[quote]ironcross wrote:
This isn’t proof that evolution happened. All this proves is that there was another great ape.
If you want proof, check out evolutions that have happened in our lifetime. For example, the snail bradybaena reversed its shell spiralling pattern within one mutation, aka generation, and therefore those with the mutation can no longer mate with those without it, as the genitals don’t line up between the two mutations. Now we have two different species of snails. Also check out bacteria evolution. If you’re really impatient, try virus evolution. [/quote]
That’s interesting. I wasn’t aware of the bradybaena mutation. Can they be artificially inseminated resulting in offspring? That would be an interesting caveat as to the question of artificial(human) selection as it applies to what constitutes a separate species?
I was aware of the evidence on speciation of non-sexually reproducing species(bacteria, etc…), I wasn’t aware there was evidence within our life-time for something like a snail.[/quote]
Probably, but I’m not aware of any attempts. Bradybaena isn’t studied in a lab as far as I know.
[i]Skeletal remains found in a South African cave may yield new clues to human development and answer key questions of the evolution of the human lineage, according to a series of papers released today in Science magazine co-written by a Texas A&M University anthropology professor. (…)
“It’s a great find,” he adds, “because it provides strong confirmation for Darwin’s theories about evolution.”[/i]
This find was in the news last year but the good professor finished his paper and published the findings.
[/quote]
This just sets evolution back a step, because now we have to find the missing link between apes and Australopithecus sediba, and THEN find the missing link between Australopithecus sediba and man…[/quote]
It’s odd that people who claim that infinite regression isn’t possible insist that intermediate species are infinite.
Anyway, I love the irony of the fact that these findings are published by a professor from a Texas university.[/quote]
Not only did it come from Texas, but it came from Rick Perry’s alma mater – Texas A&M. Maybe that why he’s been saying there are gaps in the theory.
[/quote]
I don’t personally have any real issues with the theory of evolution, and I am a Catholic, first.
Okay, with that out of the way: Are you saying there are NOT “gaps” in the theory of evolution? Seriously?
To be fair, the researchers already believe evolution to start with and they do and have to fit any findings they come up with to just that mold. You go and search for evidence for something (like cutting into babies’ penises) and you’ll eventually find it.
[quote]Alffi wrote:
To be fair, the researchers already believe evolution to start with and they do and have to fit any findings they come up with to just that mold. You go and search for evidence for something (like cutting into babies’ penises) and you’ll eventually find it. [/quote]
Scientists go out with the intention to disprove evolutionary theory. If a scientist were to find a fossil that disproved evolution and the discovery stood up to scrutiny, he or she would be unbelievably famous.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
If by “proof” you mean: evidence, then yes.
If you mean irrefutability, then of course not.-- Any body of evidence supporting a model(like evolution) can be refuted with an equally large or compelling body of evidence.–
This new evidence is just an amendment to a model of human evolutionary ancestry.
[/quote]
I am not sure about that. Can you imagine, from a large amount of scientific observations, another model to explain how species are what they are and that makes sense? I don’t think so.
Can you gather a large amount of observations that would lead that could refute the model of gravitation? Again I don’t think so.[/quote]
You serious? The model of gravitation proposed by Newton was refuted by the concept of space-time distortion(relativity). In fact, Einstein had quite a large hurdle to overcome in the form of Newton’s laws on gravitation.
There is not A theory of evolution. Evolution by natural selection as Darwin proposed it was MOSTLY inaccurate compared to the model of speciation and evolution based on current evidence.The model has been amended and parsed many times since Darwin’s Origin of Species.
A Theory is a MODEL based on observation. Science is the process of refining/amending/falsifying a model through testing and observation.
If you’re looking for irrefutable evidence or truth in science, you’re looking in the wrong place.[/quote]
You are right. But Newton laws of gravitation is an approximation of those of Einstein. Or general relativity is sort of like an widened scope of Newton laws. Gravitations still happens. Evolution still happen even with a more elaborate model.
I agree with what you say, I just assumed you were a creationist like a lot of people here, that you were implying that evolution can’t be proven therefore God created everything. Even if the theory is wrong observations are still there, God didn’t create the world 5000 thousand years ago and species did change over time. That was where I was trying to go.