Is there one TRUE proven fact that would prove evolution correct?

Question

I would like to hear your answers...without contradicting yourself. Ready set go.

Answer 1

Science doesn't work that way. It is NEVER a single fact that "proves" some scientific theory correct. NEVER. EVER.

Go back to how Copernicus and Galileo showed that the sun was the center of the solar system, not the earth. This was a long list of *MANY* facts (the peculiar motions of the planets, the fact that they seem to go *backwards* (retrograde) across the sky at times, the discovery of moons around Jupiter, the phases of Venus, the precession of the Earth, the transits of Venus and Mercury, the increasing difficulty of predicting alignments and eclipses using the earth-centered model,

... etc. etc.).

All of these facts *TOGETHER* showed that a model with the sun at the center was a FAR simpler model, and both explained and predicted things better, than any other model.

And even then we never say that it "proved" that the sun was at the center ... only that it provided the far better explanation.

The same is true of evolution. It is not a *single* fact ... it is a huge collection of MANY facts. (The structures of fossils, the locations and depths in the rock layers where fossils are found, the dating of the fossils using several different methods, the shared DNA between living species, junk DNA, proteins, vestigial structures, homologous structures, atavisms, the way embryos develop, structures that appear during development and disappear, the locations of species on the planet,

... etc. etc.).

Many, many, many different facts that *TOGETHER* point to evolution as the best *scientific* (i.e. testable) theory that explains all these facts.

It's not just one fact.

Are you actually interested in those facts? The facts that have led scientists *overwhelmingly* to support evolution? Or have you already made up your mind that *ANY* fact presented does not "prove" evolution?

Answer 2

Science does not work this way. There is no way to prove that the entire universe was not created 5 minutes ago just for your personal amusement. You were created with the memory of what you ate for breakfast today, what you watched on tv last night, etc.

Science develops theories that have predictive value. If you understand the theory (and it is a good theory), you can organize knowledge into logical systems that help explain why the world works the way it does. There is a huge amount of observations that support the theory of evolution. If the bible were literally true and the universe was only 6000 years old, you would have to believe that the speed of light is different now than it was 6000 years ago. You would have to believe that geologic processes today happen at a much different rate than they did 6000 years ago. You would have to believe that the world worked in a very different way because the evidence we have for how the universe works comes from physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, botany, nuclear radioactivity, geology, astronomy, archeology, and many other sciences.

It is possible that god created the earth 6000 years ago and planted all the evidence that makes it look like it is much older. No way to prove that did not happen but no way for you to prove that you were not created 5 minutes ago with all the evidence that you take as your life planted the same way. But is that logical? I think not.

Good luck to you

Answer 3

Nowadays, people will believe in evolution without actually understanding it. I suppose that we can prove it to the same extent that we can prove most things such as The Dinosaurs being wiped out be a meteorite, Global Warming and Physics. They fill in the blanks with completely understandable explanations.

Let me give you the scoop;
All life is made up of cells. These cells have their own strings ow DNA. When such cells divide, their DNA is read and this reading is used to copy the cell. Usually, this is done perfectly, however sometimes tiny mistakes are made. This is proven.

Now, such mistakes aren't aimed in any direction. It's not like the direction of evolution is actually decided. When changes in an organism's DNA are beneficial to its survival, it will have a greater chance to mate and pass on its DNA than its unevolved counterparts. This process is called natural selection. Over the millennia, inferior life is wiped out, leaving only evolved creatures.

Natural selection is very useful in proving evolution. You can breed the best qualities in livestock to produce superior stock. This doesn't take nearly as much time, but serves as a smaller example of evolution at work.

In summary: Evolution isn't aimed, animals constantly mutate and Natural Selection picks of weaker creatures

Answer 4

There is no such thing as "proven" in scientific terms for theories. A theory is a theory. It is a high level explanation on phenomena. And the theory of evolution is a very highly supported theory. There is so much evidence, that the only people I have met that didn't accept the theory where either ignorance to the science, or they simply refused the science. For example, some people simply thing science is controlled by the devil to look like things are old. Or they simply don't understand the science, like what the definition of a theory is.

Answer 5

a) Variant alleles are inherited.
b) Variant alleles may be produced by mutation.
c) A variant phenotype may provide its bearer with a reproductive advantage or disadvantage.

By these mechanisms, you have progeny that are not identical to parents. You also have a means of increasing, or decreasing, the percentage of individuals in a population who bear the variant allele.

This is "microevolution" -- evolution, science fact.

Answer 6

In my few meager years of college we have always defined Evolution as genetic change in a population. The easiest way to show this is to drop some Penecillin in a culture of bacteria. Most of the bacteria will die but a few will be left to reporduce. When they reproduce their offspring are also resistant to penecillin. That would definately qualify as genetic change in a population. this is microevolution

As far as macroevolution... I can offer nothing to show its existence. The concepts have been jammed in my head for a few years now but I disagree with most of them

Answer 7

Evolution ( or microevolution) is effectively proven fact.
Proving evolution cannot disprove "creationism" or "intelligent design"
Remember the martian meteorite hubbub about ten years ago ( spacerock with possible fossils)- it was potentially an indication of "panspermia" ( life originating from outer space) NASA scientists were all excited.

When someone gets life to form in a test tube I'll buy the whole enchilada...until then keep an open mind and a good heart....you'd be suprised how many Biology PhDs go to religious services of one type or another........

Answer 8

Oh guy you adult males are blind. you do not understand evolution, shown brilliantly including your ridiculous sentence "I appeared everywhere online and yet have not stumbled on something approximately an ape giving start to a human or any species giving start to a distinctive species." attempt examining yet another e book, you're unlikely to discover all your solutions in only one.

Answer 9

The Talk.origins archives have a lot of examples.

Answer 10

There is no way to absolutely prove evolution just like there is no way to absolutely prove that God exists.