Science Proves Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Siberian_Khatru said:
I don't know about anyone else that read/will read that, but the article made me laugh near the end.
So let us break things down for you! :p The title is a bit misleading too. There was no counter proof; only a "most plausible hypothesis".[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Again, people from multiple faiths have NDE's. So what? That would mean there's a heaven
for everyone no matter what you believe. What about the people that almost died and had no
spiritual experience? I was in a very bad rollover car accident but didn't ever see a "white
light" or anything.
 
SarahM777 said:
You do understand that peer review is nothing more then a bunch of people who for the most part already agree with each and they end up patting each other on the back,and saying good job. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And where are the creationist papers/journals that have been peer reviewed by actual scientists?
 
Crucifiction said:
It's called peer review. :cool:
Click to expand...

Did you provide one? I didn't see one anywhere. I have a Master's in English and I know all about Peer reviews. That's just people reviewing others of their profession to make sure all references line up, all the facts are in order, etc. But these "peers" are all human beings capable of error just like the person they're reviewing. Besides, you're acting as if the entire scientific world agrees with this, or that they're all in accord that this fellow's assertions absolutely prove everything he is claiming. All you provided here was a lazy comeback. The fact that you're obviously proud of yourself in spite of this fact reveals your immaturity, not to mention your inability to understand the point this "Christabel" was making.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are at least eleven areas of study and empirical data supporting the Theory of Evolution. They are:
* Paleontology (fossils)
* Distribution of Animals and Plants
* Comparative Anatomy
* Embryology
* Vestigial Organs
* Genetics
* Natural Selection
* Sexual Selection
* Molecular Biology
* Bad Design
* Lab Experiments

The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease.
 
Before anyone champions peer review, please have a look at this old story by HG Wells: H. G. Wells' short story: The Country of the Blind

The keys to the debate are

1. what is the real evidence? If you believe the statements of the Bible are fact, you suddenly have a different set of evidence, so you will get a different theory.

2. Does our culture really know how to think? Ancient metaphysics would list dozens of theories, and rule them out one-by-one. We get two theories on the table, and start arguing. I do not believe we have even listed many possibilities that could account for all the evidence brought forward so far in evolution/creation, or geo/terra-centrism, or even fundamental unified field theory.
 
Crucifiction said:
And where are the creationist papers/journals that have been peer reviewed by actual scientists?
Click to expand...

Why are you surprised that creationist papers would even be included in the peer review to begin with,due to the fact that the peer review is already skewed to accepting evolution as fact,never mind that there is no real proof to begin with. It is not based on seeing what is actually there and what can actually be proven from the evidence. The peer review is biased to begin with.
 
[h=2]29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Introduction[/h]
E.gif
volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
[h=2]Outline[/h][TABLE="class: outline, width: 1322"]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Introduction
Scientific Evidence and the Scientific MethodPhylogenetics introduction
[/TD]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
  1. Unity of life
  2. Nested hierarchies
  3. Convergence of independent phylogenies
  4. Transitional forms
  5. Chronology of common ancestors
[/TD]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 2. Past history
  1. Anatomical vestiges
  2. Atavisms
  3. Molecular vestiges
  4. Ontogeny and developmental biology
  5. Present biogeography
  6. Past biogeography
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
  1. Anatomical parahomology
  2. Molecular parahomology
  3. Anatomical convergence
  4. Molecular convergence
  5. Anatomical suboptimal function
  6. Molecular suboptimal function
[/TD]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 4. Molecular evidence
  1. Protein functional redundancy
  2. DNA functional redundancy
  3. Transposons
  4. Redundant pseudogenes
  5. Endogenous retroviruses
[/TD]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 5. Change
  1. Genetic
  2. Morphological
  3. Functional
  4. The strange past
  5. Stages of speciation
  6. Speciation events
  7. Morphological rates
  8. Genetic rates
Closing remarks[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​
[h=3]What is Universal Common Descent?[/h]
U.gif
niversal common descent is the hypothesis that all known living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one ancient, original species (broadly defined as a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material). Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below.[h=3]Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories[/h]In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address howmacroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.[h=3]What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?[/h]Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 150+ years of intense scientific investigation.It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.[h=3][/h]
 
Crucifiction said:
There are at least eleven areas of study and empirical data supporting the Theory of Evolution. They are:
* Paleontology (fossils)
* Distribution of Animals and Plants
* Comparative Anatomy
* Embryology
* Vestigial Organs
* Genetics
* Natural Selection
* Sexual Selection
* Molecular Biology
* Bad Design
* Lab Experiments

The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease.
Click to expand...

