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

[Ouroboros]

Can you give me an observable evidence of a change of kinds. Something that I don't have to receive by faith.

Evening primrose, Raphanobrassica, modern maize, Yellow Monkey Flower, and much more.

Or check this list: Observed Evolutionary Changes

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know what "kinds" is.....

Yeah.

I can't understand how a biologist/researcher can even bother to use that term. It's not a scientific classification.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yeah.

I can't understand how a biologist/researcher can even bother to use that term. It's not a scientific classification.

There have been a few instances on here recently when a creationist will make the claim that they study biology or that they teach physics, yet there posts seem to have no concept of the scientific method at all.

You guys may want to close that up, your bias is hanging out.

 

[Ouroboros]

There have been a few instances on here recently when a creationist will make the claim that they study biology or that they teach physics, yet there posts seem to have no concept of the scientific method at all.

I know exactly who you're talking about. Don't want to name any names here. I can't help that it makes me very suspicious about a person's education when his main source of information is Gish.

 

[Copernicus]

I differ from some other atheists in that I would assert the claim that God does not exist. I am firm enough on that belief to accept the label of "strong atheist".

I congratulate you on your honest stance

That is because there are two levels of 'know'... one is an absolute know, and one is a know within the mind, without physical objects to back them up. You have the second know. If not, then you would have a seriously troubled mind... haha

Exactly. Empirical knowledge is always going to be uncertain to some degree. For example, neither of us knows in an absolute sense that Santa Claus is a fictional being. Neither of us knows in an absolute sense that we live on Earth or that computers exist. That is why all such beliefs must be evaluated against the evidence that supports them. In my case, I see no reason to believe that spirits can exist independently of physical reality. So I believe that ghosts, demons, angels, leprechauns, and gods almost certainly do not exist.

However, I would still never claim to "know" that God does not exist. And I still hold that there is a degree of uncertainty in every belief I have of the nature of reality.

Unless a train is coming towards you, and then I bet you do

But how do you know the train is coming at you? Right now, it could be coming at you, but you assume it isn't, because you have no credible reason to hold that belief.

That is actually a survival trait, IMO. If we were unable to change our opinions about what is real, then we would end up compounding our mistakes, which inevitably would lead to catastrophe. So God isn't real, but my strong conviction about that is subject to change, if I came across convincing evidence that I was wrong.

Anyone could say they would change their opinion if something else happened. It alters nothing, you are atheist, not agnostic. Agnostics don't know. You know, though not absolute. The Theist knows absolute as they have the proof within.

That's where you are mistaken. Thomas Henry Huxley originally meant "agnostic" to be someone who denied "gnosis", or spiritual knowledge--objective knowledge of reality. However, the word is also now used in modern English to describe people who have no strong belief one way or the other on some proposition, especially the existence of God. Huxley was not that wobbly in his skepticism. I am an agnostic in exactly the sense that he was. That is, I deny gnosis:

Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (in the nominative case γνῶσις f.). In Christian, Islamic, or Jewish mysticism, mystery religions and Gnosticis gnosis generally signifies a spiritual knowledge or "religion of knowledge", in the sense of mystical enlightenment or "insight". Gnosis taught a deliverance of man from the constraints of earthly existence through insight into an essential relationship, as soul or spirit, with a supramundane place of freedom.​

 

[R34L1TY]

Observable evidence? As a biological researcher you are probably familiar with molecular theories such as neutral evolution and rates of neutral base pair substitutions, right? Well, what are your thoughts on that?

 

[ginaleanne]

Maybe God created evolution. You ever think of that? Huh? Huh?

 

[Morfinyon]

Study bacteria for a bit…

 

[Midnight Rain]

Do you have a garden? Do you have any experience with botany? Do you know how to eliminate unwanted traits from plants over generations? Or to isolate and replicate the wanted traits? Such as color formation, height and even resistance to insects? If you are then you can do this at home like your own little experiment and you will have your observable and palpable experience with evolution.

