Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[metis]

pretty much the biggest scientific question of all time, and definitively answered, not exactly an obscure example

In your opinion.

majority I'm sure are atheists, the most successful, Lemaitre, Planck, Einstein were skeptics of atheism

Actually the majority are agnostic, and I'm using the definition of "atheist" as one whom believes there are no deities. "Agnostics" just question as to whether there are any deities.

There may be far more atheist pop scientists like Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss, Sagan, Tyson etc who have done very well in prizes, book sales, TV appearance, but their combined contribution to practical science falls behind the inventor of the Chip Clip, correct me if I'm wrong. quantity does not equal quality apparently

Tyson is young enough whereas we will see how history may view him. Hawking, Dawkins, and Sagan are well known to be very good at what they do, but "very good" doesn't mean always being correct. Hawking has admitted he was wrong, which is one mark of a good scientist.

Again, as was classical physics, and it was the 'details' that eventually exposed that the whole premise was flawed. But the point was that scientists often do declare their conjectures to be 'unquestionable' even after they are proven wrong in some cases. We all have beliefs, refusing to acknowledge them is where the problems always start

The "whole premise" of classical physics was not proven wrong, only certain parts of it. Most of what Newton proposed, for example, appears to be correct. Same with Einstein. But like all mortals, they were not right on everything.

agreed he was proven right on his theory, that the universe did in fact begin in a specific creation event. it was the atheists who made it about their personal beliefs, again..

Most cosmologists believe there were movements prior to the Big Bang, and probably a good majority speculate that events may go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

It's a matter of perspective, nothing was more illogical to those on one side of the argument, than a beginning of time itself.

We simply cannot assume "time" had a beginning. If there was any movement whatsoever, time is involve. When cosmologist refer to "time beginning", in the majority of cases that I have at least read, they're referring to time as we know it.

likewise for multiverses, M theory, or any accidental universe creating mechanism- The fact that they are all inherently beyond the possibility of evidence, doesn't make them impossible. I just think there are more rational explanations if we are pen to all possibilities. So without empirical evidence either way, we all have beliefs, faith, as long as we all acknowledge them as such, I think we can all get along

Confucius said that the more we know, the more we know that we [really] don't know. We're dealing in an area of much uncertainty, both with science and with religion, so tolerance of various ideas becomes the better path for us, imo.

Take care.

 

[gnostic]

majority I'm sure are atheists, the most successful, Lemaitre, Planck, Einstein were skeptics of atheism

What does any of these scientists have to do with evolution, when none of them were ever biologists. This is not Big Bang topic, but a topic about if there were any observable evidence for the evolution, and the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with biology.

Max Planck was religious, but he wasn't a Christian, because he didn't believe in a personal deity, let alone a Christian god (or god of the bible). He was a deist.

Absolutely not, remember Hoyle v Lemaitre- quite the opposite applies, atheists rejected the BB for what THEY complained of as theistic implications, static universes fit their atheistic belief much better.

Hoyle was just one atheist. It doesn't mean all atheists had rejected Lemaître's hypothesis in 1927. And the idea of expanding universe was still very new idea, and the new idea that Lemaître didn't actually tested. And just because Lemaître had proposed it, it was not accepted by the Catholic Church at this time.

Not only that, Georges Lemaître wasn't really the first who proposed the expanding universe. Alexander Friedmann had actually proposed this (expanding universe) before Lemaître, in 1922. But both works from Lemaître and Friedmann were still untestable hypothesis, so taking side with either Friedmann-Lemaître's expanding universe or Hoyle's Steady State model, is a bit premature.

Premature, especially when not all of Lemaître's hypothesis was complete. Lemaître may have started us on the road to accepting the scientific theory of the Big Bang, HE WASN'T THE ONLY SCIENTIST to contribute to expanding universe model. Other scientists had since Lemaître's contribution, have fleshed out the Big Bang theory.

