Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32
Like Tree13Likes
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 3 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 4 Post By Zwirko
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Sealeaf

Thread: How do you prove evolution?

  1. #1 How do you prove evolution? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6
    How does one go about proving evolution?
    The one and only method that I have learned in school, the method that science uses to prove something, is the "scientific method".

    How does one apply the scientific method to satisfy the hypothesis that
    "given enough time, one species of creature is able to "evolve" or change into another species?"

    Sure, it is possible to prove that over time, creatures develop different traits and characteristics through "mutations" and inheritance of traits...

    But this only proves the existence of mutation and traits that are inherited.

    It is not viable to just simply assume that...
    "through these small mutations and inherited traits and given enough time, one species can transform into a different species"
    This would have to be proven..... after all, its not it is not unheard of for a creature to mutate one trait and mutate again and lose that trait...

    It is totally impractical to conduct a scientific experiment that spans millions of years to observe whether or not a a create can "evolve" into another "species" of creature... (unless someone unlocks the secret to immortality)

    A bird with a bit larger beak then another birds does not qualify to be a totally new species...
    Similar to how a person who is taller then average is not considered non-human.

    So, how is evolution using the scientific method?
    If it isn't, then how is it proven?

    and if evolution is not proven using scientific method... why is it considered "science"?


    Last edited by QKRTJDWLS91; September 29th, 2012 at 08:27 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    First and foremost, get the notion of "proof" out of your scientific thinking and vocabulary. Proof is for mathematics only.

    What you want for something to be scientific is that it is both predictable and demonstrated. (These things may not happen at the same time. It took almost a hundred years for Arrhenius's calculations on CO2-led climate change to show up conclusively in the data.)

    A bird with a bit larger beak then another birds does not qualify to be a totally new species...
    But birds which accumulate enough changes do become different species. This little video is a beautiful illustration of how speciation occurs. Ring species -- the abridged version - YouTube


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    It is totally impractical to conduct a scientific experiment that spans millions of years
    Of course it is. The problem is your idea of "experiement" is too confined. It's quite possible to measure change over the course of millions (and longer) years and that's exactly what science does by looking at fossils, geology etc. It applies those observations of the "experiement," with other observations and checks for constitency (a softer form of prediction) with the hypothesis. Using these methods made a very compelling case for evolution by mid 20th century (some would argue 50 years earlier). Now with the incredible power of genitic analysis the evidence is overwelming--hence why it's called a theory which is the highest pssible level of certainty.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Dr. Carl Sagan said that "the core of science is prediction."

    By this he meant that any ideas in science must be tested, and the testing process uses 'testable predictions'.
    If you have an idea, which you hope to be scientifically acceptable, you have to be able to generate a prediction that can be tested by an experiment or a novel observation.

    This is true for evolution. When Darwin wrote his book : "Origin of Species" about evolution by natural selection, he made a testable prediction, which is there in the book. Darwin predicted that fossils would be found, which would be dated and found to show a progression of changes from one species to another over time, something that had not been done in Darwin's time. Darwin's prediction has been tested numerous times since, and there are wonderful progressions of changes in fossils over time in many text books for all to see.

    Some of these progressions show species changes over a short time period, such as foraminifera.
    Evolution, Foraminifera
    Some are long term progressions, and show major changes such as the movement from fish to amphibian.
    http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/trans...h-to-amphibian
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,688
    Do people think every animal that ever lived leaves a fossil behind once they die? Perhaps that misconception should be cleared up. The other concept that's difficult for some people to grasp may be huge expanses of time. The Earth hasn't exactly remained unchanged since day 1.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Your question is skeptical, which is a good thing. Just don't let it trend toward indignant or it will cloud your judgement.

    You're looking for proof, but so-called soft science like biology is rooted in theory. We cannot write an evolutionary law in the same manner a physicist can write a gravitation law. Biologists rely on observation and experimentation in order to craft a theory that explains the mutations and adaptations of a life form over time. That having been said, if we lived during the era of the dinosaurs, no biologist could have realistically proven that they would same day evolve into birds. That isn't the nature of biology.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Just to expand on the point about "proof" ... science never proves a theory true, but it can prove a hypothesis or theory false.

