Evolution Cannot be Proven

Originally posted by Ruggeder
I assume liberals are for helping people who made bad life choices because they have compassion, you know that stupid thing that makes you an actual human being and not a monster. The op doesn't really think evolution can't be proven right, and this is just a devils advocate type of situation or am i wrong? If I'm wrong then there are literally thousands of experiments and reproducible scientific tests you could participate or visualize to prove it is in fact happening and true.

I don't want to make your head asplode all at once.

Here's an Evolution 101

evolution.berkeley.edu...


[edit on 19-9-2008 by kegs]

Students of science! I'm shocked at how much repeditive creationist crap you let get through on this.

Let's all take a few steps back to about halfway through the first page.

the_watcher, you now have to do something for us.
First of all since this is a debate on provability of evolution, not the origins of the universe it self, so lets keep in the realms of evolution, at least for now.

Define: kind for us, please.

[edit on 9/19/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by the_watcher


OK, reviewing this thread I saw you actually use the fact that species only mate with other members of their own species, which any moron with eyes can observe, and completely incorrect information about Mitochondria Eve, who dates back more than 100,000 years ago, as proof that Genesis is true? Surely you can't be that infinitely stupid? Even if it was only 6.500 years ago, that only proves when we picked up this sybiotic parasite, not the begining of the species! Do you even know what mitochondria are? I doubt it! I think you really need to visit this thread!

Why do people laugh at creationists?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Do you even know what mitochondria are?

Those are those things in starwars that give people the force aren't they?

reply to post by Good Wolf


For that, you get a star!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


lol. im such a nerd.

Golly gee whiz. I was checking out the answersingenesis. Holy jesus. and they believe what they are talking about. The laws of evolution are twisted so much, that half the time exactly what they are referring to and what point they are trying to make sounds like it has come out of some bizzario-dimension.

You should go read it some time, it's really funny.

But what about Darwin? He tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and the inheritance of traits acquired by use and disuse (pangenes), but Pangenesis failed.

Not a clue.
This is even better:

One thing is for certain: if evolutionists had to prove their case in court, evolution would be thrown out for lack of evidence.

This is the most disingenuous statement I have ever read.
Of course creationism has gone to court multiple times.
Kitzmiller v. Dover is a famous case when creationists flat lost.
Here is a list of the cases.


I'm still waiting for a definition of kind.






[edit on 9/19/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by the_watcher
In this experiment 12 cultures of E. Coli were grown in a lab. Each culture medium was comprised of mostly citrate, which E. Coli cannot metabolize, and a little gluclose. Over 40,000 generations were grown and at the 31,500th generation E. Coli learned to metabolize citrate.

This proves Evolution, right? Wrong. What happened here was that the layman was fooled into thinking E. Coli cannot metabolize citrate when indeed it can. Science began with the assumption Evolution is real, and proceeded to fool you all into thinking the assuption is correct when it is not.

Uhmm, since you obviously have no experience in the field on cellular biology, I can tell you that it is actually quite easy to proove this. A simple southern blot (Look it up), is enough to proove it.


This thread is a fail.

Originally posted by the_watcher
Ah, yes it would see that way because as a human being and with our limited intelligence it is hard to imagine a deity that exists outside of the natural world. We cannot observe it, study it, prove it, and we certainly have a very hard time even imagining a being that simply exists. A being that has no beginning and no end.

Unfortunately science cannot brought into the debate here and prove God, and I've already stated that. So one must take it on faith, but one must also take Evolution on faith.

Pick one.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by the_watcher]

Here's the problem- at least from my perspective. First of all- let me just say that I understand where you're coming from. In the sense that- I understand what scares you into believing in 'God.' In fact, I think everyone here arguing on this matter understands what I'm talking about. And so I think it is this very insecurity that drives science, as science is basically an attempt by us measly humans to gain control (in more than one sense) over that which is uncontrollable- or better yet, to grasp what is in reality- ungraspable. We use science to do this because many of us realize at some point that the traditional creation myths no longer satisfy our hunger 'to know.' We realize that there are discoveries to be made by inquiry and an open mind.

