[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 49 KB, 650x650, son.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5107103 No.5107103 [Reply] [Original]

What is the irrefutable proof of evolution?

>> No.5107105

It's an axiom.

>> No.5107107

mutation that is passed on to the children of the mutated

>> No.5107109

>>5107103

You went to a bad school and didn't get a real education.... that's weeding the herd.

QED.

>> No.5107127 [DELETED] 
File: 238 KB, 737x338, the difference between micro and macro evolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5107127

>>5107103
well micro-evolution has loads of examples, you can just look at simple examples like different strains of bacteria evolving resistance to different antibiotics

or theres that silver fox thing, where he selectively bred them to be tame, and over the generations, they evolved to be. (he only lets the most tame ones of that generation breed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

"The domesticated silver fox (marketed as the Siberian fox) is a domesticated form of the silver morph of the red fox. As a result of selective breeding, the new foxes became tamer and more dog-like."

thats selective breeding, not natural selection, but the method for evolution is the same.

oh, and in case you are one of those fucktards who believes in micro, but no macro-evolution, see:
<<<

>> No.5107166

>What is the irrefutable proof of evolution?

Populations of animals today have different gene pools than they did millions of years ago.

>> No.5107177

>>5107127
>asked for proof
>posts examples

Cool logic skills.

>> No.5107183

The fact that it is a directly observable phenomenon.

>> No.5107187 [DELETED] 

>>5107177
any one example is good enough

>> No.5107194

>>5107103

There is no one knock-down drag-out piece that demonstrates evolutionary theory beyond reasonable doubt, particularly to those well trained to doubt evolution specifically. It's a mountain of mostly small evidences that add up to evolution. That's part of why it's so hard to convince creationists that evolution is true (on top of usually thinking it's evil inherently), it requires somebody to actually listen for more than 10 seconds, and that's just not something humans are good at without a lot of practice.

This guy's stuff on evolution is a good place to start though, concise and easy to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&index=1&feature=plpp_
video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU&list=PL0C606FE36BEDAC75&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8&feature=plcp

>> No.5107207

>>5107183
That's only microevolution.

>>5107187
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
>is a logical fallacy

>> No.5107213

>>5107207
>That's only microevolution.

gtfo

>> No.5107214

>>5107213
But I'm right. "GTFO" is not a valid rebuttal.

>> No.5107222

sequence homology

we have the similar or the same DNA sequences for specific genes as fruit flies

>> No.5107224

>>5107214

No, you're not right. "Microevolution" isn't even a thing. So get the fuck out, troll.

>> No.5107227

>>5107222
Yeah, that's how we figured out the whole evolution thing.

>>5107224
It refers to evolution happening on small time scale, i.e. what is observable in an experimental design.

>> No.5107235

>>5107227
>define "microevolution" as anything that is observable
>complain that only "microevolution" is observable

Get. The. Fuck. Out.

>> No.5107243

>>5107235
I'm not the one making the definitions. Not knowing them is your fault. But don't worry. You're gonna learn all that cool science in school, when you're older.

>> No.5107254

>>5107235
>>5107243
I didn't "complain" btw, I was merely pointing out a fact.

>> No.5107259

>>5107214

By what mechanism does the differentiation of "micro" and "macro" evolution make any sense?

What is the mechanism by which evolution stops because it's only "micro" evolution, and why is "macro" evolution false?

The mechanics of evolution are identical, the difference is time scale. After demonstrating that the concept is correct and applicable it is unreasonable to propose that there is a certain scale at which that concept no longer applies without being able to propose a plausible reason that it would not apply.

>> No.5107265

>>5107235

He's actually right though. Long term evolution isn't really observable experimentally. We can make conclusions based on evidence in the fossil record and statistical analysis of DNA, but you can't really replicate drastic evolutionary change by natural selection in any reasonable time scale.

>> No.5107271

>>5107259

when did he say that macroevolution was false?

he didn't

>> No.5107277

>>5107265

What do you consider "drastic evolutionary change?" What makes it qualitatively different from what is observed directly?

