How has evolution been proven scientifically?

Question

Evolution operates on several assumptions, the first being that there is no other way to explain how life got here without a god, so it must be true by default. Many people just say that the fossil record proves evolution, but they don't realize that it doesn't actually represent intermediates between two species but dead branches that became extinct. Modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals since they sometimes lived at the same time and place as other early humans, like you might see depicted in some drawings. If changes can happen within species by chance, like different strains of bacteria, it also does not logically follow with absolute certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve into a bird or a human. Not to say that it's wrong, but you can't prove something by inductive reasoning alone.

Answer 1

There aren't any flaws. 1.) WHEN there is competition, the best win. You don't suppose the Cleveland Browns are going to be the Super Bowl champs next year, do you? If a cheetah is chasing a gazelle, the gazelle is going to be eaten. This is survival of the fittest. 2.) You have to be alive to reproduce. Dead animals don't have babies. The more "fit" you are, the longer you survive, the more babies you have. Then, the competition is tested on the new offspring. Only the most "fit" offspring survive. 3.) There is variation. You are different, but similar to your parents. You share their genes, but you aren't the same as them. This is the same for all animals. Variation is important because it shows that we DO change over time. Imagine cavemen, with their big forheads, or whatever you imagine them to be. They don't really look like us. That wasn't too long ago, compared to the billions of years life has existed. If we've already changed in the relatively short amount of time (hundreds of thousands of years), why can't we change over billions or millions of years? In another hundred thousand years, people are going to talk about how hairy and brute looking we were. 4.) Mutations exist. It's proven, observed, everything. Some mutations are common. This introduces new genes into the gene pool. Evolution is often seen as being driven by some force, or something. It isn't. It's just what happens. There are winners and losers, and if the consequence of winning is the passing of genes, competition to survive gets harder each generation. By the way, humans don't compete to survive, so we aren't involved in natural selection. There is no "rule", it's not like we have to enforce natural selection. Many people believe this for some reason.

Answer 2

>Evolution operates on several assumptions, the first being that >there is no other way to explain how life got here without a god, >so it must be true by default.

The concept of evolution does not necessitate believing anything about the ultimate origins of life.

>Many people just say that the fossil record proves evolution, but >they don't realize that it doesn't actually represent >intermediates between two species but dead branches that >became extinct.

There certainly are branches that became extinct, what is your point?

>Modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals since they >sometimes lived at the same time and place as other early >humans, like you might see depicted in some drawings.

So modern humans and neanderthals then both evolved from a common ancestor.

> If changes can happen within species by chance, like different >strains of bacteria, it also does not logically follow with absolute >certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of >years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve >into a bird or a human. Not to say that it's wrong, but you can't >prove something by inductive reasoning alone.

No, but you can prove it with other experiments. Why don't you read up a a little more on it? Natural selection makes sense.

Answer 3

Has Evolution Been Proven

Answer 4

"there is no other way to explain how life got here without a god"
Numerous hypotheses have been put forth and all are as untestable as saying God did it. When life arose or was created, it forever altered the environment erasing the medium in which it arose. Unless a sequestrum of the primordial soup is found, all is speculation.

"the fossil record... dead branches that became extinct"
The fact that there are many dead end branches is wholly consistent with evolution, but the rise of phyla over time is clearly demonstrated. You say it like it was not a well known fact. Of course, your argument is only statistical, and any non-juvenile fossil potentially is a direct ancestor of a living creature, unless demonstrated otherwise, a critical fact you omitted. Either way, the limits of the fossil evidence do not erase it.

"Modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals since they sometimes lived at the same time and place..."
Since you raised the dead end branch argument, I'm not going to let you backtrack and deny the logic now. "Modern" humans, Cro Magnon man, and late Neanderthals could have descendeded from early Neanderthals. The late Neanderthals, became a "dead branch". By your own logic, your argument is wholly spurious.