    It is also important to understand that the concept of species is rather "fuzzily" defined. There are several ways of defining species; they are all man-made conventions though.

    As noted, new species arise by accumulation of small changes. Occasionally we can observe this happening, either directly or indirectly.

    This page has a good summary of the problem of defining species and some examples of observed speciation: Observed Instances of Speciation

    And I just found this, which I hadn't seen before: Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists | Wired Science | Wired.com
    JoshuaL and Flick Montana like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Ow jeez, does another person doubt evolution again, or asks how to prove it... Why not create a sticky to explain this, before the question arises.

    We prove evolution, looking at the past, up to now, where at all times the fittest were able to survive, and those who didn't fit died out. Random changes that occured slowly divides up species. This dividing usually implies that the random mutation that increases the chances of survival or offspring wins from the Wild type.

    Dinosaurs, who are warmblooded (probably), need huge amounts of energy, they need the perfect environment for this, herbivores need LOADS of plants, and carnivores need LOADS of meat. Take away most plants, herbivores die, carnivores die, and only scavengers and omnivores survive, as they are better suited to this imperfect environment.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    As noted by others the objective of science is not prove anything, but to arrive at the best explanation possible at the time. Evolutionary theory, Dawinism, the Modern synthesis, call it what you will, does this more effectively than any alternative explanation. And it does so in an internally consistent manner, with validation from genetics, developmental biology, zoology, botany, microbiology, biochemistry, anatomy, palaeontology, etc. There simply is no alternative that is even on the table as a plausible explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Science doesn't prove what works, it eliminates what doesn't and says whatever is left over is the best choice at the time.
    msafwan likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Yeah, your right @Flick & Galt, but i hoped to explain it more definitive. As sometimes i'm bothered why all questions are about this subject. How to prove evolution.. Your saying it can't be done. I say it can, with a reasonable certainty. Maybe not 100%, but all proof ever gathered in law, is unusable when questioning things on this level. There are points you simply must say, i have seen enough evidence, you MUST be the culprit. You'll go to jail for a long time... Evolution you...
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    There is also the fact that, as soon as you understand the basic mechanisms of inheritance and how this affects the physical form (and then how this interacts with the environment) it seems impossible for evolution not to occur.

    Of course, we go on to discover even more complex ways in which genetic material is expressed and modified, organisms interact with the environment and each other, the importance of symbiosis, and other many other complicating factors. But none of this negates the inevitability of evolution, just makes it a more complicated process.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    I don't require more complexity in life, i just want to understand it all... is that to much to ask for??
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    I think maybe we can at least prove that the concept (the concept of evolution) works by using computer simulation? the simulation may not be able to simulate life completely, but for simple stuff like artificial intelligence for board games: evolution seems to work. Basically what evolution do is just doing several thousand of trial & error and told the computer to save only the good results... hardly a controversial idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    We can not imput all the parameters, plus we will get different results anyway..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,085
    To make science incapable of being able to prove anything you have to think of science in a very abstract manner and invoke all sorts of reality-bending scenarios to justify the claim. I think people conflate science in general with scientific theories. Part of the problem here may be that what science does often doesn't match up with how philosophers such as Popper described it - for example, much of science is observational and descriptive rather than hypothesis forming and testing. The idealised version of science often doesn't mirror what actually happens in the lab. Isn't it more correct to state that scientific theories can't be proven, rather than science can't prove anything at all?

    Does the earth spin? Can science prove that? Someone might say no, because all of reality might be a lie or you might have just dreamt the whole observation up. That's the sort of lengths one has to go to to make science unable to prove anything (I agree, but see it as pointless quibbling). The spin of the Earth is an observation. Fact. Observed. "Proved" (intentional scare quotes). Why it spins on its axis might be described by some theory. That theory can't be proven, while many failed theories that attempted to explain its spin can be disproved. Some might argue that observation is not science. Do observations not count as science? Some say no and will happily dismiss much of astronomy, chemistry and biology from the realms of science. Others might claim that it is only our senses and instrumentation that see a spinning Earth, and thus the answers we get are only subjective and can't be verified objectively without reference to yet more instruments or senses.

