Can evolution be proven?.

[schwarzkopf]

Not really.

Yes really, I was stating facts, not opinion.

[Slant]

Are you gonna be one of those people that say that the theory of evolution is just a theory?

No, well kinda... I watched enough of these idiotic debates to know that people never come up with a proper citation for an actual proof of evolution. And they keep walking themselves into the same stupid corner every single time. So by now I'm just shortening the discussion by directly asking for the citation... if there's one, that's awesome, because I want to read it. If not, I'll still know evolution to be a thing and it won't affect me. In the end, it's a win-win, because the guy trying to come up with a citation will fail and at least that'll give me a bit of a chuckle... yes, I'm a mean bastard. :P

[shise]

Yes really, I was stating facts, not opinion.

Actually, you did not state a single fact and not, not really because we can only prove half of our evolution by scientific means, we can not explain the "sudden" intellect evolution we experienced.

- - - Updated - - -

Based on what? What makes it obvious?

The fact that we are radically different and supperior (for good and for bad towards this planet) to any other living form.

[Deleted]

No, well kinda... I watched enough of these idiotic debates to know that people never come up with a proper citation for an actual proof of evolution. And they keep walking themselves into the same stupid corner every single time. So by now I'm just shortening the discussion by directly asking for the citation... if there's one, that's awesome, because I want to read it. If not, I'll still know evolution to be a thing and it won't affect me. In the end, it's a win-win, because the guy trying to come up with a citation will fail and at least that'll give me a bit of a chuckle... yes, I'm a mean bastard. :P

It's called the "Theory of evolution". That is the citation. There are multiple pieces of proof. There isnt simply one.

No one is gonna fail but you i'm afraid... and those that think evolution isn't proven. But if you want to pretend that all the facts aren't there and believe in lala land. Go ahead.

[shise]

I think humanity left evolution behind a while ago. The way we terraform the planet kinda fucks up all the things evolution may have had in store for us. On the other hand, this is also kinda part of evolution. Depends on how you look at it, really.

I think that we might halt our natural evolution as a price to our social and technological evolution.

Although it makes perfect sense as we have reached the point where we dominate our environment, we no longer need natural evolution but pure technological evolution, as it is the only way we could survive natural disasters.

[Skulltaker]

Nope, I won't give you this one. Use language properly or don't engage in these discussions. It's really rather easy. If I let you get away with this, what you take away is that you can basically argue anything, because fuck it, might as well transcendent linguistic confines and when something can't be argued, just claim some bullshit and tell the other you're right anyway.

I mean, heck, I do actually know the logical refute to this paradox, and yes, there is one... but for that you'd have to actually employ logic yourself. And not come up with some bullshit redefinition of the english language just so you can walk away saying "I won this argument". :P

It is not up to you to 'give this one' to anyone. I used language properly. If I had meant illogical, I'd have said Illogical. I didn't. I honestly don't care about 'winning an argument' with a random dude on the internet. And is is also not up to you to let anyone get away with anything. Who do you think you are? I don't give a shit about what you give or what you don't give. If you cannot or don't want to understand what I was saying, I don't care. IF you want to keep poking at this, because you have the desperate need to be right, I feel sorry for you.

And if you can apply logic to a paradox, it is no longer a paradox, isn't it? Or it wasn't one to begin with, either way.

[wooters]

This communication also makes for more effective ways to kill each other, like telling people exactly where 'the bad guys' are. And if you had carefully read my original statement about this, which was:

being able to communicate bring more good then bad to the world. that is basically a fact my friend. being more effective to kill each other with it are irrelevant, as the outcome would be the same..we would just need more time to achieve those goals. science present..or not is irrelevant. I can agree that fear mongering and greed ofc are major reasons for conflict as well

- - - Updated - - -

Science is more than just labs... you can't narrow it down to just that. Using tools is why we actually had a discussion among scientists whether or not apes should be classified humans at one point.

its irrelevant to the discussion none the less

[Slant]

It's called the "Theory of evolution". That is the citation. There are multiple pieces of proof. There isnt simply one.

No one is gonna fail but you i'm afraid... and those that think evolution isn't proven. But if you want to pretend that all the facts aren't there and believe in lala land. Go ahead.

So... no proof. Right on cue!

[RobertMugabe]

https://www.quora.com/Can-Darwins-th...ever-be-proven

For the record, science is never set in stone. It is not immutable. Every theory and hypothesis is meant to be tested over and over again. The scientific method is not meant to prove something true, but rather, false.

I have been avoiding jumping into the fray on these loaded questions, simply because they tend to be trolls. And if they aren't, they still fall into an inflammatory category meant to rile up the masses.

However, the kind of reasoning in the question and the link keeps getting perpetuated over and over again, rife with misinformation, misunderstanding and the usual theistic slight of hand that seems to go hand in hand with it's twisted logic.

Proof is like proof in a courtroom. It can bolster your case, but it doesn't always win it, especially if contradicting evidence can be found. Theories are never truly proven, only strengthened or weakened by the existing proof.

If you come up with a hypothesis, you are expected to try and prove it wrong. Create experiments that test your idea. If they prove you wrong, adjust your hypothesis, then test again. If you get it right, test again, and again and again. Then publish and let everyone else run the experiment, and see if they get the same results.

If no one can come up with anything different, then try and prove it false again. If you can't, then you have a theory.

But science doesn't rest on its laurels. The theory is constantly being tested. Every piece of evidence or new clue is plugged into the theory and tested. If something doesn't work, then the theory goes back to the shop for tweaking and testing. The whole idea behind science is that we don't know everything, therefore, we work with what we have and use that to predict the rest. When someone comes forward with an alternate theory, it gets tested, and goes through the same process.

