Has evolution been proven ?

Excellent picture! Thank you very much!

I don't disagree with you Mr. J. Scientists, even in the "hallowed pages" of peer-reviewed journals, often mention "proof" of something or other. However, I would argue that when they use it they are considering they're talking to other scientists - and with the tacit understanding that science by definition is never proven in the absolute sense. My real quibble is that when you transfer the term to a place like EVCforum, or other debate arena where the creationists try and conflate Proof in the absolute sense with proof in the colloquial sense, it behooves us to be scrupulous in how we use the word. Because the entire creationist assault on evolutionary theory is based on equivocation and semantics, we have to avoid falling into the trap. We need to continually make explicit what is implicit in scientific discussions.OTOH, just 'cause they're highly educated scientists doesn't mean they can either spell or use words correctly. You have NO idea how many times and how much effort was required to re-write my partner's scientific reports just to make them marginally comprehendable. And this is a PhD evo biologist with a long string of articles to his credit. Sheesh, but he was a TERRIBLE writer.

Hi Estaban,
Thanks for the reply.I am happy that my post amused you. I do want to point out that incredulity refers to the inability to accept truth when presented. I add that discernment refers to being able to identify lies when presented and nievity (sp?) refers to being unable to identify lies when presented.Your two examples (acorn to oak tree and fertilized egg to human baby) confused me since they are the thesis of creationism. Are you implying that a fish is a baby salamander? If so, it is possible then that "evolution is smarter than you are". I will assume that this is not what you meant and wait for your reply.I have a great imagination. I can imagine the two of us at the throne of God. I hope we will be there as friends.Very best regards,
Bob, Alice, and Eve.

Hi Quetzal,
Thanks for your reply.I do want to point out that showing two animals that look alike is not related to my post. What I asked Sniggs (not Snippy, sorry) was to work the process of being born in successive generations with various stages of the development of the elbow and consequential loss of the straight fin. Every attempt I have made has resulted in a youth that can not survive to adulthood to reproduce.I will give a few examples of how the youth might emerge from the egg:
with loose skin where the stiff bone was, with cylindrical bone where the flat bone was, with a jointed circular bone where a stiff flat bone was, with muscles hanging loose where the fin was, etc. All of these leave the youth unable to move about and unable to forage (or "fight or flight" assuming the youth had enemies) as either a finned or legged being.To save time, I will state that I am not saying "show me the next intermediate". I do not play that game since it is, at best, a distraction. I freely give you that if evolution were true then finned-to-elbowed would be onw of a few transitions required between amoeba and mankind.In summary, the selected pictures do not address the survival issues of the transition from fin to leg. I look forward to a reply which does so.Very best regards,
Bob, Alice, Eve "and Adam"

sniggitydiggity,Before you make up your mind about the plausibility of the "evolution" you ought to be sure which definition you are talking about. Classically, the processes of artificial and natural selection were distinquished, and evolution attached to natural selection. I'm not so sure that's true anymore. Since both artificial selection and natural selection produce the concept of common descent, finding evidence for the latter doesn't really separate which of the former two might have been involved. Obviously, creation by artificial selection would be creation, supposedly opposite to evolution.Similar problems arise with random mutations versus genetic engineering. Or consider this: a sheep breeder discovers a gene that makes his sheep have better wool. Case one, the gene is in one of his sheep and so he artificially breeds that sheep, to get more good wool. Case two, the gene is in a virus, which he uses to biologically engineer one sheep, that he uses as in case one. Case three, the gene is in a virus, that he uses to infect his entire flock with the gene.All of this is creation, is it not? Certainly, if the farmer discovered the gene, he would be given rights to its use, credit for creating the heavy wool producing sheep.Stephen

