Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Bacteria can evolve ie: MRSA. The evolution from one organism to another would be macroevolution. This is the main one we here here about when we talk about evolution. It is not scientific because it can't be replicated or tested.

They will separate then hide a brood of mice on one side of a maze from a brood of mice from another side of a maze. After generations of exhaustive study of the subjects, they will see that they no longer choose to mate with each other. They then label mice from one side new species A and the mice from the other side new species B.

The problem is nobody involved in the study will admit that all the mice are still mice.

No new Kinds have been created, the mice haven't turned into non mice.

They will point to their own made up terminology to identify species, expecting you to believe that they demonstrated speciation.

Here is an example that somebody actually used on ATS to claim

Observed speciation as a result of accumulated mutation.

Source

Pulling back this veil we can see evolution is rooted in extreme racism. Studies like these, under the guise of evolutionary studies, appear to show that humans isolated from other humans become different over generations. This leads to Nazi terms like subhuman and master races.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Bacteria can evolve ie: MRSA. The evolution from one organism to another would be macroevolution. This is the main one we here here about when we talk about evolution. It is not scientific because it can't be replicated or tested.

I know that there have been many test done in regards to bacteria. But isn't it true that they never turn into anything new? They always remain bacteria. I know alot of test have been done on fruit flies under every conceivable condition. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies right?

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Yes they remain bacteria.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

So in other words, you believe everything has to be created first right? That's all I was asking, it was a yes or no question.

Look at this way; the zoologist or anthropologist or botanist cannot for sure say any particular specie is evolving or becoming endangered. As far as humans are concerned, the missing link as an evolutionary event (never existed) will not be found.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

It not so much a belief out of faith, but more or less an attempt for explanations.

What Avgguy said about Macro and Mirco evolutions is right, since Macro evolution more or less a large scale attempt at the whole explanation of life and how it came to be about from the beginning to today. Like how did something microscopic become a crustacean to a fish, then how did a fish become an amphibian, which could of lead to the development of repiltes. A better example, from my two cents, would be that Birds came from DInosaurs due to dinosaurs are believed to have feathers, but there is no actual proof the development, and to the mechanical minds of scientists it just seems more then a coincidence.

Micro is more accurate in its attempts because it more or less small scale, like how Humans are said to have come from a line of chimps, and even attempts to explains why life built the way it is now.

The only thing I gotta say about God, is that its like the Big Bang Theory, it came from nothing.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

The same can be said for god, it's up to the individual to choose who and what they have Faith in.

If you don't mind me asking why does getting proof matter?

I belive in PE which is similar to evolution, but it really doesn't bother me others don't. I have a good idea how I think the universe came to exist but at the same time if someone wants to believe god, aliens or nothing did it it doesn't make me feel anything different.

As I learn new things or new things are discovered my ideas grow and change with the addition of this information.

I find the most beautiful part of this world is nobody is the same.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Richard Lenski and his team directly observed and documented evolution:

In June 2008 the popular science magazine New Scientist printed a story about Professor Richard Lenski's twenty-year project examining the evolution of E. coli. They reported that, as a result of several beneficial mutations, his organisms had acquired the ability to metabolize citrate - or more correctly an ability to transport it through the cell wall prior to metabolizing it. This was an entirely new ability for this species - an increase in complexity provided by a beneficial mutation. This beneficial trait was then fixed in the population by natural selection.

Richard Lenski

There's some proof. Was there anything else?

As a side note, evolution is a field of science, not a belief. Like physics or mathematics, it is repeatedly observable and provable, to believe in it is to exercise common sense.

As another side note, macroevolution is what results when microevolution occurs in two or more populations within a species. Or the net sum of all the microevolution that occurs within a species. Either way, it's impossible for microevolution not to imply the possibility of macroevolution.

Macroevolution is a word beloved of anti-evolutionists but is little used in scientific circles. Anti-evolutionists consider it to mean evolution above the species level or the evolution of one species from another, something that science considers to be merely one aspect of evolution. Many creationists, and like-minded anti-evolutionists, will admit that microevolution, or adaptation, occurs, indeed they require it to be accelerated to extremes undreamt of by science in order to salvage their global flood/kinds theology, but will state emphatically that macroevolution is impossible, by giving straw man arguments like "A monkey can't give birth to a human".

a reply to: AnteBellum

If you don't mind me asking why does getting proof matter?

