Why the claim that evolution has not, and cannot be proved..?

Question

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift.

Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited.

For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

Answer 1

Preaching to the choir!

Evolution is scientific FACT

The fundys get all confused. They don't get the difference between "Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution"

Answer 2

If you are referring to thoughtful people who would make that statement, i.e., evolution cannot be proved, I'd say the only sort of rationale they could give would be that to 'prove' something, one has to set up a tight experimental environment that could control for all variables, and see if your hypothesis is correct based on events that have not as yet happened. That was an argument the cigarette industry used to use to try to defend itself against claims cigarette smoking causes cancer, etc. They would say, "Well, to REALLY prove it, you'd have to set up an experiment and study the smokers and non-smokers. This perspective is absurd in my view. I think a problem occurs because the word 'prove' is defined differently by different people. Try Stephen Jay Gould's writings to see how he articulates this issue, especially the concept of 'provisional truth.'

Answer 3

Evolution can prove itself real easily, just have a human evolve into another species, according to evolution eventually it must happen, sure maybe in a few thousand years or so. Evolutionalists should, like Christians waiting for the rapture, just sit and wait for a human to "evolve." That is absolute proof.

Answer 4

You're right, but you do realize you're wasting your breath, right? If they invented a time machine, and you put some of these people in it and SHOWED them evolution in action, they'd still deny it. Those blinders ain't coming off for NOTHING.

Answer 5

I think people are just misled and confused...

If one of these people who emphatically reject the possibility of evolution, for example, got terminal cancer, and there was a drug that MAY help, but had not been 100% PROVEN to help...would these people try the drug? Or would they say "no, we don't have enough proof, we'll just die, thank you."

If you accept science, you accept it...and if you deny it and downplay it, then perhaps you shouldn't hypocritically take advantage of its innovations :)

Peace.

Answer 6

They won't be satisfied until they see a mouse turn into a hippo over a few dozen generations. Such is their obstinacy and rigidity.

Answer 7

Your going with the disproved embryology argument? That was shown to be false almost immediately after Haeckel "discovered" it. Try again.

Answer 8

They claim it can't be proven because that would mess with their religious god centered universe.

So they twist the truth around until it supports their views. Problem is most scientists agree that evolution is true & it's been observed and proven.

Answer 9

when people discuss evolution vs., creation, they a blinded by their own ignorance of one or the other, but never both. evolution cannot be proved since it has no absolutes on which it rests. creationism can't be accepted because it does nothing but demand belief without any evidence to support it. any arguments which result from the two views is irrelevant. one side has evidence, the other ignorant acceptance of nothing.

Answer 10

I'd love for people who deny evolution to give up all of modern medicine in protest because all recent medical advancements are thanks to evolutionary biology.

THEN we'll see how much they want to deny the reality of evolution.