Is there valid proof for evolution?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well presumably you haven't looked.
Can you define a species? How would one know that a species has changed into another?
Do you accept that dogs are probably descended from wolves? Do you know that they are different species under current classification systems?

the wolves and dogs are all still canines..just one of them happens to be tamed and selectively bred by man.

species: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Originally posted by trev33
what age are you?

The irony is killing me.

Originally posted by Palynka
The irony is killing me.

r.i.p

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't see how anyone can accept "microevolution" and not speciation. Surely it's a question of time?

I think it's an attempt at shifting the goalposts, even though speciation follows trivially if one accepts "micro"-evolution.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think it's an attempt at shifting the goalposts, even though speciation follows trivially if one accepts "micro"-evolution.

if an adaptation(microevolution) is a small change within one animal or animals to be better equipped to survive an environment. and the adaptation stays within their genetic potential, how exactly does macroevolution follow?

Originally posted by longken
if an adaptation(microevolution) is a small change within one animal or animals to be better equipped to survive an environment. and the adaptation stays within their genetic potential, how exactly does macroevolution follow?

Genetic potential?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Genetic potential?

take the genetic pool of ten dogs stuck together. the different offspring and adaptations and uniqueness of each: genetic potential.

Originally posted by longken
if an adaptation(microevolution) is a small change within one animal or animals to be better equipped to survive an environment. and the adaptation stays within their genetic potential, how exactly does macroevolution follow?

Environments also change with time, species migrate from environments to other, etc. Take the change in climate and ecosystems that came with Ice Ages, for example.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution, or any aspect of empirical science for that matter, does not assume there is no "creator". It's not a necessary assumption for the validity of the theory.

It is when it is presented on any science show or science text book that I've ever seen. It is touted as the natural explanation of life.

Originally posted by Eladar
It is when it is presented on any science show or science text book that I've ever seen. It is touted as the natural explanation of life.

Never would anyone but a creationist say that evolution theorists say it is the natural explanation of life.

They ALWAYS say it is an explanation for the CHANGES life has undergone in the past billion years, not how life started.

Why do creationists ALWAYS make that assumption?

The evolutionary theory also covers the beginning of the world..aka the big bang theory.

Originally posted by longken
The evolutionary theory also covers the beginning of the world..aka the big bang theory.

Just where in the hell did you come up with THAT one? That is the most ridiculous statement I think I have heard in a long time.

Evolution is about LIFE and not the beginning of it either, but what happened to life after it got started.

Life on Earth did not start till the universe was about 10 billion years old so just how are connecting those two events?

Let me guess. You are a creationist.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just where in the hell did you come up with THAT one? That is the most ridiculous statement I think I have heard in a long time.

Evolution is about LIFE and not the beginning of it either, but what happened to life after it got started.

Life on Earth did not start till the universe was about 10 billion years old so just how are connecting those two events?

Let me guess. You are a creationist.

ive studied that side more than evolution so far, yes. but the two theories coincide together? or am i just totally mistaken here?

Originally posted by longken
ive studied that side more than evolution so far, yes. but the two theories coincide together? or am i just totally mistaken here?

I think I will go with the second option. There is ZERO correlation between the two theories. What makes you think otherwise? For one thing, evolution theory is 150 years old, BB less than 50. Why did there have to be a 100 year delay between the two if they are related?

Originally posted by Eladar
There you have it, under classification.

And the word 'species' is a man made classification. Sadly, a rather larger proportion of creationists seem to think it is a God made rule that cannot be broken. Anyone who makes statements like 'one species cannot evolve into another' simply does not realize what a species is.

I can accept probablies, but I can also accept perhaps not. The Theory of Evolution that we are expected to accept as fact is based on a natural explanation of how things came about without God's hand. To take things this far is a religion.

That's all I'm saying. I'm just calling a spade a spade.
So when someone throws a die and explains the result via probability theory and suggests that God was not involved in the outcome then you will call that too a religion? Or do you only call some spades spades when it suits you?