There is no proof Evolution has ever taken place!?

Question

There is no proof Evolution has ever taken place. I asked in a previous question if anyone knew of any solid proof that Evolution had ever taken place. I was given many varied answers. Most of them basing it on adaption rather than Evolution. The evolving of one species into another, to the point both species now not being able to mate with one another. This has never happened. The fossil record does not prove this which was Darwins best evidence at the time, which later he acknowledged as an embarassment. However now with the amount of data we have there are no evidence of evolution still. Yet people still believe, almost like a religion. Even W R Thompson the director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Canada who wrote the Intro to the centennial edition of Darwins Origin of the Species wrote that this book offers no conclusion and is mearly one mans theory, which it remains to this day. Comments welcome, other theories too.

Science cannot produce life from nothing which is a requirement for evolution. The odds of it happening are so little scientist acknowledge it as being impossible. So where did we come from?

I never said creation was fact. Genesis is also a theory which is also a religion, like Evolution. If anything Genesis makes more sense than evolution. It answers the questions which Moses who wrote it could not have known at the time.

PS I am an atheist. These things just interest me.

There are no changes in the fossil record proving evolution. Animals adapt not evolve. I would love to believe in evolution but there are too many large gaps and flaws.

Roger, I am sure if a video existed which proved chimps changing in to humans then it would be public knowledge and proof that evolution existed. Roger, read a book.

Again, answers of adaption. Please stop mixing them up. Species adapt to duit there environment, we all know that is fact. However evolution is the changing of species to another species over time. The fossil record shows no proof of this. If it did then you would see animals change and, ie a fish with partial legs and arms. This has never happened and this is what Charles Darwin based his book on. Face it people evolutionists hoping that is exists as that would be an easy explanation. The theory of Evolution is after all a theory. If proof existed it would be called Evolution, the truch, fact!

Read into adaption and evolution folks before answering. I thought that adaption was the same as evolution. It is not. Animals adapt to their environment. They have the same DNA just with the small adaption change. The DNA which produces the basis os life never changes. After all I will say again, EVOLUTION IS STILL A THEORY! If it were proven it would be fact. So for the people who have been brain washed by their college buddies giving smart daft comments, get a mind of your own and think for yourself. If someone tells you something, question it. Don't just believe it and tell everyone else it is fact. If evolution actually exists then where are all the missing links. There would have been proof decovered by now.

I too also have thought about the theory that we are in a Big Brother style environment and we are part of an experiment, again a theory believed by some. Until science and produce the amino acids required for life and creat life from nothing then I am stumped.

Answer 1

You are absolutely correct.
In fact there is much evidence against evolution.
If evolution were true then the proponents above would cite evidence instead of bluster and unscientific attacks.

One big problem is information.
Evolution is the hypothesis that animals can change into different kinds of animals by means of natural selection working on genetic mutations.
These alleged mutations need to add genetic information. However no such genetic mutation has ever been observed. Mutations are information neutral or lossy.
'But evolution is too slow to see' protest the evolutionists. Well then it's not observable and not worthy of being even called a theory. In any case, time is the enemy - mutations are resulting in the degradation of the gene pool - that is observable.

So you are correct that evolution is not real. It is best described as the religion of secular humanists.

It is easily refuted by the moderately diligent student.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3302/106/

I can hardly believe some of the nonsense above.
The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999. This idea is an example of evolutionary philosophy being a hindrance to scientific progress.

Answer 2

Evolution can only be proved by watching a species change over time. As Science is a relatively new thing in the history of the world Its hard to do but there is one example I can think of.
Have you ever walked around an old stately home? Ever noticed how short the beds are?
People, even 500 years ago were on average at least a foot shorter. So the human race is getting naturally taller and stronger. I would consider that a small evolutionary change.

Modern humans had to start somewhere though. If evolution from apes is not the answer then what is?
I agree there is no definitive proof that evolution is the key but its the most likely answer.
Is to adapt not to evolve? its the same thing. Adaptations create new sub-species.

Answer 3

the only "evolution" witnessed is microevolution, changes within as species. There have been no "transitional" species found, ever. And if you are intelligent enough, you should know that, some species have organs that others do not. Insects for instance, dont have a liver, or spleen, so while transforming, how did the insect survive during the change with half a liver, etc. Also, the law of entrophy indicates that all matter wolud have dissolved millions of years ago. The theory of evolution is not a science because science is observation and repetition and getting the same result. Has anyone observed a fish transform into a bird, any recorded data on the observation in the past. So evolution cannot be proven by scientific method, so how do you consider it science? It is a belief just as creationism is due to neither has been observed or proven scientifically, with the scientific method.

Answer 4

Change in a species over time is evolution. Speciation isn't a transformation from one species to one other species: it's a separation of one species into two species. The origin of life is a whole 'nother question.

If you ask one question, don't be surprised at not getting answers to two other questions.

As I said before, molecular biology is the best evidence for evolution. The genetics of various species is as would be expected if they had common ancestors in roughly the pattern inferred from their phenotypes. The molecular mechanisms of life are very similar across all taxa, with the differences being such that they make sense when considered from an evolutionary perspective.

Developmental biology provides further evidence. Embryos of various species are often more similar to each other than adults are, with the pattern of similarities and differences making sense in terms of common ancestors but making no sense in terms of separate creation.