>> No.5107279

>>5107259
>By what mechanism does the differentiation of "micro" and "macro" evolution make any sense?
Has been explained in >>5107227

>What is the mechanism by which evolution stops because it's only "micro" evolution, and why is "macro" evolution false?
Where did I ever say it's false? It's just different from an epistemological point of view. See >>5107265

>> No.5107283

>>5107277
>What makes it qualitatively different from what is observed directly?
Exactly this. One can be directly observed and tested, the other is only a plausible inductive inference.

>> No.5107297

>>5107271

No, he didn't, but the implication that microevolution is different from macroevolution means that there is a fundamental difference of mechanics at work and he needs to propose what they are before he simply declares that the two are not the same thing.

>> No.5107301

>>5107277

You will never be able to replicate the transition from fully aquatic cartilaginous fish to tetrapods. Much of evolutionary biology is like history in that you can only say with increasing amounts of certainty that something happened the way you think it did, but you can't demonstrate specific events that happened in the past, only that they are possible and/or likely to have happened.

>> No.5107307

>>5107279

You didn't say it was false, but the implication that microevolution is different from macroevolution means that there is a fundamental difference of mechanics at work and you need to propose what they are. Declaring that they are different without proposing why they should be different is just stupid.

>> No.5107306

>>5107297
>means that there is a fundamental difference of mechanics
Cool non-sequitur.

>> No.5107313

>>5107307

He was just being pedantic. He wasn't wrong and he wasn't implying anything.

>> No.5107325

>>5107307
Nope. It's the same mechanism. The problem is the impossibility of proving that this proposed mechanism is the correct explanation. Normally one would substantiate such hypothesis by experimentally gained evidence. This is not possible in the given context.

>> No.5107328

>>5107306

That is not a non sequitur, it's basic scientific epistemology. If you say "Xy happens, but Xz may not happen" in a context where X in general is demonstrably true, then you need to identify what it is that is different about y and z and propose a mechanism by which one can occur and the other does not. Otherwise you're just making up terms and acting as though it is possible to define some demostrable concept out of existence.

>> No.5107336

>>5107283
>One can be directly observed and tested, the other is only a plausible inductive inference.

Do you seriously not understand why that's ridiculous?

>> No.5107342

>>5107301
>You will never be able to replicate the transition from fully aquatic cartilaginous fish to tetrapods.

That's a specific instance, not a definition. That's like if I asked what a dog was, and you replied that I'll never be able to see the dog you had when you were a kid because it's dead now.

>> No.5107347

>>5107265

yeah except it is. check out Lenski's experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

>> No.5107352

>>5107325
>Normally one would substantiate such hypothesis by experimentally gained evidence. This is not possible in the given context.

No, it's not possible given the silly definition you're using.

>> No.5107354

>>5107313

If microevolution and macroevolution are different, there is the implication that they work by different mechanisms, which does not seem to be the case since the distinction is in time frame. It's functionally true that the universe could have been created last Tuesday in such a way that we have the illusion of history and memory, that doesn't make it a plausible hypothesis though just because we can't demonstrate that the universe existed before last Tuesday. That's why you cannot make such a distinction without a plausible reason that they should be considered different things. Just because something is outside of our direct ability to test because of time does not mean it's functionally different from the same concept that we can test tomorrow. This isn't complicated stuff.

>> No.5107362

>>5107328
Refer to >>5107325

>>5107336
How is scientific thinking "ridiculous"?

>>5107342
Cool way to dodge the point and to dismiss a real argument.

>> No.5107376

>>5107362

What joy do you get out trolling sci for hours every day?

>> No.5107392

>>5107362

Okay, you're an idiot.

>> No.5107393

>>5107347
Not what we were talking about. Some decades are an acceptable time scale for an experiment. Millions of years are not.

>>5107352
I didn't make the definition and no matter how you prefer to call it, the problem remains. Please address the actual point.

>>5107354
>there is the implication that they work by different mechanisms
The third time you're saying this and it has been addressed at least twice ITT. Argument by repetition does not work.

>Just because something is outside of our direct ability to test
You didn't get it. The lack of testability constitutes a fundamental epistemological difference.

>> No.5107399

>>5107376
What is incorrect about my posts? Please point out actual errors instead of attacking my person with uncalled for accusations.

>>5107392
Do not post flaming outside of /b/.

>> No.5107405

The fact that we occupy a universe in which life and the passage of time naturally occur

>> No.5107406

>>5107376
Carl is a no life neckbeard. Sometimes I come on here at 2-3am drunk and hes still on here

>> No.5107409

>>5107406
Everyone can put Carl in their namefield. There's no tripcode.