Take instance, Einstein. Einstein actually didn't accept Lemaître's model straight away, because Einstein actually preferred Hoyle's model, so Einstein was wrong in choosing the Steady State theory. But the framework for the Big Bang, actually came from Einstein's theory on General Relativity. So Einstein had indirectly had a hand, in contributing to the Big Bang with his own theory.

It wasn't until 1964 that did they prove the Big Bang theory was the correct cosmology than Hoyle's Steady State theory, with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

 

[shawn001]

Just a note and correction on the pillars of creation stellar nursery I posted above.

"The gas clouds which are extremely big and gravity form stars. A supernova went off behind this gas cloud and that will wipe out this cloud someday."

They actually don't exist anymore even though we see them as the light travels from them to us through space, but they are actually gone, already.

 

[shawn001]

What does any of these scientists have to do with evolution, when none of them were ever biologists. This is not Big Bang topic, but a topic about if there were any observable evidence for the evolution, and the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with biology.

Max Planck was religious, but he wasn't a Christian, because he didn't believe in a personal deity, let alone a Christian god (or god of the bible). He was a deist.




Hoyle was just one atheist. It doesn't mean all atheists had rejected Lemaître's hypothesis in 1927. And the idea of expanding universe was still very new idea, and the new idea that Lemaître didn't actually tested. And just because Lemaître had proposed it, it was not accepted by the Catholic Church at this time.

Not only that, Georges Lemaître wasn't really the first who proposed the expanding universe. Alexander Friedmann had actually proposed this (expanding universe) before Lemaître, in 1922. But both works from Lemaître and Friedmann were still untestable hypothesis, so taking side with either Friedmann-Lemaître's expanding universe or Hoyle's Steady State model, is a bit premature.

Premature, especially when not all of Lemaître's hypothesis was complete. Lemaître may have started us on the road to accepting the scientific theory of the Big Bang, HE WASN'T THE ONLY SCIENTIST to contribute to expanding universe model. Other scientists had since Lemaître's contribution, have fleshed out the Big Bang theory.

Take instance, Einstein. Einstein actually didn't accept Lemaître's model straight away, because Einstein actually preferred Hoyle's model, so Einstein was wrong in choosing the Steady State theory. But the framework for the Big Bang, actually came from Einstein's theory on General Relativity. So Einstein had indirectly had a hand, in contributing to the Big Bang with his own theory.

It wasn't until 1964 that did they prove the Big Bang theory was the correct cosmology than Hoyle's Steady State theory, with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

gnostic, I totally understand what your saying here.

"the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with biology."

Except that the super nova's is where the heavy elements like carbon came from of course, and it just everything has evolved including life. So it supports the biology.

 

[psychoslice]

I always find these arguments about evolution ridiculers, even if evolution wasn't completely right, so what, creationism could never be right, its a fantasy, it makes no sense, it has no evidence at all, and it only makes fools out of those who argue for it, this is my opinion.

 

[Muffled]

That was never a "scientific theory", muffled.

Scientific theory required E-M-P-I-R-I-C-A-L E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E-S. Evidences, evidences, EVIDENCES.

How many times that we have to explain to you about scientific evidences into that head of yours, before you get it.

The whole claim about the world being flat and falling of the edge, is just plain ignorance and superstition, that was never "scientific".

Any fool could make outrageous claim, but what they claim don't make it scientific, unless you have the EVIDENCES to back it up.

If I keep emphasising EVIDENCES to you is because you keep bl@@dy ignoring it, again and again. You do know that willful ignorance is not a wonderful trait?

There is abundant of evidences for evolution, which include natural selection, mutation and gene flow. That you continue to ignore them, because of your religion (creationism) you believe in, only just stump me with your ignorance and dishonesty.

Let me paint the following pictures for you:

1. Evolution is biology.
2. Evolution is not cosmology. Meaning, evolution is not about the start of the universe.
3. Evolution is not about the origin of FIRST LIFE. If you talk about bl@@dy first life, then look up bl@@dy ABIOGENESIS.
4. The bl@@dy bible is not a fri##ng biology textbook.
5. Creationism is not science. It is a myth, based on superstitious belief.