"If changes can happen within species by chance, like different strains of bacteria, it also does not logically follow with absolute certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve into a bird or a human."
Of course not. Evolution is not a directed process. That argument is rhetoric without an iota of proof, and entails numerous assuptions. Further, the argument is inductive, and ignores the presence of complex organisms. Since you argue against assumptions and pure induction, you could only have placed it there for rhetorical, not factual or logical purpose.

Evolution is a well documented theory and is nearly as complete as gravity. Both have gaps and experimental limits, but I don't expect to go flying off the Earth anytime soon.

Answer 5

Evolution doesn't assume anthing about the beginning of life. The fossil record is chock full of transitional species - tens of thousands of them (paleontologist here so I know you're lying). And, no, modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals!, but we still could have lived in the same place AFTER speciation anyway if we had. Wow you are a fool aren't you.

No-one says it "logically follows with absolute certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve into a bird or a human" just because "changes can happen within species by chance". WTF!! There is a huge mountain of evidence for evolution (which you obviously don't have a clue about), and none against it. I suggest you actually look in to it.

But you're clearly not interested in a real answer, just lying to fellow bigoted head-in-the-sanders, or you would 'ask' this in the science section.

Answer 6

This would take a VERY long answer, but let's start with your concept of "intermediates" as opposed to what you call "dead branches." (The very use of which might convict you of already believing in some major aspects of evolution.) What would you accept as an "intermediate?" Or better, what is NOT an "intermediate?" If by the end you find yourself defining "dead ends" as necessarily all that is in the fossil record, then you've created your own self-serving definition. If you can jump over this compulsion, then you'll see that indeed a lot of the fossil record is the physical correlative of the "inductive reasoning."

Of course, one can always assume, as I've read from those made a bit skittish by the latest physical discoveries, that "it's all a hoax!"

Answer 7

Evolution says nothing about God or necessarily about how life got here-it deals with biological adaptation of species. The fossil record is complete for many entire species-the problem creationists have is that we only need one or two species showing evolutionary change to prove the fact of biological evolution-there are in fact several hundred complete or almost complete records. Why focus on humans-there are 5 million classified species-if evolution is shown to occur in them then it must occur in humans also so forget mankind which is only one species. Changes don't happen by chance they happen as a result of environmental pressures stimulating adaptation in species. I've just exposed virtually every argument you made as a falsehood-why do creationists do this-it is complete and utter intellectual dishonesty masquerading as the truth. Give it up and accept the unquestionable fact of evolution.

Answer 8

"The fossil record shows transitional forms, the kind that the theory of evoltuion predicts should have existed."

Never. Not one example has ever been found. EVER.

"Evolution is proved by the evidence."

I am a micro biologist and I can tell you with full confidence that there is NO EVIDENCE, ANYWHERE, EVER. People, we call it "Evolutionary Theory" for a reason. Because it is a THEORY, nothing more. The idea that it is "proved" is laughable at best (besides the grammar). Type, "Evolution Proven?", into a search engine and see what happens. Should I even bring up the problems with Carbon Dating? Nevermind..............

Answer 9

Oh boy. First off, evolution has nothing to do with how life started. The fossil record is not only very complete, but it shows many different transitional species. There is way more evidence then what you bring up, and some of your arguments are a little off. For example, it is thought that homo neanderthalis and homo erectus lived at the same time. It is thought that either neanderthals and erectus interbred to create humans, or neanderthals died off and erectus evolved into humans.

For a really good, quick article on evolution, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

Answer 10

Evolution says nothing about the beginning of life at all.

Second, a huge number of intermediary fossils are found on a regular basis -- none had been found during Darwin's day, but his theory prompted him to predict that they would be found. Sure enough, they have been.

Homo sapiens did not evolve from neanderthalis (sp), Neanderthalis was genetically similiar enough, however, that the two species were able to breed.

Further, you're correct about inductive logic. It is a probablistic logic, not proof. However, not even gravity's mechanism has been proven, even though it's a fairly good guess that gravity works. We know that relativity, though fairly accurate, is wrong, because it cannot be reconciled with quantum gravity. That means our understanding of the process is wrong, that that the process doesn't exist.