>> No.5107416

>>5107406
Jokes on you. I'm a successful scientist.

>> No.5107417

>>5107409
Yeah but your persona is very noticeable. Its obvious it is still you.

>> No.5107423

>>5107417
What "persona"? Do you mean the aura of wisdom?

>> No.5107428

>>5107416
Successful scientists do not troll all day long on 4chan. Successful scientists have a social life. I doubt youre even published

>> No.5107435

How does one prove evolution BESIDES pointing to transitional fossil forms (like trilobites), DNA polymorphisms, tonsils, domesticated animals, gene sequences, or vestigial features? YOU CAN'T.

>> No.5107495

How can one prove there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution?

>> No.5107513

>>5107435
I think you're forgetting single generation hereditary features.

>> No.5107514

http://www.youtube.com/user/EvolutionDocumentary/videos?view=0

>> No.5107516

>>5107347

>check out Lenski's experiment

Everyone has already heard of Lenski's experiment.

>> No.5107523

>>5107495

by looking at the definitions

>> No.5107531

>>5107516

yes im sure ghetto boy jatrelle has heard of it

>> No.5107532

It's science; there is no irrefutable proof, just repeated failure to show the predictions of the basic idea wrong.

>> No.5107557
File: 22 KB, 542x428, 1314516241853.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5107557

>>5107207
Science is not a logical argument, it's based on observations and predictions. A sphere doesn't have to understand (4/3)pi*r^3 to have volume. We study the universe and find out real things about it through observations and experiments, not my logically arguing it from a computer chair.

>> No.5107569

>>5107557
That's why there is no absolute "proof" in science. Asking for "proof" is wrong, but claiming examples to be "proof" is even wronger.

>> No.5107585

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/09/19/the-birth-of-the-new-the-rewiring-of-the-old/

Over 24 years, they observed the same adaptations in multiple different E-Coli cultures when exposed to the same environment.

In fact, this adaptation is so out of the norm for e-coli, that the substrate they used (citrate) is usually used to determine if a bacteria isn't e-coli. This is how great of a change was repeatedly observed.

This is the best evidence there is. Fuck idiots on youtube spouting analogies.

>> No.5107590

>>5107569

Yes, but see, adults don't need absolute proof to act or to think a certain way.

Is your house on fire? Do you have proof that it isn't? Oh well you better go and check then.

You're back? Well how do you know your house isn't on fire now? Better go check, you cannot be certain of anything.

>> No.5107591

How about direct and repeatable observation of speciation in controlled conditions?
Richard Lenski http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html

Side story: I had a friend in grad school who noticed a speciation event in the course of her research. She was a bit excited at first, but it turns out that it happens so often that it's not even worth publishing.

>> No.5107603

>>5107590
The OP was asking for proof. I'm not the OP.

>> No.5107610

>>5107603

Right. and i just demonstrated that in the real world, 99% sure is just as good as 100% sure.

So thermodynamics is 100% certain, as is relativity, and evolution, and the laws of motion, and a whole host of other things.

I know, i know, you've read books and watched tv a lot and they all say that nothing is certain.

They're just pandering to the ignorant masses.

>> No.5107615

>>5107610
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>> No.5107623

>>5107103
you cannot prove a fact

It's like asking someone to proof that there's day and night. Facts happen, and then you make theories of how it happens backed up with evidence.

>> No.5107624

>>5107615

Let's see, induction was used to make computers.

Computers work.

No problem there.

>philosophical

Ah, there's your problem. Philosophers are just butthurt that their methods don't create knowledge so they troll everyone that does.

>> No.5107627

>>5107623

...wow.

Yeah, i think it'd be pretty easy to prove that there's night and day.

Just how much science channel do you watch, kiddo?

>> No.5107629

>>5107624
>induction was used to make computers
That's electromagnetic induction, not logical induction you troll.

>their methods don't create knowledge
Science is based on philosophy. Are you implying that science doesn't create knowledge?

>> No.5107635

>>5107627
>Yeah, i think it'd be pretty easy to prove that there's night and day.
The same with evolution. see >>5107183

>> No.5107639
File: 22 KB, 381x400, 1348607900272.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5107639

>microevolution doesn't proove macroevolution

why do you even bother seperating the two?
it's the same exact mechanism. you don't have to prove macroevolution, there is only one evolution and the proof is that children get their parents jeans.