I believe that was what they were basing their theory on, the evidence of what they could see. Then they made a theory about what they could see just as scientists do. Technically it was not a scientific theory because scientists didn't develop it but it is a theory just the same.

I believe I know quite well what scientific evidence is and evolution is not scientific evidence.

I don't remeber any evidence of me ignoring evidence.

I believe you believe that but can you prove it?

I believe you are incorrect about this because my understanding is that creationism is a scientific theory based on scientific facts.

 

[Muffled]

I always find these arguments about evolution ridiculers, even if evolution wasn't completely right, so what, creationism could never be right, its a fantasy, it makes no sense, it has no evidence at all, and it only makes fools out of those who argue for it, this is my opinion.

(Fictional story) A man made a pot on his pottery wheel. I believe you did not amke that pot it evolved because it looks like another pot in your house says another man. I am testifying that I amde the pot the man says. The other man says prove that you made it. Of course I can't prove it but I am truly testifying that I made it.

I believe this says a lot about who is most foolish about evidence.

 

[McBell]

I believe you are incorrect about this because my understanding is that creationism is a scientific theory based on scientific facts.

What scientific facts do you think creation is based on?

 

[McBell]

I believe this says a lot about who is most foolish about evidence.

I agree.
However, I bet we disagree on the who...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In your opinion.



Actually the majority are agnostic, and I'm using the definition of "atheist" as one whom believes there are no deities. "Agnostics" just question as to whether there are any deities.



Tyson is young enough whereas we will see how history may view him. Hawking, Dawkins, and Sagan are well known to be very good at what they do, but "very good" doesn't mean always being correct. Hawking has admitted he was wrong, which is one mark of a good scientist.



The "whole premise" of classical physics was not proven wrong, only certain parts of it. Most of what Newton proposed, for example, appears to be correct. Same with Einstein. But like all mortals, they were not right on everything.



Most cosmologists believe there were movements prior to the Big Bang, and probably a good majority speculate that events may go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.



We simply cannot assume "time" had a beginning. If there was any movement whatsoever, time is involve. When cosmologist refer to "time beginning", in the majority of cases that I have at least read, they're referring to time as we know it.



Confucius said that the more we know, the more we know that we [really] don't know. We're dealing in an area of much uncertainty, both with science and with religion, so tolerance of various ideas becomes the better path for us, imo.

Take care.

True, the wise man knows himself a fool.. I've changed my mind on all this before, so the only thing I've proven is that my opinions are totally unreliable!

 

[metis]

True, the wise man knows himself a fool.. I've changed my mind on all this before, so the only thing I've proven is that my opinions are totally unreliable!

Trust me, ditto!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What does any of these scientists have to do with evolution, when none of them were ever biologists. This is not Big Bang topic, but a topic about if there were any observable evidence for the evolution, and the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with biology.

Max Planck was religious, but he wasn't a Christian, because he didn't believe in a personal deity, let alone a Christian god (or god of the bible). He was a deist.




Hoyle was just one atheist. It doesn't mean all atheists had rejected Lemaître's hypothesis in 1927. And the idea of expanding universe was still very new idea, and the new idea that Lemaître didn't actually tested. And just because Lemaître had proposed it, it was not accepted by the Catholic Church at this time.

Not only that, Georges Lemaître wasn't really the first who proposed the expanding universe. Alexander Friedmann had actually proposed this (expanding universe) before Lemaître, in 1922. But both works from Lemaître and Friedmann were still untestable hypothesis, so taking side with either Friedmann-Lemaître's expanding universe or Hoyle's Steady State model, is a bit premature.

Premature, especially when not all of Lemaître's hypothesis was complete. Lemaître may have started us on the road to accepting the scientific theory of the Big Bang, HE WASN'T THE ONLY SCIENTIST to contribute to expanding universe model. Other scientists had since Lemaître's contribution, have fleshed out the Big Bang theory.

