty much dismiss any article or such that uses either of those phrases as it shows a lack of understanding of how science works.

The Crown doth protest too much:) This is just semantics. The commonsense notion of fact is the same as an observable datum, which is a perfectly scientific notion. The idea that there are separate spheres of knowledge -- scientific knowledge, where we use one set of terms, and common knowledge, where we use another set -- is part of the problem. Facts are data. Proof is evidence. What we gain through the scientific method isn't scientific knowledge; it's just knowledge.

[ZedNova]

Science doesn't deal in facts, there is no such thing as "scientific proof" or "scientific fact". I pretty much dismiss any article or such that uses either of those phrases as it shows a lack of understanding of how science works.

Although abit nitpicky, thanks for the correction.

[Red Iron Crown]

The Crown doth protest too much:) This is just semantics. The commonsense notion of fact is the same as an observable datum, which is a perfectly scientific notion. The idea that there are separate spheres of knowledge -- scientific knowledge, where we use one set of terms, and common knowledge, where we use another set -- is part of the problem. Facts are data. Proof is evidence. What we gain through the scientific method isn't scientific knowledge; it's just knowledge.

The problem lies in the common conception that "facts" are irrefutable truths and "proof" means conclusively demonstrated and not disprovable. If we use terms like "scientific fact" and "scientifically proven" we undermine the scientific method. When someone says "evolution is just a theory" we should say "you're damned right, that's what science is about, there is no absolute proof". A big part of the disconnect between science types and evolution-deniers is that the second group deals in absolutes while the first does not.

Sorry if I'm a bit pedantic or nitpicky about this, but it's a major pet peeve for me and it hinders understanding of how science actually works.

[magnemoe]

The problem lies in the common conception that "facts" are irrefutable truths and "proof" means conclusively demonstrated and not disprovable. If we use terms like "scientific fact" and "scientifically proven" we undermine the scientific method. When someone says "evolution is just a theory" we should say "you're damned right, that's what science is about, there is no absolute proof". A big part of the disconnect between science types and evolution-deniers is that the second group deals in absolutes while the first does not.

Sorry if I'm a bit pedantic or nitpicky about this, but it's a major pet peeve for me and it hinders understanding of how science actually works.

Yes, as an example its pretty clear that our models of planetary formation is pretty much garbage, they can not explan a lot of that we find in other solar systems, however they are far more right than 50 years ago.

However here our problem is that we only have detail knowledge of one solar system, most of the other was only found some years ago making it hard to figure out in that way we are wrong.

Add that it happened 4.5 billion years ago here and it leaves few traces.

We will get far better theories in the future then observing other solar systems in the making with stronger telescopes, most astronomers who tries to make new models is mostly defending their salary.

Other stuff we have good knowledge of, low chance of getting any surprises in thermodynamic after playing with heat engines in 250 years.

I'm an engineer, happy with an theory as long as its seems to work almost all the time as long as it don't blow up too hard the times it fails.

The errors is mostly interesting as it points to deeper layers like Einstein theories comes on top of Newton.

[Monkeh]

Wow, I pop out for the night and all this talking happens...cool.

Immense discussion peeps, interesting how very, very few of the posts actually try to rise to the thread title mind you, expected on a forum full of people who enjoy science...things.

As I mentioned in the OP I don't need convincing or converting and I'm reasonably familiar with most of the points raised, no where near all of them though, so thanks a lot. You all kept it nice and I reckon we all learned a little something.

Long live the KSP forums

[PakledHostage]

Because if science is even somewhat right, then it means something in the Bible is wrong. And then that same logic applies to the Bible. If the Bible is wrong about this, then the Bible is wrong about everything. There is where the problem lies with people who fight so vehemently over these issues. There's no in-between. It's either 0% or 100% One side or the other HAS to lose absolutely.

It is an interesting point. But the trouble is that even the fundamentalist Christians don't seem to be consistent. A significant number of them interpret the bible literally enough that they believe the world is only ~6000 years old, yet you don't hear them arguing that the Sun goes around the Earth? Why not? The Bible says that it does... Are they, as Penn and Teller ask in the video below, fighting one battle at a time and will get to that one once they put the evolution issue to rest? Or are they tacitly acknowledging that the Bible is wrong in places? If they are tacitly acknowledging that the Bible is wrong in places, why are they so hung up on fighting the idea of evolution?

