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

[Subduction Zone]

You can show where a missile will land but you can not define how even one evolutionary trait was arrived at. When was the mutation, what was the mutation, what made the mutation beneficiary. You can speculate and get scientific consensus but that is it. Pick any feature of any creature and define it from start to finish.

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

www.sciencedaily.com

Why Did Europeans Evolve Into Becoming Lactose Tolerant?

Famine and disease from millennia ago likely spurred the rapid evolution of the trait on the continent

www.smithsonianmag.com

I am sure that an expert in the field could do far better. By the way, you should be careful when you bandy about such words as "speculation". When you accuse others of that you take on a burden of proof. Plus your demands are rather nonsensical. They have little to do with an idea being scientific or not. Precise predictions are not required for complex sciences. Predicting where a missile will land is child's play. Predicting next weeks weather can be a nightmare. The same laws of physics apply. but weather has countless variables. It can only be modeled. But those models keep getting more and more precise. The same is done with evolution. Models are made every year and flu vaccines are adjusted accordingly. That is evolution in action. Just like early weather forecasts, some years they miss. But the keep improving as time goes on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

DNA is among the strongest evidence. Yes.

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

I believe you are mixing up evolution with hypotheses about abiogenesis.

Unfortunately even that one has significant instability issues thst demonstrate evolution wont work

Nothing so far has demonstrated that evolution isn't happening. Don't confuse theory (the explanation) with fact (the phenomenon).

If there is anything you would care to offer for review regarding "instability issues", I would be interested

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.

Not even close. Most creationists deny the evidence or use arguments for personal incredulity as if they are somehow the standard by which science is judge. Or some other logical fallacy or series of fallacies.

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

This, like many of the creationist arguments, have long been dealt with. The use of words like "code" "transcription" and "translation" is metaphorical and do not indicate that the genes are an actual code or indicating there is a coder.

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)

That is not a rational test and isn't the expectation of any scientist.

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.

You can, of course, provide the references for this claim?

Honestly, it this post does not speak well for your literacy of science or of the science of biology and chemistry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you should be more concerned about the de evolution of genetic code within our DNA.

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

What does this even mean?

Secondly, from the accepted model of uniformstarianism, please answer this...if we are losing purity, how the heck did we start from no code and get to the top of the sinewave of code before we started losing it? There doesn't appear to be any evidence we can test to show gaining new information.

What does losing purity mean in the context of the evolution of genomes. It sounds as if you are trying to explain genetics and evolution in terms of the biblical Fall of Man and not on any understanding of what is observed or concluded and how that is done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can show where a missile will land but you can not define how even one evolutionary trait was arrived at.

Having invented missiles and calling on the prior history of ballistics as well as the necessary physics, engineering, and computational control in the use of missiles, it is not unusual to have a very good idea where they will strike. But that is not always a certainty and other factors can alter the course of it.

Comparing that to random mutations and specific events of the past is not a fair comparison.

We know a lot about homicide, but people still get away with them.

When was the mutation, what was the mutation, what made the mutation beneficiary.

When was your ancestor 27 generations back born? Where? How long did he or she live? What did they do for a living? Still, I do not conclude that you did not have ancestors in that generation without knowing the specifics.

You can speculate and get scientific consensus but that is it. Pick any feature of any creature and define it from start to finish.

The theory is not based on speculation. It is based on evidence. Any consensus is on the evidence and the logic and reason of the explanation. As well as the explanatory value of that explanation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The single biggest problem you have is explaining the beginning and proving it from your uniformitarianism guideline.

It is proven that human DNA is de evolving. Our raid drive system fail safe is a mirror type of raid system...and that is because we only have two parents and not 3.

Alternatively, If there was a pure master somewhere that could step in and replace all of the corrupted code from time to time ...ie resetting the cottupted information ...you might get somewhere, however what atheists have without a creator God is DNA copying according to the model of Chinese whispers..oh and extinction of the bad copies!

So, no amount of reason or evidence is going to persuade you. Fair enough.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would disagree. As you example with gravity there is no to know in the future if all creatures will still follow an evolutionary path. It is still the theory of Evolution after all.

