This question is obviously one I’m posing to people who deny evolution. What hypothetical evidence can you imagine that would cause you to conclude that evolution takes place on the planet Earth?
A plan is just a list of things that go wrong.
-The lost chapter of Genesis. 
Sentience.
I assume this question is directed at those who are actually creationists - that is people who claim to have some sort of proof against evolution. From the perspective of someone who is not so into the subject, has looked a little into evolution, wasn’t impressed by its conclusiveness and decided to accept the Biblical acount, it obviously a pointless question.
But even from a scientific perspective, what is the point of the question? Suppose there’s nothing that can possibly prove the theory? What of it?
:rolleyes:
'nuff said (emphasis mine).
You make the common mistake of confusing the word “theory” with the word “hypothesis.” Evolution has been proven, with a great deal more physical evidence (fossils, Galapagos finches, experiments with guppies, increasing number of African elephants being born without tusks–which used to be much rarer–due to poachers’ elimination of many tusked males from the gene pool, etc.) than many other scientific theories (e.g., relativity) that you probably have no problem with. If you looked more than “a little” into it, you’d have more information to base your conclusions on.
From the Online Medical Dictionary:
(Emphasis mine.)
Lissener,
Do you understand the OP? It does not seem like it.
? :blink: ? :blink: ?
The OP doesn’t have an answer, was my point. Evolution has been proven; any debate that continues is simply about the mechanism that drives it, with Natural Selection way out in front on that one.
Creationists are not engaged in a debate, but in denial, and are not looking for proof. A creationist wouldn’t recognize proof if it bought them a drink, took them home, and sodomized them.
In other words, no.
IzzyR, how about taking a stab at answering the question in the OP first instead of asking your own questions. I, for one, would be very interested in your point of view.
lissener, you make the common mistake of confusing Evolution with Adaptation. Adaptation is one species changing it’s characteristicts to conform to it’s environment. Evolution is one species changing into a completely different one. Of all of the millions of species on this planet that have adapted over the years, not a single piece of evidence has ever been uncovered that links one species to the emergence of another. Hence the term “missing link”. Show me one of those, and I’ll be convinced.
You have already asked me this question here. I responded that I don’t know here. You disapproved of my response here. What’s left?
No you won’t. Like most creationists, if someone produces “missing link” fossil B between fossil A and fossil C, you’ll merely claim that there are now “missing links” between A and B, and between B and C.
And you, Bad-Mojo, are confusing evolution with speciation. Evolution is, in Darwin’s words, ‘descent with modification,’ which is essentially what lissener said. Speciation is but one possible result of evolution, adaptation is another.
Also, the term ‘missing link’ is very misleading and only serves to perpetuate misunderstanding about how evolution works. Species transformations are, ultimately, more of a continuum rather than a quantum leap. Exactly when one species begets another is almost impossible to determine. Thus, the idea of a ‘missing link’ is a false one.
We see discreet species in the fossil record more because that’s how fossilization works than because that’s how evolution works.
Ah, pldennison… There you go assuming that I’m a creationist. The problem is, nobody has ever produced such a link.
OK, how about this one.
A - small two legged dinosaurs
B - small two legged dinosaurs with long fingers and feathers on their arms (archaeopterix)
C - birds
Or how about this -
A - tiny horse-like creatures, long long ago
B - bigger horse-like creatures, long ago
C - modern horses
Mojo, I don’t get you. You want a walking, talking Eohippus to jump in front of you with a big hat that reads “Look at me, I’m a missing link”?
There is not such thing as a “missing link.” It’s a fallacy. Evolution, even punk eek, is a process.
Can you point out to me the missing link between infancy and adulthood?
IzzyR, I fully remember our previous discussions and see no need to regurgitate it. And I most certainly did not disapprove of the fact that you don’t know what evidence would convince you. I did, however, challenge you to research the issue and try to determine the answer.
So I guess you could say I am still interested to know if you have put enough thought into the topic to ascertain what would amount to sufficient convincing evidence for you.
[nitpick / hijack]
Eohippus is no longer the valid name for the critter in question. Its proper name (because of seniority rules) is Hyracotherium.
[/nitpick / hijack]
Bad mojo, you make the common mistake (unique to creationists, BTW) of confusing “evolution” with “speciation.” (Both your definitions are off: an organism doesn’t “change it’s characteristics to conform”: that’s Lamarckianism. And the bit about its environment: that’s natural selection, not evolution.)
You also exhibit ignorance of the meaning of the unscientific term “missing link.” The “missing link” is a red herring invented by denialists (my new word; now I don’t ever have to use the word “creationists” again!). Speciation is such a gradual process that no individual organism can, even in theory, be a “missing link.” The “missing link” of legend is a third primate species to bridge the gap in the fossil record between apes and humans. Many, many species are so closely related to other members of their genus that there’s some doubt that they are separate species, let alone “linked” in the “missing,” apocryphal sense of that word as misused by denialists.
The concept of species is nothing more than an artifact of language. “Species” don’t exist in nature: animals just reproduce and accumulate the genetic idiosyncrasies of their parents, and with geographical isolation leading to genetic isolation, one group gradually becomes different from another group. We humans see a difference between a lion and a tiger, so we impose upon them the linguistic convenience of a “species.”
So the “proof” that you’re looking for, Bad-Mojo, is a fantasy based on ignorance.
Little horses to big horses, etc. It’s still a horse. It’s not an elephant. The concept of a species adapting is very acceptable. The idea of a fish evolving into a moose is not. I just can’t swallow the concept that every creature can be traced back like a tree to common roots. There are lots of straight lines, but no branches. Does that explanation make sense?