    Regarding the OP: evolution is also an observation as well as a theory. There is a collection of hypotheses and theories (no doubt incomplete) that explain how we think evolution happens. It is conceivable that all those theories are wrong (by imagining some crazy scenario) but the observation of evolution will remain a fact (unless you want to view reality as being a dream or a lie). In some sense evolution is proved by the observation of evolution. Do you trust your senses enough to feel confident in claiming that when we see a population of viruses evolve that they actually did do just that?

    In the real world science proves many things. It's only by breathing in the rarefied atmosphere inhabited by the philosopher that we can say that what we observe and measure might not be true. Accepting that the world may be a lie, or that supernatural forces interfere with our observations or that we may live in a weird bubble with it's own rules different from the universe at large, then sure, we can say that we can't prove anything. Let's go for 99.999999999% positive.
    Last edited by Zwirko; October 2nd, 2012 at 07:39 AM.
    KALSTER, JoshuaL, Strange and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    ...
    That was one of those, "I wish I had said that" posts.

    evolution is also an observation as well as a theory. There is a collection of hypotheses and theories (no doubt incomplete) that explain how we think evolution happens. It is conceivable that all those theories are wrong (by imagining some crazy scenario) but the observation of evolution will remain a fact
    Good point, too often forgotten.

    We don't need science to "prove" that gravity exists. We all know it does. We expect science to come up with useful explanations and quantitative descriptions of the mechanisms.

    The same is true of evolution.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Good question, just because its is quite obvious that random mutation do happen and evolution does occur, it is quite another thing to make the wild claim that we all evolve from the same unintelligent goop. In fact they can not even prove that Africans, Asians, and Caucasians share the same ancestor. And that's just over a few thousand years, let alone billions!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    In fact they can not even prove that Africans, Asians, and Caucasians share the same ancestor.
    Yes they can, in as much as anything can be "proved".

    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    And that's just over a few thousand years, let alone billions!
    It's over hundreds of thousands of years, actually. And who mentioned billions? 95% of the animals on this planet evolved in the past 65 million years, after the last mass extinction event.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    In fact they can not even prove that Africans, Asians, and Caucasians share the same ancestor.
    Yes they can, in as much as anything can be "proved".

    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    And that's just over a few thousand years, let alone billions!
    It's over hundreds of thousands of years, actually. And who mentioned billions? 95% of the animals on this planet evolved in the past 65 million years, after the last mass extinction event.
    Wasn't the beginning of the last ice age (2,6 million years ago) the last mass extinction event?
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Wasn't the beginning of the last ice age (2,6 million years ago) the last mass extinction event?
    When we say mass extinction event we're not just saying lots of extinctions. The last event of the big 5 knocked out 95% of all species alive at that time. The last ice age knocked out a lot of critters, but nothing like 95% of all species.

    Extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    ... Wasn't the beginning of the last ice age (2,6 million years ago) the last mass extinction event?
    don't think mass extinction
    think genetic bottlenecks where much (most?) of a species die off
    there is also suspected to be one for us at @70,000 years ago, and another at the dawn of heidelbergensus, roughly 1-1.2 million years ago
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The last mass extinction event is right now, and stretching back over about 15,000 years. The Polynesian expansion across the Pacific, for example, resulted in 2,000 species of island birds going extinct, mainly from the introduction of the Polynesian rat.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Santaronto
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    toronto, canada
    Posts
    39
    Probably the biggest mass extinction location is the Amazon rainforest right now. I lived there and noone seems to care about the environment.
    Walking every street of Toronto to raise awareness of global warming http://www.whatscoolerthancool.org/
    Petitioning world leaders and governments to take more effective action on climate change http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/...l-warming.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    The better question is: can you devise an experiment that dis proves evolution? Evolution is based on about 4 ideas about how the world works, disprove any one and evolution is in deep trouble.
    premis number one:"like begets like", cats have kittens, dogs give birth to dogs, chicken eggs hatch into chicks not turtles.
    premis number two: premis number one is not perfect. Off spring are not perfect duplicates of the parent. There is variation within normal reproduction and "freaks" happen.
    premis number three: not everything that is born successfully reproduces itself.
    premis number four: if an individual inherets a trait which makes it unable to reproduce then it will not pass that trait on to its offspring.
    Demonstrate that any one of those ideas is false and you will have reason to seriously doubt evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    premis number three: not everything that is born successfully reproduces itself.
    premis number four: if an individual inherets a trait which makes it unable to reproduce then it will not pass that trait on to its offspring.
    Demonstrate that any one of those ideas is false and you will have reason to seriously doubt evolution.
    These 2 were interesting...On number 3, Apart from hive grown species, like ants of bees, all offspring will be able to reproduce itself (apart from the freaks who didn't get functioning genitals) I van't think of any other species that does this..