 

[Hurley1516]

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. The whole reason evolution is a scientific theory is that it allows scientist to make predictions. For example, check out the PBS documentary called, "You're Inner Fish." It covers how Neil Shubin and his team predicted that a creature should have existed that provides a direct link between fish and tetrapods (four footed creatures). They knew that if a creature like this were to be found it would be found in rock layers dating back 375 million years old. There are only a few places on earth that have exposed rock layers that date that far back and also meet the conditions to find a creature like this. They went to one of these sites and found the creature in the exact rock layer that they had predicted. It is called "Tiktaalik Roseae" (look it up) and it is the perfect example of what people like to think of as a transitional species. It has both fish characteristics (scales, fins, gills, and lungs) and tetrapod characteristics (neck, ribs, flat head, fin skeleton, ear notches). How did they make this discovery? Because of the theory of evolution, and its ability to make scientific predictions.

 

[gnostic]

No, They most certainly are not. Many Theists accept Evolution, And I'm sure there are quite a few Atheists that don't.

Yes, there are, and I personally know of dozens of them.

They are my cousins, uncles and aunts. Most of cousins, living here in Melbourne, are not biologists, and some of these are not even scientists.

Most of my cousins, have qualifications in business, so they are into finance or accounting, or other related business field. And because of the fields they have studied in or worked in, their knowledge in science in general are limited.

As to evolution, they are apathetic to the subject; they are not interested in something, that they don't understand.

But all of my cousins (there are only 8 of them), who have studied biology, in universities, do accept evolution.

While others, who have studied other non-biological science - some accept them, while others don't. It really depends if they are interested in learning about them at all.

As to my uncles and aunts, most of them didn't have education in Australia, especially in biology.

I am quite sure there are many more, like my relatives, whom I don know, don't acce evolution, because A) they don't understand them (referring to evolution), or B) have no interest in them.

 

[StopS]

Can you give me an observable evidence of a change of kinds. Something that I don't have to receive by faith.

Sorry, but I don't get it.
Why are people on a religious forum, a place where people talk about religions, ask questions on a scientific topic?
Do I expect a valid and pertinent answer when asking a question about religions on a biology forum?

 

[Hurley1516]

Sorry, but I don't get it.
Why are people on a religious forum, a place where people talk about religions, ask questions on a scientific topic?
Do I expect a valid and pertinent answer when asking a question about religions on a biology forum?

Because for many people evolution is an affront to their faith. If you believe the Bible and take the book of Genesis literally then the world can only be around 6000 to 10000 years old. And according to Genesis, God created everything that exists in 6 days. So evolution is a big problem with a lot of people because it means that everything, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor over a process of billions of years.

This was the case for me. I used to be a Christian and held to a literal view of Genesis. When I honestly began to study evolution for myself and came to accept it as a fact it caused me to step back and really examine my faith. Ultimately, for me the Bible began to fall apart and I walked away from it completely. Some will say that you can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. To them I would advise reading Robert M. Price's book "Evolving out of Eden."

 

[StopS]

Because for many people evolution is an affront to their faith.

I get all that. I also understand your personal "evolution" - pardon the pun - and still maintain if I want to have reliable and accurate information I don't ask those who have a problem with something.
I know I will get skewed or biased answers.
That's why I strongly advise people to go where they will get honest answers to their questions - if they are honest in their questions.

 

[Nails]

So you are aware of these things:
1. Genetics exist.
2. Genes are what pass on traits.
3. Less popular traits will not be spread on as much and will eventually be eliminated through time and flooded out through the spread of more popular traits.
4. That mutations exist and happen.
5. Genetic mutations are pretty much new traits introduced into the genepool.
6. Genetic mutations can thus be spread like a regular gene and become more and more common.

So tell me. Over the span of billions of years, how would species NOT evolve? That is clear evidence of natural selection right there, and one example of what causes evolution.

Not a biologist and know next to nothing about science in general. Nor an atheist. I mean this post in respect. I have noticed that many people have dodged your questions here

Most mutations, which are extremely rare, are harmful rather than beneficial. How does this explain evolution rather than degeneration? Or simply sustainment?