I have a theory on that...

Because ATS T&Cs forbid penis measuring photos the creationists and speciationists have to one up each other somehow at least twice a day in the form of "debate" which is really just unanswerable discourse to metaphorically compare girth.



Manners violation in 3...2...1

a reply to: spygeek

They are absolutely different terms, That mean two completely different things. If you think that they aren't part of the scientific community then you certainly aren't part of it.

Here's a link to UC Berkeley
evolution.berkeley.edu...

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I never saw God create a new species either, guess we can rule out creationism.

Much better than my post which was going to consist of "Well, nope, no evidence. Guess a sky wizard did it all... there's proof of that, right?"

but now I don't have to.

OP... this topic seems to come up every 3 weeks. Why? it never ends with any resolution. You cannot have proof. I do not believe in god. So where does this leave us?

Either believing in a scientific theory which has evidence to support it via fossils and observed microevolution in places like the galapagos islands... OR.. believing in an imaginary all powerful creator that made everything all at once, and then said "On yer own chumps. Love me, or I'll let you burn in a fire for the rest of eternity... but I love you. Heres my son, kill him as a token of my compassion and love."

hmmmm..

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

It not so much a belief out of faith, but more or less an attempt for explanations.

The only thing I gotta say about God, is that its like the Big Bang Theory, it came from nothing.

Lack of definitive answers/plans/procedure manual from the 'invisible creator sky god'. It is our job to make this being up so it knows IT actually exists, may be too late judging human history and its failure to get along with each other.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I nearly cut my foot off with a chainsaw once.

Just once.

I evolved to protect myself from harm and prolong my survival by evolving from STOOPID to wear rubber boots, to SMART to wear security boots.

a reply to: spygeek

This was an entirely new ability for this species - an increase in complexity provided by a beneficial mutation. This beneficial trait was then fixed in the population by natural selection.

That's not proof, it's a hypothesis...

It's equally likely the E Coli species could always do just that, but didn't need to until that time.
It's actually just a likely it figured out this alternative rather than evolved the ability to do so.



Cats can open doors...
Until doors were invented and cats were trapped nobody knew this...
But the cats figured it out.

That's not evolution, it's problem solving.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: spygeek

They are absolutely different terms, That mean two completely different things. If you think that they aren't part of the scientific community then you certainly aren't part of it.

I amended my post to clarify what I meant. Anti-evolutionists misappropriate the terms and use them to try and poke holes. The scientific community rarely use the terms, although they do define specific evolutionary changes, they don't mean what creationists use them to mean.

a reply to: spygeek

Ok, but that's not proof of evolution from one species to the next. At the end of the experiment the E. coli was still E. coli right? It didn't change into anything new, such as salmonella or anything now did it?

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: avgguy

Micro-Macro, schmikro-schmackro. There is no need to make this complicated with fancy schmancy words.

Yeah, who needs all the criteria to form a rational opinion on it... GOD did it.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It is not equally likely and I suspect you are trolling.

If cats could absorb doors on the cellular level I might have some kind of understanding of what you mean. It was a documented case of ecoli obtaining this ability through a series of beneficial mutations.

Look up and read the study. Find out what citrate is, understand microbial biology and see how nonsensical your cat opening a door analogy is.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Are you saying you are incapable of reading what I posted, seems pretty straightforward to me, what part do you not comprehend? Common sense is necessary to understand.

Did I stutter?

So instead of answering the question you want to get snotty, ok. Common sense would tell you that this thread is about Evolution, you know, the kind that many claim is the proof of man coming from apes. Or are you confused by the title?

There is your entire problem, the same stupid problem all the other OP's of this sort of topic have.

The theory of evolution is not proof. Never claimed to be.

Thank you for allowing us to educate you on this matter.. Also, we never evolved from apes.. jfc..

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

If you don't mind me asking why does getting proof matter?

It matters because people have been making these claims that such proof exist, therefore I'm asking them to show us that proof.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Be careful with words such as that, your provocing my envy.