Prove Evolution?

Question

I want someone to prove evolution. I bet i can prove them wrong, right back.

Answer 1

Here's the "proof" you're looking for, several links on retroviral invasion on the primate genome. This "proof" is as solid as any DNA evidence used in courts today. This is NOT about the fact that primates "share all but 2%-3% of DNA sequences", but that primates (including us) share endogenous viral elements that could only be explained by common descent, i.e., we're all blood relatives. Want to try to prove this wrong? Do your best. If you're able to "prove it wrong", you should submit a paper to scientific journals.

Answer 2

nicely, no longer being a creationist, yet nevertheless a believing Christian, i think such as you're lacking the boat from the Christian perspective. To many Christians (extremely people who might finally end up as creationists) the Bible is the common, which ability no rely if it incredibly is interior the Bible, no different data is needed, no rely if it incredibly is isn't, and conflicts with the Bible, then that is not any longer genuine. that's what a typical is, by ability of definition- that is like a ruler or a protractor- any perspective that the protractor would not degree as ninety stages isn't ninety stages. although, you will desire to word that many people, some even very hassle-free and otherwise good scientists, purchase into into creationism or smart layout. Creationists and smart layout persons DO many times and long discourse on why those theories are genuine and evolution isn't. i think they're incorrect, yet I nevertheless have confidence in a private God, and nevertheless have confidence interior the Bible interior the main literal way that is taken devoid of making the earth in basic terms approximately 7000 years old. In different words, you have only in basic terms been uncovered to the anti-evolution propaganda, do no longer problem, finally you will see the different kinds obtainable. the main extreme concern for many creationist media is only to solid doubt upon evolution- to no longer look for converts yet to guard the religion of those already converted. which ability the preserving the Biblical account isn't precedence, trashing the 'conflicting' account is. besides, take it as you will, yet i comprehend, as beneficial or greater actual as i comprehend that creationism is bunk, that God exists, is own, and cares on the subject of the people on Planet Earth. The greater Biology, Chemistry, and Physics I learn, the greater specific i'm of it. And having study the different solutions now, I trust the man who suggested posting in Spirituality. Sorry if I led to any disharmony myself, no belligerent intent on my area.

Answer 3

It is impossible to prove either Evolution or anything other than Evolution such as intelligent design since both ideas have scientific data that support them. This would be a lost cause question can only go back and forth.

Answer 4

Your confidence in your ability to disprove evolution is guaranteed to be based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution ... as you apparently don't understand even the *basics* of science.

You "prove" things in mathematics, not science.

This is because things in mathematics depend entirely on rational logic. But things in science depend on *evidence*.

So you are showing that you don't know how science works if you ask for "proof" rather than "evidence."

So with a total misunderstanding of even the basics of science, I absolutely *guarantee* that your belief that you can take a theory accepted by 98% of the world's scientists, and "prove them wrong" ... is probably based on a completely WRONG understanding of evolution.

For example, I'll bet you can't even write down a correct sentence that starts "Evolution is ..."

Answer 5

Flu shots. You get a new flu shot every year because the influenza virus changes to become immune to last year's vaccine. That is a change in the gene pool over time. That is exactly what the definition of evolution is.

proven.

Answer 6

I think it's unfair to argue against such a forcefull personality. Besides, everytime someone looks at you our greatest arguments fail. How could that have evolved from anything? I concede to your point. Well done.

Answer 7

answer this, who was Cains wife? and don't say it was his sister or cousin, god is against incest. If all he created was Adam and Eve then how did he get a wife? It is therefor impossible for you not to believe in evolution.

Answer 8

if you wish to discuss evolution I believe that you are thinking of countering with intellegent design however if my friend won't mind me taking one of his lines "look at your design is that intellegent, I find it rather interesting you have a waste processing plant right next to an entertainment area." and if you wish to argue with me click on my picture and send me an e-mail.

Answer 9

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

Answer 10

alright argue this! polar bears are in the north pole b/c they can only stand the cold. so if we r to say the polar bears were in mexico, there generation would of died. so basically the polar bears are in the cold places b/c they survived there.