>> No.5107645

>>5107629

>That's electromagnetic induction, not logical induction you troll.

You moron. they used trial and error as well as scientific reasoning to make computers. That's what i meant.

>Science is based on philosophy. Are you implying that science doesn't create knowledge?

I hear this a lot. Are you saying that caterpillars are equivalent to butterflies?

Are you saying that linguistics is the source of all knowledge because any intelligent thought is expressed via language?

Why do you troll with this nonsense?

>> No.5107650

>>5107523

So by giving the same observation two different names we can claim to have two different observations?

>> No.5107659

>>5107629
Computers don't use or rely on EM Induction you know. It's all solid state microelectronics and transistors.

the most inductance comes into it is maybe for the power supply, but that isn't even required.

>> No.5107655

>>5107645
>they used trial and error
We all know. Still irrelevant to the debate.

>I hear this a lot.
Because it's true.

>Are you saying that caterpillars are equivalent to butterflies?
Strawman.

>source of all knowledge
If you wanted to name a source of all knowledge, it would be philosophy. The most general term to describe intellectual discourse.

>> No.5107661

>>5107659
You don't have a hard drive?

>> No.5107662
File: 516 KB, 755x726, ngc6745_hst_755.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5107662

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Italian, nonnative lizards left on an island off the Croatian coast in 1971. Scientist come back to find the lizard had evolved a new digestive tract to digest plants, as well as a larger head and stronger jaw.

Call me crazy, but this evolution thing may be real after all.

>> No.5107665

>>5107655

>We all know.

So then what problem is there with induction?

>If you wanted to name a source of all knowledge, it would be philosophy. The most general term to describe intellectual discourse.

But it's not.

>> No.5107669

>>5107661
I have an SSD actually.

Hard drives still aren't EM Induction devices (induction being an induced voltage/current from a changing magnetic flux)

They store information in the direction of ferromagnetic bits

>> No.5107671

>>5107665
>So then what problem is there with induction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>But it's not.
It is.

>> No.5107673

>>5107655
Is everyone who disagrees with you a strawman?

>> No.5107674

>>5107671

oh. wikipedia makes your arguments?

>that page

>first, we must define what "is" is.

Are you fucking trolling me?

>> No.5107676

>>5107669
Okay.

>>5107673
Asking unrelated and irrelevant questions in order to distract from the real points is a strawman.

>> No.5107685

>>5107674

>Opened link
>Ctrl+F "must define what"
>No results

wat

>> No.5107680

>>5107674
The article answers your question. Read it.

>> No.5107684

>>5107671

>that entire page

>nothing but semantics

>He argued that science does not use induction, and induction is in fact a myth. Instead, knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. The main role of observations and experiments in science, he argued, is in attempts to criticize and refute existing theories.

This is what happens when you lock a person up in academia for a few decades. their brains pickle.

>> No.5107690

>>5107676
It was a comparison you fuck idiot

>> No.5107691

>>5107684
lel

>> No.5107692

>>5107690
An unrelated and irrelevant comparison.

>> No.5107694

>>5107676
>Asking unrelated and irrelevant questions in order to distract from the real points is a strawman.

No it isn't. And i was analogizing your statement about science coming from philosophy as thinking that caterpillars and butterflies are the same thing.

>>5107680

It doesn't answer a fucking thing. it just spins around on the dick of semantics going "What defines "Is" what defines "conjecture" what defines "knowledge" and then finds loopholes in the linguistics to try and wedge bullshit assertions into it.

>> No.5107698

>>5107692

0/10

>> No.5107699

>>5107692
Carl wins this thread.

Stop posting guys.

>> No.5107712

>>5107676
>Asking unrelated and irrelevant questions in order to distract from the real points is a strawman
that's actually a red herring, not a strawman. jus' super saiyan

>> No.5107718

>>5107694
>No it isn't. And i was analogizing your
It is and your analogy was inappropriate.

>It doesn't answer a fucking thing.
Maybe you're not mature enough to understand it.

>>5107698
??

>>5107712
Okay.

>> No.5107751

>>5107718

0/10