As much as creationists like to frame evolution and even atheism as faith based belief systems, the foundation of science and atheism is really skepticism. Doubt. Evolution may well be a fact, but we won't call it that because we're open to possibility that the theory, as it currently stands, may change as we get more evidence. If there's ever enough evidence for intelligent design or even outright creation at the tip of some deity's finger, then science will almost certainly accept it. But the reality is that there is no evidence for those possibilities. This, ultimately, is the reason we can't do as the Monkeh asks and disprove evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_lhfUhrHY

[Xaiier]

Hee hee threads like these are fun.

I am amazed that the topic of the post was ignored and it turned instead to an intellectual back-patting competition. Also the fact that most of you barely understand the concept yourselves and thusly make ignorant statements about it.

[PakledHostage]

Also the fact that most of you barely understand the concept yourselves and thusly make ignorant statements about it.

How so? Please provide an example of how most of the contributors to this thread barely understand the concept themselves? Please educate us since you seem to believe that you know better than the rest of us.

[Skyler4856]

I do recall a minor issue with Evolution, mainly dealing with the fact that survival of the fittest isn't the central driving force, rather genetic mutation is the driving force.

That's closest thing I can come up with...

[Wanderfound]

I do recall a minor issue with Evolution, mainly dealing with the fact that survival of the fittest isn't the central driving force, rather genetic mutation is the driving force.

That's closest thing I can come up with...

Mutation provides variety; reproductive success "decides" what variety persists. Defining one or the other as "the driving force" doesn't really make sense. It's not a directed process; it's an inevitable consequence of reality. Everything affects everything else; it's a causally connected universe.

If you want some easily-readable books on the subject, start with S.J. Gould and then move on to Dawkins.

[vger]

It is an interesting point. But the trouble is that even the fundamentalist Christians don't seem to be consistent. A significant number of them interpret the bible literally enough that they believe the world is only ~6000 years old, yet you don't hear them arguing that the Sun goes around the Earth? Why not? The Bible says that it does... Are they, as Penn and Teller ask in the video below, fighting one battle at a time and will get to that one once they put the evolution issue to rest? Or are they tacitly acknowledging that the Bible is wrong in places? If they are tacitly acknowledging that the Bible is wrong in places, why are they so hung up on fighting the idea of evolution?

True, the Church has backed off on discoveries before. Origin of the Species is a lot more recent than Galileo. So yes, maybe it just takes them a long time to warm up to a concept. Evolution may simply be a much more direct conflict though. It's anyone's guess as to what exactly is being described in the first few pages of Genisis. Dividing the 'firmament' of the Heavens and soforth. I'm actually not certain there's any point in the Bible that specifically suggests a geocentric system beyond, "If the universe was made for us, why WOULDN'T we be at the center?" But, the Scopes trial was very heated and sensational. Very much ahead of its time from the perspective of how these kinds of events are treated by the media today. Many insults were thrown around and therefore put on public record, and it ended in defeat for religion. So perhaps it's not simply the fact that evolution became acceptable, but the embarrassing way in which it happened.

I don't think the big battle has even hit yet though. That's going to be the Big Bang. It's possible for a John Doe with unbiased common sense to visualize how evolution could happen. But to understand the Big Bang takes a lot of math wizardry. And the closer you get to 0.0 seconds, the more common sense breaks down and slips into wibbly wobbly timey wimey...ness.

As much as creationists like to frame evolution and even atheism as faith based belief systems, the foundation of science and atheism is really skepticism. Doubt. Evolution may well be a fact, but we won't call it that because we're open to possibility that the theory, as it currently stands, may change as we get more evidence. If there's ever enough evidence for intelligent design or even outright creation at the tip of some deity's finger, then science will almost certainly accept it. But the reality is that there is no evidence for those possibilities.

I feel that we are probably going to reach a point where "fuzzy logic" is going to have to be applied to certain fringe concepts. What happens if there are actual truths that can't be tested and repeated? The scientific method simply wasn't designed to handle such a possibility. Most turn to the double-slit experiment when discussing this, but I know how much the media has distorted that to look like something it isn't. The inability to predict the location of an electron at a given time would be a far better example of this. None of that points to any truth in theology, but I think there's at least a point to be made. "If it can't be tested or at least equated, it cannot exist," is probably very nearsighted. I don't need to argue that further though. If I'm wrong, oh well. If I'm right, it will become far more apparent as science 'digs' deeper into reality.

Edited August 14, 2014 by vger

[Vanamonde]

Evolution is one of my favorite subjects, and believe me I would love to talk about it, but I'm sorry, guys, we can't have our forum discussions delve into the relative merits of religions (2.2.. It's just far too likely to get into arguments.