Take instance, Einstein. Einstein actually didn't accept Lemaître's model straight away, because Einstein actually preferred Hoyle's model, so Einstein was wrong in choosing the Steady State theory. But the framework for the Big Bang, actually came from Einstein's theory on General Relativity. So Einstein had indirectly had a hand, in contributing to the Big Bang with his own theory.

It wasn't until 1964 that did they prove the Big Bang theory was the correct cosmology than Hoyle's Steady State theory, with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

we were using classical physics, static universes etc, as analogies for evolution. Theories with certain appealing atheist implications, once considered complete, unifying, immutable, yet turned out to be fundamentally flawed in accounting for observed reality.

The point about Lemaitre was that many atheists explicitly didn't like his theory because it didn't fit the atheist preference for an un-created universe, and the fact he was a priest. 'Big Bang' was coined by Hoyle and used in mockery of the 'primeval atom' theory. it was only accepted after being proven beyond reasonable doubt..

Contrast this with steady state, Big Crunch, even untestable theories like multiverses and M theory- which are assumed plausible, if not probable, until utterly disproven. A tiny bit of a double standard

 

[Monk Of Reason]

we were using classical physics, static universes etc, as analogies for evolution. Theories with certain appealing atheist implications, once considered complete, unifying, immutable, yet turned out to be fundamentally flawed in accounting for observed reality.

The point about Lemaitre was that many atheists explicitly didn't like his theory because it didn't fit the atheist preference for an un-created universe, and the fact he was a priest. 'Big Bang' was coined by Hoyle and used in mockery of the 'primeval atom' theory. it was only accepted after being proven beyond reasonable doubt..

Contrast this with steady state, Big Crunch, even untestable theories like multiverses and M theory- which are assumed plausible, if not probable, until utterly disproven. A tiny bit of a double standard

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution that has been falsified and passed the test. The static universe was a guess based off of menial observations. Classical physics is still "correct" in the fact that it applies in the same way as newton. We now have more laws and rules added to it. So it would be the equivalent of saying we know evolution works but now we also know abiogensis is correct.

It has nothing to do with atheism as there are theists (in fact the majority) of evolutionary biologists are theists of one form or another. So to say it is because of some atheist conspiracy is simply wrong. If you wish to believe that evolution is simply wrong then you must have some pretty convincing evidence to the contrary of the mountains of evidence collected in favor. Even if it was wrong on what basis do you state it was?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Buddy, you can not be a biological researcher - it is not possible to be involved in biological research and at the same time not understand the basics of evolution.

As to a change in 'kinds', that is easy to provide - recently a species of yeast was observed to undergo a change in phyla as it transitioned from a single celled to a multi-celled organism.

Could you give a source for the single celled to multi-celled organism change?

 

[gnostic]

Observations that didn't fit the model were assumed to be bad observations by definition, anomalies, quirks, arguments from the gaps etc etc.

You are describing Creationism and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is Creationism. And Intelligent Design has always been an argument from the gap.

So they said about classical physics. And it reigned supreme longer than evolution has. It also had far more direct, observable, repeatable, empirical evidence everywhere you looked.

Evolution is biology, not bl#@dy physics. And the Big Bang has nothing to with biology.

Why talk about physical cosmology (Big Bang) and evolution together, when one has nothing to do with the other?

Let me iterate:

evolution = B-I-O-L-O-G-Y,
evolution =/= physics
and biology =/= cosmology​

Georges Lemaître, Albert Einstein and Max Planck were all physicists, not biologists. Do you even understand that you are talking of unrelated subject?

This thread is about evolution, hence about biology or life on Earth. You are going off-topic about them.

And atheism has nothing to do with science. Anyone can be scientists, whether they be theists, atheists, agnostics, or whatever religious background.

And a lot of theist or religious people have accepted evolution as natural and biological mechanism for changes. So stopped associating evolution with atheism.

Did you know that Charles Darwin was both a Christian and agnostic?