    On number 4... There are cases where a freak who is unable to reproduce himself, can still pass on traits... A virus can...

    Though a virus does not disprove evolution.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    When we say mass extinction event we're not just saying lots of extinctions. The last event of the big 5 knocked out 95% of all species alive at that time.
    Correction: KT boundary number was 75%. The end Permian extinction, the really big one, got 95%+/- of marine species, but only 70% of terrestrial.

    Edit: I've just noticed that you linked to the same site I used to confirm my quoted numbers! I shall make an entry on your term report card "Coud do better. Does not always pay attention."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    premis number three: not everything that is born successfully reproduces itself.
    premis number four: if an individual inherets a trait which makes it unable to reproduce then it will not pass that trait on to its offspring.
    Demonstrate that any one of those ideas is false and you will have reason to seriously doubt evolution.
    These 2 were interesting...On number 3, Apart from hive grown species, like ants of bees, all offspring will be able to reproduce itself (apart from the freaks who didn't get functioning genitals) I van't think of any other species that does this..

    On number 4... There are cases where a freak who is unable to reproduce himself, can still pass on traits... A virus can...

    Though a virus does not disprove evolution.
    Contrary to popular dogma, many if not most social hymenopterans are able to survive the death of the queen by either altering the development of a larvae, or by one or more of the adult females transitioning into a queen.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    premis number three: not everything that is born successfully reproduces itself.
    premis number four: if an individual inherets a trait which makes it unable to reproduce then it will not pass that trait on to its offspring.
    Demonstrate that any one of those ideas is false and you will have reason to seriously doubt evolution.
    These 2 were interesting...On number 3, Apart from hive grown species, like ants of bees, all offspring will be able to reproduce itself (apart from the freaks who didn't get functioning genitals) I van't think of any other species that does this..

    On number 4... There are cases where a freak who is unable to reproduce himself, can still pass on traits... A virus can...

    Though a virus does not disprove evolution.
    You are missing the point of premis three. it is just a statement of natural selection. In every generation there are some that don't make it to reproduce. They may die before maturity or may find no mate or just be so bad at some aspect of parenting that they fail at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior JoshuaL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    268
    Sealeaf, is the point of number 4 similar to number 3, just to provide a terminal node of the "family tree"?
    "The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is... doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting sh*t dead wrong."

    Take two of these and call me in the morning
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaL View Post
    Sealeaf, is the point of number 4 similar to number 3, just to provide a terminal node of the "family tree"?
    Essentially, yes. But with emphasis. Inhereted traits that kill their pocesser do not get passed on. Yes it is self evident. That is the point of all four premises, they are so self evident as to be inarguable but they are the true basis of the theory of evolution. It rests on very basic ideas and remains solid unless those basic ideas are challenged.

    I can think of one other thing that would be a serious challenge to evolution : the actual observation of an act of "poof" creation.
    JoshuaL likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1
    I have the same question. Did someone found anything?I have the same question. Did someone found anything?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Prove that P = a ± b?
    By opoint in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: November 11th, 2010, 09:52 AM
  2. how to prove 1+1=2?
    By allenyuang in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: May 9th, 2010, 08:18 PM
  3. Prove that 2 + 2 = 4
    By IAlexN in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:53 PM
  4. Prove That...
    By Liongold in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 30th, 2009, 01:19 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 1st, 2009, 11:45 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •