Evolution. The proof you've been requesting.

I read thread after thread on this subject and I notice that evolution is often attacked because it is called a theory.
Not withstanding the irony of requesting scientific proof to justify a spiritual belief, I have looked for the last few days for proof that might do just that.

PNAS

I have no doubt that some will find fault with this example.
If you wish to reject evolution that is your right, but lack of proof is no longer a viable reason.

It truly is a fantastic study.

Has many people squeeling and squirming, as this appears to decimate the claims of Behe (even it's though not the first in the last year or so). If you check out 'The Loom' blog, a couple of the authors have been answering questions.

The creationists will just move to rat --> bat as if nothing has happened.

Essentially the study shows three successive mutations that have produced an entirely new effective function (citrate growth). Even better, they showed some historical contingency.

Add this to the study which appears to show de novo evolution of a gene from non-coding areas of the genome, not a good month for creationists (when is it? They haz Ben Stein mockumentary, we have actual science).

[edit on 18-6-2008 by melatonin]

But, they are still e-coli. They didn't "evolve" into another species, or even another "breed" of bacteria. This is not an example of evolution regardless of who says it is.

reply to post by OhZone


Indeed they are, as humans are 96% chimpanzees.
Evolution might be slow, but it is not absent.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by melatonin
It truly is a fantastic study.

Has many people squeeling and squirming, as this appears to decimate the claims of Behe (even it's though not the first in the last year or so).

The creationists will just move to rat --> bat as if nothing has happened.

As you can already see. Whereas they usually pounce on this subject, today their invisibility is screaming volumes.

I think your example is just a matter of adaptation which is not true evolution.
So which came first the human or the chimp? That 96% mantra is very misleading, as you well know. A side by side comparison would likely reveal 96% difference.
Or, since 4% isn't much, maybe you would like to tell me exactly how I can tell the difference between you and a chimp?

I am real confused here.

Evolution please answer.

How did we get here and what caused the matter to gather and cause the big bang??

God did it? Then we Evolved from there is that what you are saying?

Originally posted by OhZone
I think your example is just a matter of adaptation which is not true evolution.
So which came first the human or the chimp? That 96% mantra is very misleading, as you well know. A side by side comparison would likely reveal 96% difference.
Or, since 4% isn't much, maybe you would like to tell me exactly how I can tell the difference between you and a chimp?

Passive aggressive insults are surely one of the examples of evolution from chimp to human.
It is the slightly evolved behavior of throwing phases at each other.
If you have any more constructive insight do not hesitate to let us know.

reply to post by uknow_me72


If you're Christian, God does things how he wants it. maybe we can figure out how he whent about it, but ultimately, it's a bunch of educated guess'.

Me personally, I don't how or why it all began, but I go with evolution for how we got hre today. One way or another, we still came from the dirt of the earth.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I read thread after thread on this subject and I notice that evolution is often attacked because it is called a theory.
Not withstanding the irony of requesting scientific proof to justify a spiritual belief, I have looked for the last few days for proof that might do just that.

PNAS

I have no doubt that some will find fault with this example.
If you wish to reject evolution that is your right, but lack of proof is no longer a viable reason.

Nice find, but unfortunately pleomorphism is not proof for the theory of evolution imho.

Duncan

Its obvious we came from bacteria.People state there needs to be a outside interruption to have bacteria evolve.Btw i like your powder avatar.

We are Not Entirely Human, Germ Gene Experts Argue
www.redorbit.com...
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON -- We may not be entirely human, gene experts said on Thursday after studying the DNA of hundreds of different kinds of bacteria in the human gut.

Bacteria are so important to key functions such as digestion and the immune system that we may be truly symbiotic organisms -- relying on one another for life itself, the scientists write in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

For the very few who are not emotionally invested to either camp, and who might be looking for a respectful and intelligent deconstruction of ID may I suggest a book by Kenneth R. Miller called "Only a Theory"

And for the few creationists who have a god given sense of humor and want to have a laugh:

ricky

As to the OP, it seems that research and education is not in the air today.