How very odd. I'm usually much better at interpreting someone's point. I thought the exercise was designed to show dissimilarity between fish and amphibian. The comparison between the Latimeria skeleton - a free-swimming fully fishy fish - and Ichthyostega, a partially land-dwelling/walking amphibian would show that the similarities more than outweighed the differences. In fact, there's a water-dwelling intermediate between the crossopterygians and the amphibian I showed (Acanthostega) which demonstrates even more clearly the similarities - it even has a fishy tail along with its legs. I couldn't find a decent picture (see Mark24's avatar for one).I think the major problem with your excercise was that you appeared to be comparing apples and oranges - the fish description you gave was of an actinopterygian ("ray finned"). The ray-fins are what we normally think of as "fish". However, since actinopterygii aren't considered to be on the branch leading to tetrapods, comparing the two is meaningless. IOW, you're absolutely right - comparing a ray fin to a salamander shows there's little likliehood the one could have evolved into the other. However, that's not the lineage. As to the survival issue, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. Why would there be any problem with the gradual reshaping of an already existing structure like the crossopterygian fin-leg - which contains in miniature all of the bones required of a tetrapod - via natural selection? It didn't happen overnight - a gradual lengthening and reshaping of the limb, pelvis, etc, over thousands of generations wouldn't pose any survival problem that I'm aware of. In fact, I can think of quite a few advantages, for instance to allow its possessor to better take advantage of shallow or estuarine habitats, or to be a better bottom ambusher, or to move between drying lakes and whatnot during the Devonian drought, etc. Perhaps you could elaborate as to why you think there would be a net fitness disadvantage? Or perhaps elaborate your central argument more fully to insure I don't misinterpret what you're after again?

Bob, et. al.The title of my post was 'Incredulity,' and that's what I was discussing with the acorn-to-oak and egg-to-baby examples. I could sit at a table looking at an acorn and express my disbelief that an oak tree could ever come from such an object. "Where are the branches? Where the enormous trunk? Where are those millions of leaves? This is clearly impossible."Quetzal has done a fine job of showing you the evidence that, despite your assertion that it's impossible, a salamander is a design modification from a lobe-finned fish. Since we're well aware of the power of DNA recombination and cumulative natural selection, the fish-to-salamander transition requires no miraculous, supernatural explanations.reagrds,
Esteban

You know what is sometimes depressing in some of these posts? Some people who have no training or knowledge in certain areas, yet feel free to make statements which only show their ignorance of such matters.As a geologist with a Masters degree in Petroleum Geology, I can tell you that petroleum does not necessarily accumulate in the same area as it was formed. Petroleum migrates through pores in rocks to usually low pressure structural traps. Thus it does not need a chunk of plant material of 9 cubic miles size to form the large petroleum reservoir in Iran. There is no "12mile x 12 mile x 1000 deep hole" in which the petroleum is contained.The necessary plant and animal material from which the petroleum was formed, may have been originally a thin layer or multiple layers spread over a vast area. It then migrated to its present location.

Ediacara Hills, AustraliaSee the above site.

Linking to websites doesn't evidence a thing, any fool can create a web page. This internet generation of lazy yuppies is completely deceived. Unless YOU can make the argument in your words you are saying nothing.Prove it yourself.

Hi neilheightyheight,This is hard but realistic. Conflict originates often when one or more discussion actors based their argumentation on dubious facts. But I can't blame a person for a gap in he's personal knowledge. Dozen years are necessary to assimilate a small part of the paleontology. I'm still learning, each days and I love Paleontology. Even if you're not a specialist in vertebrate (i. e. an expert), the global evolutionary principle is the same for all organisms of the past. I mean that biogenetic laws did affect any organisms. Conversely, I find harassing fashions of certain person systematically exploiting gaps in the paleontological documentation for promoting their personal theories.Denesha

WILLOWTREE, Temper!Allow me. You asserted via quote (& rather rudely ask neil to put it in his own words! The pot calling the kettle black, no?) that no multicellular Precambrian fossils existed. The Ediacaran fauna appears in the Precambrian & is multicellular. This completely shows your assertion via quote to be false.You are wrong, neil is right. Don't get arsey about it.As far as I'm aware, the oldest undisputed multicellular animals are worms dating from 700-900 mya Pararenicola & Protoarenicola. These are cylindrical, segmented organisms with a differentiated bulbous ends (Sun 1986 & 1994).Fossilised multicellular algae exists in the Precambrian, but it IS multicellular. It is differentiating the potential animals from the algae that is the problem, yet the fact remains; multicellular fossils exist in the Precambrian.Mark[edited......that's 700-900 mya][This message has been edited by mark24, 03-16-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

If you do a search on the web you will find many references to Precambrian fossils. Most of these are from reputable scientific establishments.If you want to follow these up you can. Or you can visit a museum. You may learn something.I have seen Precambrian fossils. I do not have to prove it to myself.

Willow,Fossils exist and you can't do anything against that!
Suppressing them (physically or intellectually) is falsification.
Ediacara's fauna is a crucial fossil association.Denesha

neil,Willow does have a point re post 24. You posted a bare link, something that we battle hard to stop creationists doing (& is against forum guidelines). Had you of posted a short paragraph supported by your link, you would have been pretty much perfect.Mark