A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess. It is an explanation based on evidence and using evidence.

"Just a theory" using the colloquial definition of theory falls short as a rebuke of the validity of any scientific theory.

 

[Astrophile]

The theory of evolution will always be a theory.

Of course the theory of evolution will always be a theory, in the same way that the electromagnetic theory of light and the thermodynamic theory of heat will always be theories. What alternative theory have you that explains the observed biological facts as well as or better than the present theory of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does this even mean?

What does losing purity mean in the context of the evolution of genomes. It sounds as if you are trying to explain genetics and evolution in terms of the biblical Fall of Man and not on any understanding of what is observed or concluded and how that is done.

Maybe this?:

 

[bobhikes]

Having invented missiles and calling on the prior history of ballistics as well as the necessary physics, engineering, and computational control in the use of missiles, it is not unusual to have a very good idea where they will strike. But that is not always a certainty and other factors can alter the course of it.

Comparing that to random mutations and specific events of the past is not a fair comparison.

We know a lot about homicide, but people still get away with them.

When was your ancestor 27 generations back born? Where? How long did he or she live? What did they do for a living? Still, I do not conclude that you did not have ancestors in that generation without knowing the specifics.

The theory is not based on speculation. It is based on evidence. Any consensus is on the evidence and the logic and reason of the explanation. As well as the explanatory value of that explanation.

Let's look at this from a future perspective, humans have died off and another intelligent species inherits the earth. Of course most of the domesticated species would die off as well. When this species digs up a toy poodle will they believe it was evolution. When they dig up a male human with female attributes will they also believe it to be evolution. It is beneficial for domesticated animals (plants don't have a say) as long as humans where alive. Will they consider it manipulation, genetics or evolution. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Perhaps birds with red feathers were consider gods and humans let them live but all others of the species were hunted to extinction. Sure as long as humans are alive it is beneficial but is that evolution. If that is evolution then how much meaning does evolution have. It's only really good for challenging creationists.

Where is your evidence. Evidence is tracking the mutation to the end product not best guess. Evidence is a clear reason for it being beneficial not guessing.

Evolution as a whole is the best explanation we have for the diversity of species but it is a theory and pretty much only good for stories. We can't use it to produce anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's look at this from a future perspective, humans have died off and another intelligent species inherits the earth. Of course most of the domesticated species would die off as well. When this species digs up a toy poodle will they believe it was evolution. When they dig up a male human with female attributes will they also believe it to be evolution. It is beneficial for domesticated animals (plants don't have a say) as long as humans where alive. Will they consider it manipulation, genetics or evolution. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Perhaps birds with red feathers were consider gods and humans let them live but all others of the species were hunted to extinction. Sure as long as humans are alive it is beneficial but is that evolution. If that is evolution then how much meaning does evolution have. It's only really good for challenging creationists.

Where is your evidence. Evidence is tracking the mutation to the end product not best guess. Evidence is a clear reason for it being beneficial not guessing.

Evolution as a whole is the best explanation we have for the diversity of species but it is a theory and pretty much only good for stories. We can't use it to produce anything.

Except for flu vaccines. And artificial selection , which still is a from of evolution even if you do not like it.

Yes, dogs could throw off future researchers. So what? People being wrong about one extremely small part of evolution does not harm the theory. And I will do you a favor and just ignore what looks to me like a transphobic argument alone for now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let's look at this from a future perspective, humans have died off and another intelligent species inherits the earth. Of course most of the domesticated species would die off as well. When this species digs up a toy poodle will they believe it was evolution.

I have no idea.

When they dig up a male human with female attributes will they also believe it to be evolution.

No idea.

It is beneficial for domesticated animals (plants don't have a say) as long as humans where alive.

Domesticated plants too.

Will they consider it manipulation, genetics or evolution.

Will who consider it? Are you still talking about hypothetical intelligent species? I have no idea. People dug up dinosaur bones in ancient times and imagined dragons. What some hypothetical intelligent species might do is beyond my ability to determine.

Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.

It depends on how you define human, but Homo sapiens is a bout 300,000 years old.