Evolution?

Yeah i agree this example merely shows adaption, but i would bet this adaption would continue and eventually we would have a new species.

I mean we can also look at this study and include humans. How long have we been here? Around 1,000,000 years. Now these scientist say they first started noticing mutations at around the 21,500 generation. So over time lets say the average human lived 45 years. How many generations back is that? it happens to be 967,500.

You see the thing about creationalists is that pretty much all of them are ignorant and stuck in their own ways. Me being brought up in a Christian society meant i was bashed with the bible at school i had to listen to all the bunk i had no choice.

Why can't the creationalists pick up a REAL BOOK and start reading? Just my two cents! And i meant no offense either.



[edit on 18-6-2008 by weenaman]

Here's a suggestion from a friend.

You can teach creationism in schools and attempt to pass pseudo-science as science.
Here is a sample lesson text that can be used by any teacher:

"The theory of intelligent design states that an omnipotent being created the universe and everything in it for reasons we cannot, and are not meant to, comprehend. There is no quantifiable evidence to support this theory, there are no hypotheses that can be proven or disproven using this theory, and it offers no predictive ability for any past, present or future events. OK, now let's move on to the theory of evolution."

It really is amazing to me the twisted logic of being a creationist. All the do is ask for proof of evolution and when you give it to them all they can come up with is to scream "adaptation".
Like I said before, if you want to teach creationism, you can do it with the qualifier from my previous post.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Here's a suggestion from a friend.

You can teach creationism in schools and attempt to pass pseudo-science as science.
Here is a sample lesson text that can be used by any teacher:

"The theory of intelligent design states that an omnipotent being created the universe and everything in it for reasons we cannot, and are not meant to, comprehend. There is no quantifiable evidence to support this theory, there are no hypotheses that can be proven or disproven using this theory, and it offers no predictive ability for any past, present or future events. OK, now let's move on to the theory of evolution."

Yea that is assuming that you use the same school system that is in place today. But that is a different topic.

Show's how much the system worked on you. That is not a compliment either.

What would you think if you lived on an Island and grew from a baby boy to your age now and had no mainstream contact only the people around you and you had a completely different way of life?

Would you know what they taught?

No you would not. So doesn't that show you how easy it is to lead you on?


So here is something that you need to know. You need to know the whole science not just what they want you to know with their false theories. Call me bat# crazy or I need my medicine, but you better get back to master before he whips you again for looking outside the box.



The Spiritual Realm and the Creator makes up over 50 percent of the unseen science but the lead government scientist that you get your infromation from will not publicly admit it. They(the powers in control) do not want you to know that because it will take power away from them.





[edit on 19-6-2008 by uknow_me72]

reply to post by uknow_me72


It's amazing to me how many personal insults some Christians can throw around., but that's for another thread. Regarding these insults let me refer you to my earlier post:

"Passive aggressive insults are surely one of the examples of evolution from chimp to human.
It is the slightly evolved behavior of throwing phases at each other.
If you have any more constructive insight do not hesitate to let us know."

Insofar as the topic of the thread itself, let me also add the following new research information: research

And please, try to be civil in your posts.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
"The theory of intelligent design states that an omnipotent being created the universe and everything in it for reasons we cannot, and are not meant to, comprehend. There is no quantifiable evidence to support this theory, there are no hypotheses that can be proven or disproven using this theory, and it offers no predictive ability for any past, present or future events. OK, now let's move on to the theory of evolution."

Even though I am a vocal creationist, disagree with segments of the above summary, and have lately been avoiding evolution/creationism/religious threads like the plague, I still literally laughed out loud at that.

As for the material in the original post: We discussed aspects of this experiment in an older thread and I must say I agree with the sentiments of others. This simply shows adaptations and microevolution (occurrences I have never seen any ATS creationists deny). Adaptations and micro also help explain some Biblical difficulties that baffled theologians prior to Darwin.

Interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.

[edit on 6/19/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Now that's what I call a courteous, intelligent, and respectful post.
Thank you!
We don't have to agree but we can play nice.