Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

---

OT :

I made an example out of JAMESMUSSELWHITE awarding him for infraction . I wont hesitate to award others if they continue to attack the poster instead of the post . Please be guided accordingly and post responsibly . Thank you and happy posting .

[brownprose]

yup, at least there should be laboratory and experimental test to prove it, not only analyzing fossils and prehistoric bones through occular inspection and speculation, there should be a genetical foot print to start with........

There are natural realities that cannot be put or tested in a lab such as thunderstorms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other natural phenomena. In many instances, science only observes, investigates, uses measures/calculations to understand them. The study of transitional fossils is just only a part and parcel of scientific inquiry for us to understand how organisms evolved.

If evolution was all along just a theory, science would have not adapted the same principles of evolution to the breakthroughs it offers as a consequence such as Directed Evolution. Directed Evolution, by the way, is evolution at work in controlled environments (see Directed evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). This is one proof that the principles of evolution is correct.

But even for the sake of satisfying our curiousity that evolution has no laboratory proof -- there is actually a proof now. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist. I have posted this link earlier in the thread.

[Tirong-say]

There are natural realities that cannot be put or tested in a lab such as thunderstorms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other natural phenomena. In many instances, science only observes, investigates, uses measures/calculations to understand them. The study of transitional fossils is just only a part and parcel of scientific inquiry for us to understand how organisms evolved.

If evolution was all along just a theory, science would have not adapted the same principles of evolution to the breakthroughs it offers as a consequence such as Directed Evolution. Directed Evolution, by the way, is evolution at work in controlled environments (see Directed evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). This is one proof that the principles of evolution is correct.

But even for the sake of satisfying our curiousity that evolution has no laboratory proof -- there is actually a proof now. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist. I have posted this link earlier in the thread.

So meaning to say we as humans is still ill equipped scientifically to prove things.....

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Headline news from YAHOO right now :

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found - Yahoo! News

[brownprose]

So meaning to say we as humans is still ill equipped scientifically to prove things.....

For the natural sciences humans have the capacity to understand the mechanics of the world around us -- gravity, atoms, human anatomy, evolution etc. -- and yet there is still so much to learn about them. It doesn't mean however that just because we still do a lot of research about them proves that they remain just merely theories/hypothesis. You may want to refer to this Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to distinguish between "theory as a hypothesis" and "theory as a fact."

[brownprose]

Headline news from YAHOO right now :

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found - Yahoo! News

Wow! another plus points to the facts about evolution.

Excerpts of the news: "This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution," said David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

[Tirong-say]

For the natural sciences humans have the capacity to understand the mechanics of the world around us -- gravity, atoms, human anatomy, evolution etc. -- and yet there is still so much to learn about them. It doesn't mean however that just because we still do a lot of research about them proves that they remain just merely theories/hypothesis. You may want to refer to this Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to distinguish between "theory as a hypothesis" and "theory as a fact."

yup I agree, but in evolution the mechanics is so complex, in cellular level alone, there should be a scientific and nature induced proof, how from a hairy primate with less brain sophistication became a true human, somehow I did not see as of the moment solid and irrefutable scientific evidences....

[Tirong-say]

Nice info Sir Spring...........

[brownprose]

yup I agree, but in evolution the mechanics is so complex, in cellular level alone, there should be a scientific and nature induced proof, how from a hairy primate with less brain sophistication became a true human, somehow I did not see as of the moment solid and irrefutable scientific evidences....

To answer your question a central tenet in science is that a scientific theory is supposed to have predictive power, and verification of predictions are seen as an important and necessary support for the theory. The theory of evolution has provided so far three predictions:

* "Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. Since this prediction was made, biologists have discovered the existence of DNA, which has a mutation rate of roughly 10−9 per nucleotide per cell division; this provides just such a mechanism."

* "Some DNA sequences are shared by very different organisms. It has been predicted by the theory of evolution that the differences in such DNA sequences between two organisms should roughly resemble both the biological difference between them according to their anatomy and the time that had passed since these two organisms have separated in the course of evolution, as seen in fossil evidence. The rate of accumulating such changes should be low for some sequences, namely those which code for critical RNA or proteins, and high for others that code for less critical RNA or proteins; but for every specific sequence, the rate of change should be roughly constant over time. These results have been experimentally confirmed. Two examples are DNA sequences coding for rRNA which is highly conserved, and DNA sequences coding for fibrinopeptides (amino acid chains which are discarded during the formation of fibrin), which are highly non-conserved."

Source: (Bruce Alberts; Alexander Johnson; Julian Lewis; Martin Raff; Keith Roberts; Peter Walter (March, 2002), Molecular Biology of the Cell (4th ed.), Routledge, ISBN 0-8153-3218-1)

* "Prior to 2004, paleontologists had found fossils of amphibians with necks, ears, and four legs, in rock no older than 365 million years old. In rocks more than 385 million years old they could only find fish, without these amphibian characteristics. Evolutionary theory predicted that since amphibians evolved from fish, an intermediate form should be found in rock dated between 365 and 385 million years ago. Such an intermediate form should have many fish-like characteristics, conserved from 385 million years ago or more, but also have many amphibian characteristics as well. In 2004, an expedition to islands in the Canadian arctic searching specifically for this fossil form in rocks that were 375 million years old discovered fossils of Tiktaalik." (Source: "Shubin, Neil. (2008 ). Your Inner Fish. Pantheon. ISBN 9780375424472.)

[brownprose]

@Tirong-say

Will continue this tomorrow naa pa koy lakaw ... nice exchange so far. Til then. God bless you.