Perhaps birds with red feathers were consider gods and humans let them live but all others of the species were hunted to extinction.

Possibly. Is there evidence of this?

Sure as long as humans are alive it is beneficial but is that evolution.

Evolution is a change in gene frequencies over time. We see that. Whether in natural populations or with artificial breeding. That change is evolution.

If that is evolution then how much meaning does evolution have. It's only really good for challenging creationists.

It is a science that we use to breed the animals and plants you mention. It ties biology together. It isn't just a talking point.

Where is your evidence.

Are you not at all familiar with the body of scientific literature on this subject?

Evidence is tracking the mutation to the end product not best guess.

Where is your evidence for your remote ancestors and not just a guess?

Evidence is a clear reason for it being beneficial not guessing.

Is it beneficial to be able to digest milk as an adult? Is it beneficial to have an anti-freeze protein that evolved from a mutated digestive protein if you are a fish living in the frigid Antarctic ocean? Is it beneficial for a newt to be toxic to its predators?

Evolution as a whole is the best explanation we have for the diversity of species but it is a theory and pretty much only good for stories.

That is your limitation and not a limitation of the theory or any theory.

We can't use it to produce anything.

We use it to produce our food.

 

[gnostic]

Much of Darwin’s early discoveries had come from his journey onboard the HMS Beagle, by comparing living extant species, not with fossil comparisons. Especially the comparison of animals and plants on Galapagos and those on the continent (South America). Darwin had only worked with fossils when he came home, but even then, much of his researches still focused on living species, not extinct ones. Alfred Russel Wallace have also spent times in the Amazon and the Malay Archipelago, comparing living species.

Even today, the majority of biologists, have never studied fossils (paleontology). All their evidence and data come from comparisons of living and extant species, and the focus have been on DNA analysis & comparisons, as well as their morphology.

 

[bobhikes]

Except for flu vaccines. And artificial selection , which still is a from of evolution even if you do not like it.

Yes, dogs could throw off future researchers. So what? People being wrong about one extremely small part of evolution does not harm the theory. And I will do you a favor and just ignore what looks to me like a transphobic argument alone for now.

Genetic manipulation is a thing currently and will be more so in the future. I did notice that while I have been polite in my discussion when you don't like something you resort to classifying me negatively which is not very scientific.

 

[bobhikes]

I have no idea.

No idea.


Where is your evidence for your remote ancestors and not just a guess?

Like you I don't have the evidence which is my point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like you I don't have the evidence which is my point.

I didn't say there isn't evidence or that I don't have access to it. Quite the opposite.

What there is no evidence for is that meeting your demand is required to draw the conclusions of evolution or, lacking it, to falsify the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except for flu vaccines. And artificial selection , which still is a from of evolution even if you do not like it.

Yes, dogs could throw off future researchers. So what? People being wrong about one extremely small part of evolution does not harm the theory. And I will do you a favor and just ignore what looks to me like a transphobic argument alone for now.

What's up with dogs?

 

[bobhikes]

I didn't say there isn't evidence or that I don't have access to it. Quite the opposite.

What there is no evidence for is that meeting your demand is required to draw the conclusions of evolution or, lacking it, to falsify the theory.

I never falsified the theory, If you read my first post I said it is scientific and true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like you I don't have the evidence which is my point.

You do realize this "pick any feature from start to finish" is a gap argument. No one is claiming that everything is known, but the theory is sound and the evidence supports it.

If we learn everything about whatever is picked, then the argument will just move to the next unknown.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never falsified the theory, If you read my first post I said it is scientific and true.

I didn't say that you did. Your claim that we need to know every detail about every change seems to be presented as a way to falsify or dismiss the theory as "just a theory". Just another subjective perspective. That is simply not so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never falsified the theory, If you read my first post I said it is scientific and true.

And the "just a theory" position isn't scientific and it is not "true" in the sense of some absolute. Scientific theories and conclusions are always contingent on the discovery of new information.

However, the theory of evolution has become so robust with the support of 200 years-worth of data, that it would take something extraordinary to topple it at this point.