--

Quote:
"Science cannot produce life from nothing which is a requirement for evolution. The odds of it happening are so little scientist acknowledge it as being impossible."
(end quote)

It is essentially impossible for any particular protein to have formed randomly, but there is no specific protein that's required. Deal yourself a hand of bridge. It's essentially impossible that you'll wind up with all the spades in north's hand, all the hearts in east, and so on. But whatever hand you deal, it's just as unlikely as that one.

Likewise, if you can show that the origin of life by some proposed mechanism requires a specific sequence of DNA or protein to have been assembled randomly, you've refuted that proposed mechanism. But real proposed mechanisms are more like saying that some time in a tournament there's a hand where north can bid a slam.

--

Proof is for mathematical theorems. Propositions about the real world have evidence.

A theory is not the same as a guess or a hypothesis. A theory has coherent logical structure and explains a lot of different things. Special relativity is a theory. Quantum electrodynamics is a theory. Creationism is not a theory.

Answer 5

I think evolution is as yet a quasi-theory, work in progress if you like. Unfortunately due to the scarce and fragmentary nature of the fossil record it may never be concluded. The best that can be said is based on the evidence that natural selection and gene mutation happen, then evolution COULD explain the origin of life and its development on earth. The default position that if any holes or discrepancies exist is an argument for creationism or ID simply is nonsense. For example, the argument that a watch requires a maker is valid, but to extend that to the whole of the complexity and organisation of living things is a fallacy. This is to infer that a conclusion based on a relationship between particular cases applies to the whole- invalid logic. Their argument about the marvellous complexity of the eye as intelligent design falls down too. Intermediate developments of this organ can and have been shown to fulfil alternative functions. The argument of the creationists is to start from the premise that life is the work of a creator and then interpret all the evidence to justify this hypothesis is the scientific method in reverse. We do not have 'faith' in evolution or any other scientific theory, merely 'trust' that our sense perceptions and reason are competent. Otherwise to employ a theistic argument, why would we have been given these capacities in the first place??.

Answer 6

This is going to sound really daft but after being an X Files fan since the beginning I thought the epiodes entitled Sixth Extinction were more credible than anything. Yes I know it was fiction but the basis of it was pretty sound. Also reading about the Mayans adds to my theory of all life on earth being extra terrestrial in the beginning.
I am not religious and not a scientist, I just get my opinions from different sources and whack them together. They make sense to me even if it sounds mad to everyone else!

My theory makes as much sense as evolution, religion or any idea anyone comes up with. None of it can conclusively be proved and to be honest why do so many people keep on going on about and spending millions trying to prove one theory right and the other wrong. Does it all really really matter at the end of the day, it wouldn't make any difference to me if i found out I was evolved from an ape or that I was God's creation and it was proved 100%, I would still live my life the same way.

Answer 7

What I don't understand is how someone who claims to be a believer in the Creator, whether they be Muslim Jew or Christian can at the same time believe that a theory written by one man, is true!
It's adaptation and it's a subject I've been fascinated with for over 40 years. I've known some Evolutionists claim that our ability to change a domestic animal is proof of the theory but again it only proves adaptation, a wild boar can mate with a domestic pig, a wild dog or wolf with a domestic dog (a common practise nowadays)or a wild cat with a domestic moggy. They don't change into a different species, they adapt to the environment or are forced by us to do so and Mutation in size, colour or temperament takes a few generations to become established and then you get a new breed of canine, feline or equine. I find it hard to believe that it's all accidental as Evolution would suggest. After all the ameoba is still around, why if something bigger and better 'evolved'? Evolution theory is also based on Darwin's 'survival of the fittest'!!!
Perhaps we are all nothing more than another creatures (call him God if you like) biology experiments. A bit like the way we create a fish tank, put in the things you know the fish need, add fish various species then leave them to get on with it and occasionally look in the tank to see how they are doing.
Think it's about time this creator took a look at his 'tank' don't you? One of his 'fish' is killing the others and destroying the tank!

Answer 8

Is not adaptation over a long period of time evolution?

Will we not have changed in 5,000 years compared to out looks today.

I don't think it was argued in Darwin's time that DNA changed, just what it was producing.

Bonobo's are'nt chimps.

I guess the thing left out is survivable mutations..... This can change so much more than adaptation of generations. If the mutation happens to be beneficial and transferrable, will it not change the original species it is breeding into? The DNA will be somewhat different but still pairable for mating........ Positive mutations over time could be a form of selective evolution.

By the time I wrote the above, you had already gotten some fanatical replys:-)

Anyway, I think good mutations make for good evolution.

Answer 9

Well, what you say appears to be convincing because sequential fossil records are not available. I mean all the "frames" of one species changing into another is not available as such changes did not take place in a short period of time. These events have spread over millions of years and the fossil records of transit species are not available. What we see are the end products "the surviving fittest of the lot". Perhaps the transit species were the weaklings and were lost without leaving recordable fossils - may be.
We still know very little of genesis but cross breeding is not a fiction, however the question could be the whether the offspring can proceed further along the lineage or not? May be not always or may be through the process of adaptation over millions of years.
thnks

Answer 10

Well there are examples of evolution even within us. These would be called vestiges, such as the appendix. It once had served a purpose to our ancestors, but now that it has become useless to us it has grown smaller, and is capable of being removed from the body with no ill effects. This is seen in the animal kingdom as well, such as with whales having vestigial legs bones in their body. If God did it, then why would he just randomly throw in extra useless parts?