Evolution is simply the naturalist's best explanation for his existence without a supernatural first cause.

 

[Nails]

Evolution may not be totally true, but it makes a hell lot of more sense than the creationist theory, which really is for the simple minded.

Creation ex nihilo is simple? A dual nature of reality is simple? In Christian theology, three persons (Father, Son and Spirit) exist within one being (God). Is that simple?

Atheists claim to embrace reason and be open-minded, free-thinkers, when in reality it is they who are close minded and intolerant. They refuse to allow any opposing voices to be heard alongside their dogma.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Most mutations, which are extremely rare, are harmful rather than beneficial. How does this explain evolution rather than degeneration? Or simply sustainment?

Evolution is simply the naturalist's best explanation for his existence without a supernatural first cause.

Mutations are rare. Beneficial mutations are still more rare. That is why evolution takes so long and why you won't be able to view speciation in a single lifetime.

If we have 10,000 mutations for every good mutation (probably even greater in magnitude) but the ones that develop mutations that are harmful die off before they pass on those genes then it never spreads throughout a population. But if we have a gene that is a beneficial gene and it does reproduce and pass it on then we will see a change in the gene pool of a given population after the gene is successfully passed around after several generations.

That is the nature of survival of the fittest.

 

[Nails]

Mutations are rare. Beneficial mutations are still more rare. That is why evolution takes so long and why you won't be able to view speciation in a single lifetime.

If we have 10,000 mutations for every good mutation (probably even greater in magnitude) but the ones that develop mutations that are harmful die off before they pass on those genes then it never spreads throughout a population. But if we have a gene that is a beneficial gene and it does reproduce and pass it on then we will see a change in the gene pool of a given population after the gene is successfully passed around after several generations.

That is the nature of survival of the fittest.

It is the time aspect of evolution which makes it difficult for me to accept. Science requires observation and evolution can not be observed. I think that evolution requires a lot of faith. It is the best explanation based on evidence from the fossil record, but I have yet to see any evidence of transition between species or creation of new species. It is not there. I have also heard that the numbers don't add up- there is not enough time for evolution to do that work it claims to have done...even in billions of years. Did you know that before Darwin geologists did not consider the Earth to be so old? I am not a young earth creationist, but that factoid is compelling.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It is the time aspect of evolution which makes it difficult for me to accept. Science requires observation and evolution can not be observed. I think that evolution requires a lot of faith. It is the best explanation based on evidence from the fossil record, but I have yet to see any evidence of transition between species or creation of new species. It is not there. I have also heard that the numbers don't add up- there is not enough time for evolution to do that work it claims to have done...even in billions of years. Did you know that before Darwin geologists did not consider the Earth to be so old? I am not a young earth creationist, but that factoid is compelling.

There are a lot of people who have trouble with the "big picture". Its hard to imagine the vast time scales that are required and exist in our universe. It is harder still to imagine the vastness of our universe and the way that certain things operate. So I wouldn't feel bad that you have a hard time accepting it. Just know that it doesn't make it less true.

I couldn't agree more about the observation. Science needs to observe things in order to draw conclusions about it. It doesn't require experiments most of the time but just observation and discoveries. We have viewed evolution at work. We have decoded DNA and it has been an eye opening chapter of the evolutionary sciences, and we have the fossil record as well. All based on observations.

No single piece of evidence nails down the theory but the millions of observations and scraps of evidence builds the theory. I enjoy learning about evolution and learning new things about evolution. My advice to you if you really want to learn about evolution but not devote yourself to hours and hours of research, I would find a blog about science or evolutionary science and follow it.

 

[McBell]

Most mutations, which are extremely rare, are harmful rather than beneficial. How does this explain evolution rather than degeneration? Or simply sustainment?

Most mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial and are not rare.
So the rest of the paragraph which relies on the first part being true is also nonsense.

Evolution is simply the naturalist's best explanation for his existence without a supernatural first cause.

I take it you are not concerned with how much you look the fool?