There are alot of claims from people that say "There is not proof of Evolution." People say that because they've heard it, and it sounds good. So, I'll ask you now, would you like to see the proof with your own eyes? If you saw it, would you believe. I'll post some things in a few minutes when I get a feel for the responses. But honestly, if there was proof, incontrovertable proof, would you still say there was none? I'm not trying to be patronizing, I just want to get a feel for this.
2007-05-17 08:17:21 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ivy, I agree, as the term "proof" is often equated with "law," and fallaciously used in people trying to debate evolution. However I chose that term, simply in a Langua Franca, colloquialism sort of way. Your point is well taken though.
2007-05-17 08:25:08 · update #1
Pinelake
I've seen those so-called "mathematical" "proofs" being touted on the internet. Anyone of them that doesn't make a mathematical mistake makes HUGE mistakes in assumptions and methadology. Please post a link, and an e-mail address and i'll get back to you on it.
2007-05-17 08:27:29 · update #2
If I could send you all copies of Discover magazine and Nature, I would, they're much more acessable. The best online resources I've found is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Big suprise it's a talk origins site no? Anyway, that one requires a whole heck of a lot of reading. From the responses, hopefully people wanting to know more will put in the time and learn. If not, e-mail me, same as my Y!A name, just @yahoo.com, and we'll discuss specific issues you may have.
2007-05-17 08:35:05 · update #3
PineLake302
...You can't be serious. Chuck Missler? Noted plagiarist Chuck Missler?
Look up the LA Times article "Question of Attribution" July 30, 1992, by Roy Rivenburg. And note, the LA Times is a very conservative paper, so let's not go down the "liberal media" road.
This is the same Chuck Missler that "disproves" evolution with a jar of peanut butter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
This is the guy you're going to cite as a source?
Here's a guy who spent way too much time watching Missler's video, and bothered to debunk some logical fallicies.
http://www.sarangworld.com/biblefuc.php3
Maybe not the best of "authorities" to cite.
2007-05-17 10:03:26 · update #4
Yes... EVERYONE understanding science will say that...
IN SCIENCE, "proof" is nothing, EVIDENCE IS EVERYTHING.
*Your* attitude went out in back 1905, when Einstein overthrew Newton's "Laws"! ... "Incontrovertable Proof"? - Pffffft!
2007-05-17 08:20:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you like mathematical and molecular proof that evolution is NOT possible?
Or don't you believe in math or molecules either?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR YOU:
I am not using any mathematical information from the Internet. My information comes from Chuck Missler a man very well known about such things.
2007-05-17 08:23:24 · answer #2 · answered by pinelake302 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"this version or micro-evolution in case you opt to call it that, isn't data for the place the information got here from interior the 1st place." The lizards comprise a sparkling trait, no longer got here upon in any respect, interior the unique specimens. "How do all of us understand the transformations that we did no longer see in different animals had to take thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years while right this is experimental data that transformations can take place right away and those transformations are as a results of gene swapping and not randomness." those lizards have a extremely short lifespan. Many generations, with many ranging offspring, can produce transformations like that. "we can calculate this interior the reality that a million in10 billion value mutations could desire to no longer make this alteration in a inhabitants of 5,000 in 30 years." nicely first, i do no longer think of "a million in10 billion value mutations" is precise. additionally, there transformations different than component mutations which could ensue. Regardless, make those numbers as small as you elect. as long as something has a guess greater beneficial than 0, it could nevertheless take place.
2016-11-24 19:15:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would want proof however I have always felt that science and religion go hand in hand. God created and gave us logic and reason to find out the how and why. Having found out that we evolved from something doesnt take away our divinity which I believe is why some are uncomfortable with that thought.
2007-05-17 08:24:02 · answer #4 · answered by H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was a religious follower for years, but after studying physics in the last few years, i have changed my opinion a bit. The numbers that support the 'Big Bang' are fairly indisputable. Long story short, i tend to follow the evidence when it comes to historical and cosmic events.
2007-05-17 08:22:35 · answer #5 · answered by digitalwrangler 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I honestly can't understand why a "show me proof" person would ever ask the question twice, since they are always shown plenty of proof.
2007-05-17 08:20:11 · answer #6 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is proof. There is no debate in biology about it at all. Not a single paper against the big idea in at least 80 years.
So that is your answer. It would be just like it is now....
2007-05-17 08:20:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would be delighted to compare notes with you on this. I have constructed such a proof myself, and can send it to anyone who provides a real e-mail address.
2007-05-17 08:21:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Evolution is a fact (and a theory) - not a proven fact. No scientific theory is a proven fact - not even the theory of gravity.
2007-05-17 08:21:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
proof proof proof STOP saying that word. It should be stricken from the English language.
2007-05-17 08:20:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