That said- even scientists are prone to a kind of 'religious thinking' that we can all succumb to. Like all things, there is *SOME* tradition involved with at least *SOME* of the sciences, which can make it quite hard for new ideas to break in- but science is infinitely more open to these new ideas than religion, and I think it is primarily for that reason, that intellectuals ultimately turn to science for answers. But here's my beef- the fact that we don't recognize the relationship- the FUNDAMENTAL source of both science and religion, which is the human mind. Since we, as humans, are composed of exactly the same 'stuff' as everything else, we ARE the universe. This means that both "science" and "religion" have occured naturally in the universe for one reason or another, at least in the 'human mind.' So the question is- how do we reconcille the two ideas?

My personal belief is that consciousness is all that *actually* exists. You could call this consciousness 'God' or even simply 'The Universe', but in actuality these are just names that we give 'it.' This consciousness manifests itself in reality, as individual parts. These parts, are aware of themselves- but are generally unaware (at least in the human context) of the 'whole.' These parts 'create' reality by experiencing the energy (light, sound, heat, cold etc.) within 'itself.' These parts use nervous systems and brains to "filter" this energy and meanwhile create their own version of this reality. This is exactly what should happen--- since it does. Evolution is guided by consciousness. Consciousness is all that really is. "God" is consciousness. We are "God" because we are but aspects of the one consciousness, evolving by means of the universal energy and ultimately achieving reunion with, or awareness of our true "self" which is all this is.

This may sound like a bunch of words just being thrown around to you, and they are- but the point is that, there is nothing to fear. You do not need "God" for immortality (at least as you imagine 'God') because you exist. You are proof of your own immortality. You are consciousness on a human field trip, and you are exactly where you should be, as you (as consciousness) have guided events from infinitity to the exact point you are at right now. So rejoice in our creation, as we have forever- and always will. Remember that we are one. Try to see past petty conflicts and disagreements, and "world views" and just try to see reality for 'what it is' and be comfortable because it IS, what it IS! And YOU made it that way!

reply to post by Good Wolf


"Laws of evolution". I did not realise there were any Laws of evolution. Please link references to the scientists who have claimed to have discovered any Laws of evolution.

IMHO, scientists who promote evolution are no different from the preachers of various religions. They "preach" the theory of their prophet Darwin like Church Dogma. Evolution, after all, is the accepted belief of today's zeitgeist, being taught and spread as if it were already proven as fact. Sure, they "discuss" and back up their claims with scientific data, but truth is right now no one can really prove crap. Perhaps that's why evolution remains a theory, and God continues to exist beyond man's comprehension.

As far as man's origin is concerned, science just might as well be the new religion filling up "the void" - regardless of whether or not it comes up with the right answers.

Personally, I would still prefer to keep an open mind about everything - especially the ones that are the most difficult to prove, that which people tend to dismiss as "impossible". That includes an entity that could exist beyond what our current science can comprehend. Same way I would keep an open mind about the moon being an alien-made machine

Evolution does exist, if you know where to look.

Whales and snakes both once hand hind legs.

Whales were once land animals that walked on all fours, similar to a fox, but much smaller than their size is today. Even though they evolved into sea animals, they still show traces of tiny hind legs in their pelvic region.

Same for snakes. Snakes used to be legged, but now they no longer rely on them (with one species as an exception), and when you look at the lower portion of their body, you can see a fingernail like object, signifying where their legs used to be.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by DJMessiah]

Philosophically speaking, nothing can ever be proven absolutely, but only to varying degrees of probability. The existence of God is necessary for I.D. Both of these concepts are so unlikely that it is prudent to rule them out. (No, the bible is not evidence.)

The theory of Evolution on the other hand IS very probable, due to the evidence collected. It also.. fits nicely to what we observe around us.