As a good scientist should do, he had recorded natural phenomena without the need for God-did-it, during his voyage on HMS Beagle, during 1830s. He only recorded what he can observed.

He didn't publish his work (On the Origin of Species) till 1869, and other works later.

Any scientist, since Darwin's death, can visit all the places he had visited and noticed the differences in species in different places.

Take for instance, the Galápagos Islands. There are 18 islands in the Galápagos, and you could see different animals thriving in different islands, like birds (like mocking birds), tortoises (giant tortoises on one island, and much smaller tortoises on other islands).

The giant tortoises have different shell shape to their smaller cousins, known as saddle-back shell. Their necks and legs are also longer. The shell enabled them to crank their longer neck upright, so that they can reach for food that are not possible with the smaller tortoises. This is because this island has different terrain, different climate, and different vegetation; food are scarcer and harder to access. The environment have conditioned these giant tortoises so they can survive on this island. These tortoises can even stand on their hind legs, which is not possible with the normal domed shells.

Look up giant tortoises in Galápagos in wikipedia, and you can see what I mean about their shells, necks and legs.

Evolution, whether it be Natural Selection, Mutation or Gene Flow, have nothing to do with the beginning of first life, and certainly has nothing to with the Big Bang. It is like you comparing the painting of Mona Lisa with bricklaying.

 

[Bunyip]

Could you give a source for the single celled to multi-celled organism change?

It was a few years ago and involved species of yeast being observed to transition from single to mulicelled life. Jan 17th 2012, Wired. 'Multicellular life evolves in laboratory'.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It was a few years ago and involved species of yeast being observed to transition from single to mulicelled life. Jan 17th 2012, Wired. 'Multicellular life evolves in laboratory'.

Oh, that is interesting!

Is this actually evolution though, at least, is this really the "change of kinds" macroevolution, where there is new genetic information? You claimed there was a change of phyla here, which sounds major but maybe that's just an arbitrary scientific distinction, because nothing seems to have actually changed. I mean, some yeast already clumps together, and the clump will behave together as one unit. What the scientists did here was separate the big clumps from the single celled stuff. It's selective breeding, farmers do it a lot.

The yeast hasn't suddenly gained an ability, no gene seems to have changed here, the yeast is just doing what yeast has always been able to do, but this time the big clumps are selectively bred, so naturally the yeast which are most prone to budding will then make the next batch more likely to form bigger and more frequent clumps.

 

[shawn001]

Could you give a source for the single celled to multi-celled organism change?

Evolution from Single to Multi-Cell Clusters Replicated

Evolution from Single to Multi-Cell Clusters Replicated

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones

Fast-Reproducing Microbes Provide a Window on Natural Selection

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html

 

[shawn001]

Oh, that is interesting!

Is this actually evolution though, at least, is this really the "change of kinds" macroevolution, where there is new genetic information? You claimed there was a change of phyla here, which sounds major but maybe that's just an arbitrary scientific distinction, because nothing seems to have actually changed. I mean, some yeast already clumps together, and the clump will behave together as one unit. What the scientists did here was separate the big clumps from the single celled stuff. It's selective breeding, farmers do it a lot.

The yeast hasn't suddenly gained an ability, no gene seems to have changed here, the yeast is just doing what yeast has always been able to do, but this time the big clumps are selectively bred, so naturally the yeast which are most prone to budding will then make the next batch more likely to form bigger and more frequent clumps.

Every time I hear "change of kinds" I cringe it is so archaic, this isn't 2000 bc.


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[shawn001]

8 Examples of Evolution in Action

"Evolution is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Armed with the knowledge of the interconnectedness of all life on earth, biologists have made startling discoveries. There is so much evidence in favor of evolution, that arguing against it is like denying that there is a moon in the sky. Yet people do still actively deny evolution occurs. Speciation, the formation of a new species from an ancestor species, takes a very long time yet there are evolutionary steps which can be observed. Here are eight examples, amongst many, of evolution in action.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse