How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[shunyadragon]

It is The theory of evolution, that is the scientific term for what it is. You are trying to define it in some other way. As a The theory of evolution is I am fine with it. I am not fine with people stating they can prove it as the POC states and then not offering any evidential support only scientific consensus.

This also distorts science and the sciences of evolution. Science does not prove anything. IT is misleading to describe evolution as a Theory in today's science. The evidential support for evolution is overwhelming. There is no other viable explanation for the history of life on earth

 

[bobhikes]

Good, then you accept what experts in science report, and reject what non-experts say that denies the reports, yes?

You don't seem well-informed about evolution.

I am not a fan boy or religious zealot preaching the amazing all purposeful, most useful science of evolution to the world. I take evolution as it is our current most likely explanation for how life developed on this planet. That is it evolution can not be used by science to create any thing by the theory's own definition. 1 the theory indicates random mutations which are not useful in creating new food or drugs. 2 the theory also indicates that only changes beneficial to survival of species remain. This is also bad for science as we are manipulating the species to promote human survival. All scientific endeavors around the development of new drugs and foods for us is done by scientific method with a good dose of trial and error and intuition, not by evolution. Evolutions explains our journey to the present not our development of the future.

 

[F1fan]

I am not a fan boy or religious zealot ..

But you play one in real life.

preaching the amazing all purposeful, most useful science of evolution to the world. I take evolution as it is our current most likely explanation for how life developed on this planet.

All we non-experts have to do is accept what experts report as results of their work. We are not in any way qualified to question their results. there are many religious groups who do so unethically. Even though these religious folks pretend to be authoritative this is part of their fraud against those who are guillible.

That is it evolution can not be used by science to create any thing by the theory's own definition.

Sure it can, science can design controlled environments where fast reproducing organisms, like bacteria, can evolve into new species. This is also how antibiotics are created, by testing new medicines on current species and see how effective they are.

And the fact of evolution is why dog, cat, horse, etc. breeders can create offspring with desired traits.

1 the theory indicates random mutations which are not useful in creating new food or drugs. 2 the theory also indicates that only changes beneficial to survival of species remain. This is also bad for science as we are manipulating the species to promote human survival. All scientific endeavors around the development of new drugs and foods for us is done by scientific method with a good dose of trial and error and intuition, not by evolution. Evolutions explains our journey to the present not our development of the future.

If there are new virus or bacteria that current drugs can't control, and they are deadly versions, we could see a massive die off of humans. Those who survive will carry on a collection of traits, but it could be the offspring are sterile except for a select few humans with ceratin traits. This would weed out many people and who the survivors are is unknown until nature has run its course. See some Hollywood movies about how this could bear out.

 

[bobhikes]

But you play one in real life.

All we non-experts have to do is accept what experts report as results of their work. We are not in any way qualified to question their results. there are many religious groups who do so unethically. Even though these religious folks pretend to be authoritative this is part of their fraud against those who are guillible.

Sure it can, science can design controlled environments where fast reproducing organisms, like bacteria, can evolve into new species. This is also how antibiotics are created, by testing new medicines on current species and see how effective they are.

And the fact of evolution is why dog, cat, horse, etc. breeders can create offspring with desired traits.

If there are new virus or bacteria that current drugs can't control, and they are deadly versions, we could see a massive die off of humans. Those who survive will carry on a collection of traits, but it could be the offspring are sterile except for a select few humans with ceratin traits. This would weed out many people and who the survivors are is unknown until nature has run its course. See some Hollywood movies about how this could bear out.

The development you are speaking of is selective breeding not evolution by scientific definition of the theory.

Ranting now. I am also part of scientific forums and read many scientific magazines and you know what not discussed much if at all new or anything about evolution. Only religious forums and books(easy money maker).

As to scientific consensus. Many theories that have stood though history are being questioned now due to scientific advancements. The voyagers have set the science abuzz with what they found just outside our solar system. Yet I'm supposed to have 100 percent trust is a scientific consensus that's only been consensus less then 100 years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not a fan boy or religious zealot preaching the amazing all purposeful, most useful science of evolution to the world. I take evolution as it is our current most likely explanation for how life developed on this planet. That is it evolution can not be used by science to create any thing by the theory's own definition. 1 the theory indicates random mutations which are not useful in creating new food or drugs. 2 the theory also indicates that only changes beneficial to survival of species remain. This is also bad for science as we are manipulating the species to promote human survival. All scientific endeavors around the development of new drugs and foods for us is done by scientific method with a good dose of trial and error and intuition, not by evolution. Evolutions explains our journey to the present not our development of the future.

And now you sound like a creationist again. There are several key mechanisms for evolution, but to keep it overly simple one only needs to understand variation, which you got, and natural selection. Which you just ignored. One has to realize that all of the mechanism are running simultaneously. Understanding the combination of natural selection and variation is enough to understand how most changes occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The development you are speaking of is selective breeding not evolution by scientific definition of the theory.

Ranting now. I am also part of scientific forums and read many scientific magazines and you know what not discussed much if at all new or anything about evolution. Only religious forums and books(easy money maker).

As to scientific consensus. Many theories that have stood though history are being questioned now due to scientific advancements. The voyagers have set the science abuzz with what they found just outside our solar system. Yet I'm supposed to have 100 percent trust is a scientific consensus that's only been consensus less then 100 years.

Again sounding like a science denier by ignoring the pattern of corrections to present knowledge. Theories are almost never overturned. I have doubts that you could name one scientific theory that has been overturned. They are usually merely corrected and made more accurate. Please not in challenge that I specified scientific theories.

 

[bobhikes]

Again sounding like a science denier by ignoring the pattern of corrections to present knowledge. Theories are almost never overturned. I have doubts that you could name one scientific theory that has been overturned. They are usually merely corrected and made more accurate. Please not in challenge that I specified scientific theories.

I never said overturned I said questioned and am fine with corrected and rewritten

Let's say science technology advances and we find that through our history meteors or asteroids have brought foreign life to our planet and was able to survive and interbreed. Some scientist finds a mutation that is detrimental to life but the species found another way to survive Maybe we find life in another planet following different growth and it lets us view ours differently.

Science always advances and only through questioning. Skepticism is a scientists friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said overturned I said questioned and am fine with corrected and rewritten

Let's say science technology advances and we find that through our history meteors or asteroids have brought foreign life to our planet and was able to survive and interbreed. Some scientist finds a mutation that is detrimental to life but the species found another way to survive Maybe we find life in another planet following different growth and it lets us view ours differently.

Science always advances and only through questioning. Skepticism is a scientists friend.

Then why even mention that in a post? You keep making the same arguments that creationists make where they mischaracterize what science is and how it is done.

As to the rest, if we find that life was brought to this planet by an asteroid that would merely be kicking the problem of abiogenesis down the road. What the "God done did it!" people do not seem to realize is that they need to support their beliefs with evidence if they want others to believe them. They need to form a hypothesis, which would have to include tests that could possibly refute their beliefs. And that is where they fail. They tend to be too afraid of being wrong to form their ideas into proper hypotheses. It is not the duty of those that do not believe in a god to come up with such tests. In fact if they did the answer would probably be, and rightfully so, that they are using a strawman version of god. That is why the lack of evidence for a god is the fault of those that believe in a god. It is not due to any actions of those that do not believe in a god.

As to a detrimental mutation arising those are already dealt with naturally. That example demonstrates a lack of understanding of natural selection. An extreme mutation can be immediately selected against. Who knows how many stillbirths and spontaneous abortions are due to a mutation that prevented proper development of the fetus. After that slightly less extreme ones will cause a death sometime after birth and before puberty. Even less extreme ones will cause the individual to be sterile. One can keep finding how nature selects against less and less extreme mutations until one gets to the point where a mutation is sometimes positive and sometimes negative. An excellent example of that is the mutation that leads to sickle cell anemia. It is still prevalent because there are environments where that is a positive mutation.

And questioning needs to be done properly. "Gotcha" questions are almost never proper questions. They are usually just a misunderstanding of the sciences.

 

[bobhikes]

Then why even mention that in a post? You keep making the same arguments that creationists make where they mischaracterize what science is and how it is done.

As to the rest, if we find that life was brought to this planet by an asteroid that would merely be kicking the problem of abiogenesis down the road. What the "God done did it!" people do not seem to realize is that they need to support their beliefs with evidence if they want others to believe them. They need to form a hypothesis, which would have to include tests that could possibly refute their beliefs. And that is where they fail. They tend to be too afraid of being wrong to form their ideas into proper hypotheses. It is not the duty of those that do not believe in a god to come up with such tests. In fact if they did the answer would probably be, and rightfully so, that they are using a strawman version of god. That is why the lack of evidence for a god is the fault of those that believe in a god. It is not due to any actions of those that do not believe in a god.

As to a detrimental mutation arising those are already dealt with naturally. That example demonstrates a lack of understanding of natural selection. An extreme mutation can be immediately selected against. Who knows how many stillbirths and spontaneous abortions are due to a mutation that prevented proper development of the fetus. After that slightly less extreme ones will cause a death sometime after birth and before puberty. Even less extreme ones will cause the individual to be sterile. One can keep finding how nature selects against less and less extreme mutations until one gets to the point where a mutation is sometimes positive and sometimes negative. An excellent example of that is the mutation that leads to sickle cell anemia. It is still prevalent because there are environments where that is a positive mutation.

And questioning needs to be done properly. "Gotcha" questions are almost never proper questions. They are usually just a misunderstanding of the sciences.

Well I was responding to another poster. You picked just the final post. Sometimes people use words that can be misinterpreted. I do this sometimes and clarify when questioned

As to my points they are valid and scientific. Water is thought to be brought to earth from space and we are finding that where ever there is water you can most likely find some life no matter the conditions As to the others I doubt I could explain them to make you understand. You seem set in your opinion

 

[gnostic]

It is The theory of evolution, that is the scientific term for what it is. You are trying to define it in some other way. As a The theory of evolution is I am fine with it. I am not fine with people stating they can prove it as the POC states and then not offering any evidential support only scientific consensus.

what is POC?

 

[bobhikes]

what is POC?

I had a brain block it should be OP as in original post. I figured most would figure it out but no to my surprise. It's the only reason I entered this thread. I don't usually get involved in evolution discussion because people are too passionate about it not reasonable so this will be my last post here. I would just start repeating myself anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I was responding to another poster. You picked just the final post. Sometimes people use words that can be misinterpreted. I do this sometimes and clarify when questioned

As to my points they are valid and scientific. Water is thought to be brought to earth from space and we are finding that where ever there is water you can most likely find some life no matter the conditions As to the others I doubt I could explain them to make you understand. You seem set in your opinion

Yes, water comes from space ultimately. But the rest of what you posted is wrong.

 

[gnostic]

You are barking up the wrong tree...I don't need to defend my position...I already have physical historical evidence that supports my timeline dating back more than 4500 years. I have DNA, archaeology, writings from ancient cultures, tmes and dates and places and people, I have the imposs9ble dilemmas that you face in trying to get a de evolving genetic code to replicate with increasing purity...which is the opposite way to what it actually is shown in research to be occurring with DNA information...

Again, I'm not the one who needs to prove...I've already got all of that in my favour.

Actually you do need to defend your position. You definitely needs to support this following claim with evidence:

“I have the imposs9ble dilemmas that you face in trying to get a de evolving genetic code to replicate with increasing purity...which is the opposite way to what it actually is shown in research to be occurring with DNA information...”​

Evolution isn’t about “increasing purity”.

it is about genetic variation, but not to “purity”, because offspring always differed from parent (asexual reproduction) or parents (sexual reproduction).

Even with asexual reproduction, it may appear to be identical, but it isn’t exact clone. There are always mutations, that would change that set them apart from a parent.

Bacteria, for instance, largely reproduce through binary fission, where parent cell split into two genetically identical daughter cells. But there are more at play in genetics (and in Evolution) where mutations can occur, so changes would also occur that may set the two daughter cells apart. The changes to trait may not be immediate discernible, but over times (times as in generations), if the mutated cell have been selected, then changes will become increasingly more apparent.

This is how and why bacterial disease can become resistant to or immune to antibiotics, whereas the other descendants are eradicated by the antibiotic.

i don’t know where get this purity from, because to me, purity means “unchanged”, which is the opposite of evolution.

you are making strawman claim about evolution, as a claimant of that claim, you do need to defend it by supporting your claims with evidence…otherwise, you are making false assumptions.

 

[McBell]

I don't need to defend my position.

If you are not going to support your claims, there is no reason to even read your posts.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Actually you do need to defend your position. You definitely needs to support this following claim with evidence:

“I have the imposs9ble dilemmas that you face in trying to get a de evolving genetic code to replicate with increasing purity...which is the opposite way to what it actually is shown in research to be occurring with DNA information...”​

Evolution isn’t about “increasing purity”.

it is about genetic variation, but not to “purity”, because offspring always differed from parent (asexual reproduction) or parents (sexual reproduction).

Even with asexual reproduction, it may appear to be identical, but it isn’t exact clone. There are always mutations, that would change that set them apart from a parent.

Bacteria, for instance, largely reproduce through binary fission, where parent cell split into two genetically identical daughter cells. But there are more at play in genetics (and in Evolution) where mutations can occur, so changes would also occur that may set the two daughter cells apart. The changes to trait may not be immediate discernible, but over times (times as in generations), if the mutated cell have been selected, then changes will become increasingly more apparent.