There are two kinds of evolution. I've not seen you mention that. There are macro and micro. Micro is simply adaptation. Macro involves the evolution of a new species. Micro obviously is happening all around us constantly. Macro is not. The only macro type of evolution anyone has ever born witness to in human history is that of certain kinds of mold and bacteria. I think those type are a bit different than more complicated lifeforms. There is no absolute evidence anywhere at anytime that one species evolved into another or produced an entirely new species-- except in something simplistic as mold.

I've always wondered: if evolution is true, which came first; the heart or the lungs, or was it the brain? Hm. But wait. Since no organ can survive without both the brain and heart together, I guess they came first... together? Just the two of them? Nah, need those lungs too. But wait, how we gonna support them without energy, as in food? Nah. This equation just plain ain't gonna work.

Ok, I see you just copy/pasted an article. "Theory" is the operative word here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vestarena said:
There are two kinds of evolution. I've not seen you mention that. There are macro and micro. Micro is simply adaptation. Macro involves the evolution of a new species. Micro obviously is happening all around us constantly. Macro is not. The only macro type of evolution anyone has ever born witness to in human history is that of certain kinds of mold and bacteria. I think those type are a bit different than more complicated lifeforms. There is no absolute evidence anywhere at anytime that one species evolved into another or produced an entirely new species-- except in something simplistic as mold.

I've always wondered: if evolution is true, which came first; the heart or the lungs, or was it the brain? Hm. But wait. Since no organ can survive without both the brain and heart together, I guess they came first... together? Just the two of them? Nah, need those lungs too. But wait, how we gonna support them without energy, as in food? Nah. This equation just plain ain't gonna work.
Click to expand...

I've just posted 29+ evidences of macroevolution. Just because you don't understand how a heart or
lung could evolve doesn't automatically mean a rib created an entire woman.

Early life experiment
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
This is the usual argument. But it fails in one simple way.

Example: the Bible says Jesus fed 12,000 people by praying over 7 loaves of bread. hypothesis: Jesus fed 12 people with bread He had saved for Himself, and people kept bragging about it until it became 12,000. Experiment to test hypothesis: Hire a stage magician to magically produce 12 sandwiches, then verify from other stories that retelling does inflate stories. At best, you have proven that is what might have happened. You did not prove this is what did happen.

No amount of experimental evidence of what works today is valid to prove creation, for the simple reason, that IF God created the world in six days, with a new stage each day, then the physical laws could have changed on the last day, and so no experiment done today would be a valid representation of the first five days.

It is just as likely that God really did create everything, and then, on the sixth day, imprinted His ideas on creation to the extent that scientists can rediscover portions of those processes now. The scientists test that what they are seeing is part of creation, which it is, because it is the imprint. So they conclude that the same processes were always there. you cannot rule this out, because you were not there.
 
Here's one possibility for the evolution of organs. All of this info can be found online
with a simple Google search folks.

How did organs evolve in simple multicellular organisms? For example, how did the liver, or its pred

