How can you argue that evolution has not been experimentally demonstrated?

Question

There are plenty of evidences, but this one is my favorite and for all the times I've posted it, I have seen nobody refute it.

I contend that this is experimental confirmation of the Theory of Evolution. If you disagree, please tell me why. And please don't respond unless you've read the full paragraph under 'Confrimation' and the section on potential falsification.

======Excerpt=======
And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes
=====================

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges

Mark G.,

It most certainly does not talk about 'evolution within a speicies' in confirms the common ancestry of primates. So unless you are saying that humans and other primates are all part of the same species, then I suggest you reread the article.

Also, this is not talking about beneficial mutation. It is talking about genes that degraded over time due to the fact that the diet of primates obviated them.

zuboko, do you even understand the difference between big bang theory and the theory of evolution?

Here's a hint, one comes from teh field of astronomy and the other from the field of biology.

Answer 1

Evolution is rock solid. Period.

Answer 2

here is my answer from this question
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjXcPSN2xgjpyB6cNSwYs_zsy6IX?qid=20070205062630AAwGED8&show=7#profile-info-y2mjzgeJaa
I think it applies here as well.
" I am not afraid of the theory of evolution. I think it is the biggest joke I have ever seen. I aced biology in high school. I have watched several documentaries on the discovery channel. I under stand the Theory of Evolution and I see so many things that tell me scientists are going off of more “faith” when it comes to their under standing of the “Theory” of Evolution. The biggest problem with the Theory of Evolution is not the theory it’s self but the biased scientists who disregard all proper scientific methods and just assume that the theory they like is right.
Take for example the Big Bang theory I saw a documentary on that as well and I was appalled at the complete lack of scientific neutrality that was shown. When they first thought of the Big Bang theory they conceived of a way that they could test it, and their test returned no positive evidence, and after several different tests they decided to try and devise a new test. At that time a proper Scientist should have taken a look at their hypothesis (which is what the Big Bang theory was at that time) and asked them selves is this wrong all together, but no they never did that they only kept making up new ways to “test” their hypothesis until they could get enough tainted research to elevate their hypothesis to a theory, and the Theory of Evolution has the same problem it is being tested and supported by a bunch of fanatics who are so desperate to come up with a way to disprove God. If you ask me, based on what I have seen of the “scientific community” they are more blind and fanatical than most of the religious community, and they are certainly not deserving of the title of Scientist. A scientist will research new ideas with an unbiased perspective to find out all they can about what ever they are studying, today’s scientists (from what I have seen) study and research to prove their idea correct. That is not science."

Answer 3

Read your article, IF this proved that we once had tails, which it does not, it would still be evolution within a species. If mankind grows a sixth finger on each hand in the thousand years he is still a man. Period. Your also talking about beneficial mutation, something that rarely ever happens, and can in no way explain any species evolving to a more adaptable species.

Answer 4

Accept blind faith in a God, it requires no thinking or accountability. If plants had higher functioning they could you it.

Macaque? Mullah, my friend most of the people are zoologically inept (to say the least) that you want to engage in a debate.

Answer 5

I guess it makes sense to you. It's not really important to me. You go ahead.

Putting you trust in pseudogenes is going to get you something? Well, cool. Just what have pseudogenes promised you? You plan on taking pseudogenes to your grave? It's all yours.

When I see a Hebe that has scale-like leaves like a juniper, I don't think that a snapdragon evolved, I see God's creation. When I see a moth with false eye markings just like a bird's eyes, and it's behavior is just like a hummingbird, and it comes out in the darkest nights, I don't see evolution, I see God's work.

God promised me something; to be raised from the dead into perfection. And I'll take that to the grave. And you'll be laying in yours with pseudogenes.

Answer 6

we are All brothers and sisters