Evolution *evidence

[trilliumwest]

Can someone here provide proof of evolution. When I say "proof" I mean using the systematic study of structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, or in other words, good science. The lack of any transitional species in the fossil record makes me question how scientists are convinced this could be fact. A theory that cannot be observed in action is unprovable. Darwin certainly had reservations about his own theory, stuff he couldn't wrap his head around. Dawkins cannot provide an example of a genome with added information (which is needed in order for evolution to work)..so, for all the hardcore evolutionary biologists out there, what single thing convinced you that this theory is indeed true? Based on irrefutable proof of course.

[youjustcomplain]

Can someone here provide proof of evolution. When I say "proof" I mean using the systematic study of structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, or in other words, good science. The lack of any transitional species in the fossil record makes me question how scientists are convinced this could be fact. A theory that cannot be observed in action is unprovable. Darwin certainly had reservations about his own theory, stuff he couldn't wrap his head around. Dawkins cannot provide an example of a genome with added information (which is needed in order for evolution to work)..so, for all the hardcore evolutionary biologists out there, what single thing convinced you that this theory is indeed true? Based on irrefutable proof of course.

I am not an evolutionary biologist; but I do believe that the science is not in dispute on this one. Before I address your question, I am curious of your motives. Are you asking because you think you already nailed the coffin shut on this one and anything that anyone can bring up will just be a point to argue over? If so, I'll answer your initial question then likely bow out of the debate. Only because I'm not an expert on the topic.

When leading evolutionary biologists state that evolution is, in fact, a known, observable theory that is no longer in dispute within the science community, I believe them. I admit, when I downloaded "The Origin of Species" in it's entirety, I didn't get very far before I gave up. With that said, my understanding is that Darwn is that at some point in the 19th century, he went to the Galapogos Islands and cross bred finches. He noted variation and evolution was documented. (I THINK that means that he bred different birds and traits were passed down to the offspring). Again, I'm no expert.

Can I prove evolution is more than just a hypothesis? Nope, I can't. It doesn't suggest a creation default. It only suggests that I don't know enough about evolution. The grandfather himself, Darwin, lived over 130 years ago... He's a great start, but the research didn't die with him. I suspect Dawkins knows more about it than Darwin ever did. The fact that Dawkins may not be able to demonstrate something in a genome, doesn't suggest the theory is incorrect. Genetic research is still in its infancy unlike the creation "guess" which is VERY old and tired and continues to evolve.

[trilliumwest]

Ok, so you're not an evolutionary biologist, I gladly will not hold that against you. My question was what single thing convinced you the theory of evolution is proven, to which you basically replied 'because they said so and that's good enough for me'. I would love to be a mattress salesman and you walk into my store. My motive for this question is to stir up a bit of debate. I honestly want to see if someone can prove something that even two biologists (Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould) could not see eye to eye on.

[youjustcomplain]

Ok, so you're not an evolutionary biologist, I gladly will not hold that against you.

Thanks ! :)

My question was what single thing convinced you the theory of evolution is proven, to which you basically replied 'because they said so and that's good enough for me'.

Close. Very close. Because they said so isn't good enough for me. I believe in science and the scientific method. A hypothesis is made, and then tested. If it passes, it becomes a theory. At that point, others attempt to disprove it. (It MUST be disprovable). To this day, I'm unaware of anyone being able to disprove the theory, so it stands.
For that reason, I chose to accept it. Sure, there are holes that haven't been filled.

I would love to be a mattress salesman and you walk into my store.

Ok, but when I buy a mattress, (same as when I buy just about anything), I do research. I cost compare, I know what I want before I arrive at your store. So yes, you would love to be a mattress sales person when I come in. If I come to your store, it would be because I've researched your return policy, warranty, and because you have the product I'm looking for. all you'd have to do is take my money. :) I'd be your favorite customer of the day !

My motive for this question is to stir up a bit of debate. I honestly want to see if someone can prove something that even two biologists (Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould) could not see eye to eye on.

I wonder if you're not holding science to a higher standard than faith. You haven't mentioned what you believe in. Generally speaking, people who attack the work of Dawkins and Darwin are believers in a god. If this is your stance and you believe that god is the puppet master, then I have to wonder why you'd ask for proof of god, then accept faith blindly because there is no proof for a god. Again though, I'm only suggesting you believe in god and the great puppet master. I don't know what you actually believe.

Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould need not agree on everything. It's very healthy to challenge everything that doesn't work. I haven't heard that either of the two refute evolution as a valid and fact based scientific theory.

[gman313]

I would thing we should be able to prove this with DNA evidence

[OldIslander]

These are all compelling...

[Poindexter]

Can someone here provide proof of evolution.

You don't have to look too far for proof of evolution, fact is you've been sitting on it all this time.

Your tailbone is what's called a vestigial structure.

A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution, such as human appendixes.

[Bsuds]

Well some of us have evolved.....some haven't.

[Gilchy]

[youtube]8CP_U82rG98[/youtube]

And full link cause is suck at forums, apparently. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CP_U82rG98

[MrSandman]

considering this is in the religion subthread, and OP's post does not talk about religion, imma gonna say op is trolling.

Or, at the very least has a strong (biased) agenda as to what they believe is the "correct answer"