Oh and before this is responded to i'll clear a few things up. Yes we are unlikely, that's the point. I'll use Dawkins' metaphor of climbing mount improbable to illustrate this. Furthermore to those who point out the eye as some evidence of irreducible complexity, surely something that senses light gives an advantage over a creature that does not have that capability. I.e an eye doesn't have to be fully functioning before it confers an evolutionary advantage. Lastly, those who point to this seem to overestimate the greatness of the eye, we can only see certain wavelengths for example.. why not others? if it was designed, surely it would have been better to have greater functionality?.

reply to post by the_watcher


Evolution is right in front of our eyes. Otherwise Americans would still look British, as would Australians (and obviously they don't look or sound alike). Evolution is fact, Religion is fiction.

What's next? Humans tail bones designed by God for almighty purpose! We are just creatures on a planet. I wonder if any other type 0 civilizations believe that they are the one and only created in the almighty image of some bob looking god.

reply to post by the_watcher


Can you please explain to me the existence of early archaic homo sapiens, homo erectus, homo habilis, the australopithecines, etc.

In reference to the mitochondrial "eve" hypothesis, I've never heard anybody speak of a 6500 year old date for this. In fact, when you consider the fact that Homo first started showing up in Africa around 400kya the statement you made sounds even more ridiculous and uninformed. I would suggest not relying on informaiton from a religiously biased website.

Also, you must understand that when researchers talk about the mitochondrial "eve", they are not referring to just one woman but to more of an aboriginal tribe of people. If we all sprang from just one woman, then our genes would've be shot to hell. Remeber, that's why we're not supposed to reproduce with our brothers and sisters.

To say evolution doesn't exist, or cannot be proven, means you must throw out millions of years of proven human evolution. The bodies are there.

the std question for ID proponents :

please explain the origin of ` the intelligence ` scientifically ?

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Evolution does exist, if you know where to look.

Whales and snakes both once hand hind legs.

Whales were once land animals that walked on all fours, similar to a fox, but much smaller than their size is today. Even though they evolved into sea animals, they still show traces of tiny hind legs in their pelvic region.

Same for snakes. Snakes used to be legged, but now they no longer rely on them (with one species as an exception), and when you look at the lower portion of their body, you can see a fingernail like object, signifying where their legs used to be.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by DJMessiah]

Alright then explain this to me. Scientists claim life started in water and evolved onto land. Why would whales evolve again and jump in the water? Something about that makes no sense to me.

Where does your ideas that a god has created everything comes from?? Not god himself, thats for sure. You are making things up, or rather you think that the stories in books are from god (Bibles), and thus true.

The only thing i have seen is humans this and humans that... writing bibles, telling stories, spreading the idea. Where is god? He only showed himself thousands of years ago never to be heard or seen again? IN order to believe in a gos there must acctually be a god to believe in... but so far i have failed to see anything.

*How do you know there is only one god?
*How do you know that it's your religions god that exists? You dont know.
*The belief and the stories are no better than ANY other religions or indeed fairytales.

You people have become a people of knowers, not believers. But you just think you know, as there is no proof or anything at all exept the idea and consept built around it, by other humans.

reply to post by Daniem


I don't know. I guess it's just the fact that people's near death experiences let's them see the same thing over and over again. The white light. The creator if you will. I think it makes as much sense as we came from magic dust which turned into this whole universe.

reply to post by Equinox99


Because there was a niche to be filled. There's been a major extinction roughly every 62 million years and a weaker cycle of marine extinctions every 140 million years or so. In these mass extictions up to 80% of the ocean's fauna was lost in a relatively short amount of time and up to 70% of land species. So species are either wiped out or they adapt. Holes are left in food webs and new food sources are then there to be exploited. So creatures adapt to get the food.

The oceans would either be practically empty or full of many creatures of the same species, rather than the diverse species we see today, if creatures hadn't adapted and evolved to exploit the niche that was there.