This is how and why bacterial disease can become resistant to or immune to antibiotics, whereas the other descendants are eradicated by the antibiotic.

i don’t know where get this purity from, because to me, purity means “unchanged”, which is the opposite of evolution.

you are making strawman claim about evolution, as a claimant of that claim, you do need to defend it by supporting your claims with evidence…otherwise, you are making false assumptions.

A long answer that completely misunderstands the dilemma...

Where did the human code come from? Obviously primitive life...therefore given our dna is different, and yet slowly loosing purity because mutations in us are degenerative and not an improvement, that goes against the claim it came from primitive life in the first place...it is currently demonstrating the opposite. It's de-evolving clearly and this supports the model that we were created with all the dna code and are gradually loosing it...which is more consistent and harmonious with the biblical model

 

[AdamjEdgar]

If you are not going to support your claims, there is no reason to even read your posts

The sod off and don't read or reply to them!

 

[YoursTrue]

The development you are speaking of is selective breeding not evolution by scientific definition of the theory.

Ranting now. I am also part of scientific forums and read many scientific magazines and you know what not discussed much if at all new or anything about evolution. Only religious forums and books(easy money maker).

As to scientific consensus. Many theories that have stood though history are being questioned now due to scientific advancements. The voyagers have set the science abuzz with what they found just outside our solar system. Yet I'm supposed to have 100 percent trust is a scientific consensus that's only been consensus less then 100 years.

I appreciate your comments. I was recently looking at a documentary about an island devoted to monkeys and research. And as I looked at these monkeys, although I know they are not humans, certainly they facially have some sort of resemblence, although a human baby acting as nimbly as a rhesus monkey with a face like that would startle people, I would say. (Just to make the difference clearer -- <smile>) It is said that humans are supposed to have evolved from the Unknown Common Ancestor. And what I was thinking as I was looking at the faces of these rhesus monkeys, ok, their faces can resemble to an extent humans, but they are clearly not human. And when God considered making humans, however He did it, He also said, "Let us make man in our image." (Not monkeys.) So there is a difference. And then of course, unique to the human race, He put the tree of knowledge of good and bad in the Garden and restricted them from eating from it, because it represented His knowledge and will and decision making for them. Thus, humans are very different from monkeys. Genesis 1:25. He did not give this command to monkeys or lions, for that matter. Only to the first human couple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here we go again...DNA is the best evidence for evolution.

It is. Our collective DNA (and by "our", I mean all living things) map out to a nested hierarchy. Aka, a family tree.
That is exactly what we expect if species share ancestry.

The most modern claim of support for evolution is RNA is it not?

Que? Is this another instance of a creationist confusing abiogenesis with evolution?

Unfortunately even that one has significant instability issues thst demonstrate evolution wont work
The reality is that this area is in fact the area where creationist have by far, the strongest evidence that is overwhelmingly in their favour.

Creationists don't even have a proper hypothesis. How could they then have any evidence whatsoever?
You need a testable idea before you can even think about having evidence.

One of the biggies here is information. There is no chance that throwing even a bunch of letters on a page randomly will ever result in useful code that can do something.

Good thing evolution doesn't work like that then, I guess.

Every example of information in the living cell tells us someone had to code it.

Only if you don't mind using arguments from ignorance.

As a test, can you provide an laboratory example where genetic information/code has spontaneously appeared from a bunch of even the correct combination of chemicals (oh and note we are jumping a step by providing those chemicals in the first place)

Yes.
Several mutations in an E. colli population created a novel metabolic pathway that allowed said population to grow on citrate. Something it could not do before that. Something all the sister populations couldn't do either, eventhough they all shared the same ancestral population
The exact mutations that created this entirely novel metabolic pathway have been identified also.

You may commence your argument of denial now.

One of the more recent acknowledgements among science is that aliens did in fact come down to the primordial soup and throw a few suitable ingredients into it for evolution to commence.

From which lying website did you pull that one?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please explain how the passing on of corrupt code thus reducing purity is in fact gaining new information?

Asking loaded questions like that, especially when loaded up with falsehoods, is a dishonest way to go about this.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A long answer that completely misunderstands the dilemma...

Where did the human code come from? Obviously primitive life...therefore given our dna is different, and yet slowly loosing purity because mutations in us are degenerative and not an improvement, that goes against the claim it came from primitive life in the first place...it is currently demonstrating the opposite. It's de-evolving clearly and this supports the model that we were created with all the dna code and are gradually loosing it...which is more consistent and harmonious with the biblical model

You should not call it a "code" because you seem to be having a problem understanding what is meant by that word. The genetic code arose through the process of evolution.

And there you go with the "purity" nonsense again. You are assuming that humans were a goal. They were not. Humans were a result. There is no pure human code. There is no "de-evolving". Your spell checker probably even knows better.