But there are theories and then there are THEORIES.

Back in the 1600's, Sir Isaac Newton built a theory about gravity and motion. It stood up for 400 years and really was generally considered proven. Until Albert Einstein came along and blew it out of the water, that is.

We hold Newton on a pedestal because he was able to describe the world to a degree with the tools he had, and his theories are still useful to a point. Relativity, though, has been shown time and time again to describe reality better. Without Einstein, we wouldn't have space travel or nuclear power.

String theory, or the "Theory of Everything" is highly controversial. It works well to explain a great number of questions in physics, but many in the scientific community won't embrace it simply because much of its foundations are simply not testable, at least not right now.

But with Evolutionary theory, nothing has come along that can better explain the phenomenon of biological progression. We are constantly finding evidence of change in biological organisms, and when we plug them into ET, they fit so neatly that they strengthen the argument every time. Acceptance of Evolution Theory in the scientific community is overwhelming, more so than most other scientific ideas.

Whenever alternate scientific theories of biologic diversity are forwarded, they fail for multiple reasons. Evolution is the only explanation that works every time.

What a theory does is give us an engine to predict those things we haven't encountered yet. It also gives us a way to explain how something works when we encounter it for the first time.

What it doesn't claim is that it has all the answers. That's not what science is about. It's learning in progression, constantly being tested, modified or even thrown out when necessary. Yes that happens, too.

That is why the whole argument between Evolution and something else, like Creation or Intelligent Design is like comparing apples to my big toe. Evolution theory has a massive body of evidence in support of it, but if something came along to contradict it, then there is nothing stopping it from being modified, or even abandoned totally in favor of something better. But nothing better has come along.

It does not dispute Intelligent Design, either. But the premise of ID is untestable, so it's therefore useless to include this in the theory. There is no scientific means of testing whether or not there is some "Grand Plan" pushing Evolution. Evolution is able to explain the process without including a higher intelligence. And if one were found, it wouldn't matter. Only the process is addressed by the theory.

Science doesn't cling to Evolution because it has something against Creation, either. But Creation can't be called "theory". The main evidence is a written document over 2 millennium old. It's adherents refuse to subject it to the same rigors used in testing Evolution, and when evidence is presented in contradiction, it uses a myriad of purposely misleading and disingenuous arguments in an attempt to discredit that evidence. Creation does not provide a means of predicting evidence not yet found, and it doesn't provide a useful description of a process. Any question I present to Creation only generates an answer of "just because" or "God said so".

[Deleted]

So... no proof. Right on cue!

On the contrary. Hundreads of pieces of proof.

You don't sound like you are interested in the truth.

[Skulltaker]

being able to communicate bring more good then bad to the world. that is basically a fact my friend. being more effective to kill each other with it are irrelevant, as the outcome would be the same..we would just need more time to achieve those goals

[/QUOTE]

And if more prople would follow the principles of being kind to each other that christianity (not the church) promotes the world would be better aswell. What kind of stupid argument is this? Do you think that overall, religion has influenced more lives in a bad way then a good one?

As with technologies it all boils down to the people using it, or misusing it.

[Deleted]

Actual citation instead of you just saying that it happened?

And please, don't link me some Youtube shit.

Thunderfoot is a research scientist with more qualifications than he can even count... hes as close to an authority as ur gonna find on this thread. And if u watch his channel u will see plenty of evidence... theres your citation.

[Slant]

On the contrary. Hundreads of pieces of proof.

You don't sound like you are interested in the truth.

Of which you have provided exactly nil. I just wanted a citation and you're hell bent on denying me that. :P

[Skulltaker]

It's called the "Theory of evolution". That is the citation. There are multiple pieces of proof. There isnt simply one.

No one is gonna fail but you i'm afraid... and those that think evolution isn't proven. But if you want to pretend that all the facts aren't there and believe in lala land. Go ahead.

On the contrary. Hundreads of pieces of proof.

You don't sound like you are interested in the truth.

A lot of proof, but not proven to the point where it is undisputable, is probably what he wants to say.

Evolution offers the most rational explenation as to how the different species today came to be what they are. That doesn't mean it is, without a doubt, correct. It is still safe to say that it is correct, but not to 100%.

[Deleted]

Actually, you did not state a single fact and not, not really because we can only prove half of our evolution by scientific means, we can not explain the "sudden" intellect evolution we experienced.

We're in the process of explaining that. Candidate genes were found, some were tested, e.g. by constructing transgenic animals (such as mice with "humanized" astrocytes exhibiting different astrocytic morphology and function + enhanced cognitive abilities). Candidate neuronal populations were found, such as the convergently evolving large spindle projection neurons found in many highly social animals (primates, whales, elephants) which are ver well developed in hominids. Then there's this dude, doing truly extraordinary work retracing our fairly recent evolution.

Lots of cutting edge science going on, less and less need for, and room for, supernatural explanations.

[Aori]

Science already has. Very contradictive statement however.

Watch this.

What is that supposed to contradict in regards to evolution? I watched it some time ago. I'm an old earth creationist. New earth simply isn't possible.

[Youn]

Science is that broad of definition. It is everything that can be observed and proven. Were religion is trying to make up answers beyond what you can prove to answer the unknown answer. It's blind faith. Arguing with a person about their blind faith is like yelling into the wind. You can make a lot of noise but no one will be listening. You will not be able to convert someone even if you present them evidence.

[Endus]

Locking this, since it was necroed from December, and there's far too much religious discussion here.