Do you have any proof of Evolution?

Question

Atheist: Do you have any proff of Evolution or are you just listening to what scientist tell you? Why do you believe them?

Answer 1

Yes. Evolution is a scientific theory. And it is one of the best, most supported theories there are. When you study the science, there is no denying the quality of the theory. I have never met someone educated on the science who didn't also accept it.

Answer 2

First some terms. Proof is not a scientific term. Proof is a term in mathematics and logic. In Science we rely on evidence, and evolution has mountains of it.

It is tough discussing science with people who don't know the basic terms. Creationists repeatedly misuse the terms.

So here goes:


A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

A fact is a statement about reality for which the evidence is so strong that to disbelieve it would be simply foolish.

A theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. For instance Human Sexual Reproduction is the theory that explains where babies come from.

A law is a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met.

Evidence is anything which effects a probability estimation.

The word proof does not appear in science.

Answer 3

Enough already, child.

The vermiform appendix is proof of evolution. Sickle-cell anemia is proof of evolution.

The first is an example of a body part which once served an important biological function, but the reason for its need having vanished, the appendix now serves no function and is steadily decreasing in size with each generation.
The second is a blood condition which once protected its people from a virulent disease. The disease orgabism went extinct but the condition continues even though it is now itself a disease. Eventually, the need for it having vanished, this genetic trait will vanish too and another evolutionary step will be taken.

Most evolutionary steps are minute. It takes a lot of such steps to produce a whole new species, but when you've got a few million years to play around in, that's ample time. And God has eternity.

Answer 4

Well, yeah; theres lodes of proof of evolution.
First off, look at fossil's. They show a clear and visible change of a species over time.
Also, look at genetics. I mean, we share about 99% of our DNA with Chimps (and thats a fact). The same can be seen with other animals who share a common ancestor (eg. rabbits and hairs; they have different body structures for different tasks, but they obviously look similar. That is because they share a common ancestor).

The list of evidence goes on. If you don't believe me, search the internet and see for yourself.

And by the way; the belief in evolution is not confined to Atheism. I'm a Christian, and believe the theory of Evolution is correct.

Answer 5

Are you really that uninformed? Have you never been to a museum or out on a geology walk? Did you sleep through your biology and other science classes?

I understand the point that your *trying* to make, but the small step to accepting facts is extremely different than that of taking something by faith.

In the case of evolution, anything that a scientist has presented, besides being critically examined by others, can be repeated, in that you can go out a fossil bed and see the progression, you can survey all of the know fossils, test for isotopes and compare the ratios. The point being it is repeatable over and over.

Answer 6

Evolution: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

How have certain species of bacteria become drug-resistant? How do flu viruses change?

Answer 7

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There are a few important things to know about biological 'evolution'...

* DNA does NOT evolve... it experiences mutations (random).

* Organisms DO NOT evolve. Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy. This is where 'natural selection' plays out. 'Survival of the fittest'... a term invented by a British newspaperman... NOT a scientist... is a complete misrepresentation of the concept of 'natural election'. It implies (and is usually interpreted to mean) faster, stronger, smarter, etc... able to take, rather than share. But what 'natural selection REALLY means is something like better camouflage... slightly better tolerance for arid conditions... a new protein that permits the use of a food source that was previously toxic to the organism... the ability of an animal to run slightly faster than its neighbor, so that it's the neighbor that gets caught and eaten by the predator... not him... etc. THAT is 'natural selection'... ANYTHING that increases the STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that an organism will survive long enough to procreate... and that is ALL that it means.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time)... NOT the organisms themselves. The foolish cartoon-version of evolution that christian/creationist puppet-masters describe to their flocks is pretty much one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.... lies such as "Evolutionists claim that an ape gave birth to the first human."

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... which is VERY easy to do. That's what happens when your 'trusted' sources are professional liars whose livlihood depends on keeping their 'flock' (sheeple) steeped in gullibility, self-delusion, ignorance and irrationality.
.

Answer 8

I -am- a scientist... A palaeobiologist to be exact.
I've seen the fossils.
I've put material through various machines you wouldn't understand if I spent all week explaining them to you.
I have seen the read-outs (neither the earth nor diagnostic equipment can lie) demonstrating the age of the fossils.
I have compared them to skeletal remains of modern species... and to older fossils. I have seen the features they share in common that they couldn't do unless one had in fact descended from the other... or in many cases from a near common ancestor.


Can I put any of that right here, right now, on this page?
No.
But then how important is proving what I already know in vast detail to someone who not only doesn't believe it but has no intention of believing it under any circumstances?
Not at all.


I know what I know.
You don't.

Let us just leave it at that.

Answer 9

Scientific theories pass through a process called peer-review. Once Intelligent Design passes through that process, it might be considered as something more than just religious propaganda.

Do you have any proof of the Theory of Relativity, or do you just accept that Einstein was correct?

A list of notable scientific theories is on the second link. Is it just evolution that you disagree with, or is it the whole list? Do you want Intelligent Falling taught instead of the Theory of Gravitation?

Answer 10

There is a vast amount of evidence to support evolution, but not absolute proof of every step from globs of amorphous proteins all the way to life as we know it now.

A theory is an explanation that fits with all known evidence.

Over time, as more evidence is collected, people compare the new evidence to the theory.

If the evidence fits in with the theory, the theory is strengthened, if not, that means that the theory needs to be revised to include the new evidence.

Please remember that gravity is also just a theory.

Scientific theories, unlike mythical creation stories have evidence to support them.