All living organisms, whether prokaryotes or eukaryotes, unicellular or multicellular, face similar challenges and share basic functional activities that define them as living things and distinguish them from inanimate matter. They need to produce the energy and the biochemical building blocks of their constituents, they sense their environment and defend themselves from hostile interactions, and they reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generations. However, different strategies have been developed over the course of evolution in order to accomplish these various tasks.
In unicellular organisms all these functions are carried out in each individual cell by dedicated biochemical pathways. In contrast, in multicellular organisms, the labor is shared between different groups of cells, each of which performs a specific job. In most modern animals, these groups of cells constitute organs. In many cases, complex tasks are realized by multiple, interconnected organs, forming an organ system. In many animals, we can recognize different organs or organ systems involved in digestion, respiration, excretion, hormone production, immunity, fluid pumping, and perception, with a central nervous system coordinating all these different jobs.
From one lineage to another, however, the shape of functionally comparable organs can be extremely different. For instance, the camera-type eye of vertebrates seems to have little in common with the compound eye of insects, and the four-chambered heart of a mammal bears little resemblance to the contractile dorsal vessel of arthropods and annelids. Have these organs evolved independently in the different lineages, with the superficial anatomical resemblance simply being a consequence of some functional constraints? Or are these organs in fact evolutionarily related—that is, inherited from the last common ancestor of these organisms? And how have organs evolved in the first place?
To investigate the remote ancestors of extant animals, evolutionary biologists rely on fossil data. This type of data, however, does not shed much light on the evolution of organs, because they are soft tissues that rarely become fossilized. But not all traces from the past are gone. Extant animals carry in their genomes a blueprint of their remote history. Hence, a comparison of the DNA and the genetic programs that organize the development of organs of modern animals allows us to make inferences about the evolutionary relationship of organs.
Over the past 10 years, analysis of the genes involved in the formation of different organs, including in particular the eyes and the heart, in various organisms (mostly insects and vertebrates) has revealed astonishing similarities. These unexpected similarities strongly suggest that functionally comparable organs found in these modern animals are evolutionarily related and inherited from their last common ancestor, an ancestor that lived about 600 million years ago. This ancestral organism gave rise to all the animal groups that have three germ layers (endoderm, ectoderm, and mesoderm) and a bilateral symmetry of the body (left-right mirror-image symmetry), the so-called bilaterians. Modern representatives of bilaterians include vertebrates, echinoderms (their pentaradial symmetry is a derived condition of the adult stage; the larvae display a typical bilateral symmetry), arthropods, annelids, mollusks, platyhelminthes, nematodes, and others. From comparisons of these extant animals, we can infer that their last common ancestor possessed true organs, including at least a contractile vessel pumping fluid throughout the body; a central nervous system (a brain plus a nerve chain running along the body); sensory apparatus, including vision organs; and a mouth and an anus connected by a digestive tract.
However, the first animals were not bilaterians. They were preceded by simpler animals with only two germ layers (endoderm and ectoderm) and a radial symmetry. Modern representatives include cnidarians (corals and jellyfish) and sponges. Cnidarians are the simplest animals having true organs, including a pharynx, a digestive tract, gonads, eyes (in some lineages), and some neurons but no brain, yet the evolutionary relationships between cnidarian and bilaterian organs are still largely unresolved. Sponges, on the other hand, are the simplest forms of animal; they don't have any organs, and they're not even considered to have tissues. The main physiological functions (gas exchange, eating, and reproduction) occur in the body cavity and are performed by specialized cells from the endoderm layer. Sponges apparently don't have any neurons.
Of course, modern cnidarians and sponges are not similar to the first animals. They have followed their own evolutionary paths, but they may give us a glimpse into how things happened in the early days of animal evolution. The first multicellular animals presumably evolved from colonial protists (most likely choanoflagellates), and within the colonies, cells progressively differentiated from one another, acquiring specific functional characteristics. It may sound like a bit of a stretch, but in fact such a phenomenon can be observed in colonies of extant unicellular organisms, both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, where some cells of the colony can become differentiated under particular environmental conditions.
We can speculate that early in the history of animals some differentiation genetic programs evolved, got stabilized, and became inheritable from one generation to the next. Once different populations of cells were established in the colony, the door was opened to further specialization. Specialized cells were not initially grouped in organs but were more like regionalized populations or layers of cells, as we see in sponges, and morphogenesis progressively evolved and some level of organization appeared. This scenario presumably reflects what happened at the genetic level, where the evolution differentiation genetic programs preceded the formation of body plan patterning genetic programs. In bilaterians, the evolution of a third germ layer, the mesoderm, certainly boosted the anatomical diversity and complexity of organs, even though the core cellular mechanisms remained unchanged.
Future genomic and functional comparisons between choanoflagellates, sponges, and cnidarians will certainly shed new light on the relationship of organs in animals and their early evolution.
 
?=life

No one but no one has ever been able to explain that first step. No scientist can explain where or how life originally came about, even if it involved nothing more than a single-celled organism. They've got all sorts of vague theories, but they can't replicate it, hence, they have nothing.
 
Vestarena said:
?=life

No one but no one has ever been able to explain that first step. No scientist can explain where or how life originally came about, even if it involved nothing more than a single-celled organism. They've got all sorts of vague theories, but they can't replicate it, hence, they have nothing.
Click to expand...

Again, I just posted this. Check out the Miller-Urey experiment. Of course this is only a possibility, I admit that.
Maybe someday science will be able to explain it better?
 
Vestarena said:
?=life

No one but no one has ever been able to explain that first step. No scientist can explain where or how life originally came about, even if it involved nothing more than a single-celled organism. They've got all sorts of vague theories, but they can't replicate it, hence, they have nothing.
Click to expand...

ex nihilo nihil fit
 
Just to be clear here what part of science do you people disagree with?
Is it being thorough?
Using careful observation?
Being systematic?
Or using consistent logic?
 
Crucifiction said:
Again, I just posted this. Check out the Miller-Urey experiment. Of course this is only a possibility, I admit that.
Maybe someday science will be able to explain it better?
Click to expand...

I think the reason you are being challenged so much here is the same underlying reason Pahu is being burned for in his thread.

But as Dr. Zacharias stated: "When you hurl mud at others, you not only get your hands dirty, but you lose a lot of ground."

Yes, but what exactly is "nothing?"
Click to expand...

Interesting question! But isn't the premise of this whole thread to explore what is ,and why?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back