What is one thing that you know for certain about evolution?

Question

Wow, nobody can answer this? Millions of people believe in it, yet no one can say one thing for certain about it? That's sad...

Answer 1

Bacteria evolve as demonstrated in a laboratory by Richard Lenski.

Answer 2

So much to say and only 300 words to say it in.

You must first define what you mean by "evolution," which can be used by one person to mean something as simple as change over time, or by another person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor; leaving the mechanism of change unspecified.  In its full-throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the meaning that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community.  And that is the sense in which I will be using it here.

The first step, then, in evolution is for life to arise from non-life...in other words, "spontaneous generation."  Dr. Harold Morowitz, a physicist from Yale University, set the odds for spontaneous generation of any kind at 10 to the hundred-billionth power.  Sir Fred Hoyle, author of "Evolution from Space," set the odds as low as 10 to the 40,000th power.  Either way, scientists generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 10 to the 50th power, so the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility.

But, for argument's sake, let's say we do have one cell that spontaneous sprung to life out of some pre-biotic soup.  People who believe in organic evolution teach that inherited genetic mutations cause one species to produce a different species.  However, mutations are not able to add new information to the genome. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome, whereas mutations are frequently observed to cause a loss of genetic information.

There would need to be some way to consistently add information to the genome to arrive at palm trees and people from a simple single-celled organism—the hypothetical common ancestor of all life on earth. Evolutionists have failed to answer the question, “Where did all the new information come from since mutations are known to reduce information?” You cannot expect evolution, which requires a net gain in information over millions of years, to occur as a result of mutation and natural selection. Natural selection, evolution’s supposed mechanism, causes a loss of information and can only act on traits that are already present.

If you must, read the sources that are recommended by other answerers, but as you read, see if anyone proves an increase in genetic information by mutation.  If you can't find it, get back to me and I'll give you a list of sources that support my statements; you can begin with the books in the source list below.

Answer 3

Humans and other animals (such as chimps) share a common ancestor.  We know this because of links in junk DNA, and fossil evidence.

Darwinian natural selection is the only known process that can bring about the kinds of change we see.

The fact of evolution (gradual change over billions of years, and the common ancestry of all life) , and the theory behind it its mechanism (Darwinian natural selection) are two different questions.

The existence of God is not refuted by either evolution itself, or by its mechanism--natural selection--and no good scientist will say that it is.

Answer 4

Your going about this in the wrong manner if your question is about proving or disproving religion.  You cannot prove or disprove faith.  That's why it's called faith.  Evolution does not disprove the existence of God, though it does disprove the Adam and Eve theory, which is to say it disproves the bible, but not God itself.  

Answer 5

We can say many things for certain about evolution.Let's not just stick with one thing.There is no one thing that would show  evolution to be true for certain.Scientific theories draw from a multitude of facts.But first,the distinction between micro and macroevolution is only a matter of time.Your objection sounds like someone claiming they believe in inches but not miles,because there's too much distance.Or you don't believe a tree can live and grow for more than 150 years because no one lives long enough to witness it.As for throwing god out of the equation,i might suggest reading Kenneth Miller   http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/    A very intelligent christian biologist.His books are Finding Darwins God and Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul.                                                                                                   One of my favorite lines of evidence is endogenous retroviruses.These are viruses that have left their mark in the genome becase they invaded and infected germ line cells.In other words,they get passed on through heredity because viruses reproduce using your bodies own replication process.They do so at random,just happy to be copied.Since they rarely get copied in germ line cells,and they are random,there's no other explanation for why groups of organisms share the same dead viruses in the same parts of the genome.This has nothing to do with design or function.These were viral infections.Another example is how they are found in the cat family in the same manner.Also,here's a short list.There are many more.                                                                                                                                                                                 Evidence for your macroevolution includes:(from 29 evidences of macroevolution)Unity of life

Nested hierarchies

Convergence of independent phylogenies

Statistics of incongruent phylogenies

Transitional forms

Reptile-birds

Reptile-mammals

Ape-humans

Legged whales

Legged seacows

Chronology of common ancestors Anatomical parahomology

Molecular parahomology

Anatomical convergence

Molecular convergence

Anatomical suboptimal function

Molecular suboptimal function

I'll leave you with this.Please educate yourself:A good book to start off with is The Selfish Gene or Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea .

Also you can read ,in no particular order.Climbing Mount Improbable,Genome An Autobiography Of A Species in 23 chapters,The Blind Watchmaker,The Ancestors Tale,The Mating Mind,The Red Queen, From D.N.A. To Diversity, A few more i thought of Deep Time : Paleobiology's Perspective ,Genetics in the Wild , Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: Speciation--The Evolution of New Species,The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution ,

Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science Of Evo Devo And The Making Of The Animal Kingdom by Sean B. Carroll

This book is fun if you want something fast paced and about the creepy world of parasites Parasite Rex. Here are some of my reccomended resources :A good place to start out with is http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ It's a really good site that's easy for even beginners to follow.If you want to have a little more fun,check out http://www.talkorigins.org/ or http://www.pandasthumb.org/ , http://darwiniana.org/

Answer 6

You can not believe in Microevolution without Macroevolution.

This video will explain it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAEWb3gig...

Answer 7

> "What is one thing that you know for certain about evolution"

That it exists as an observeable phenomenon in the world.

> "Millions of people believe in it, yet no one can say one thing for certain about it?"

No scientist "believes" in evolution - they "accept" it.

Belief requires faith, while acceptance requires evidence. Evolution is supported by evidence - so it is accepted by the scientific community.

> "your example is of microevolution. I have no problem with the word or the meaning evolution. It's used everyday in many different things. But what I have a problem with is that people believe in MACROevolution"

The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not commonly used by scientists - only by anti-evolutionists. To a scientist, evolution is evolution is evolution!

It is, as you know, defined as "A change in the frequency of alleles in a population, with time". So an increase in antibiotic resistance genes is evolution, as is the slow, gradual change from one species of organism into another. Such larger-scale changes are the result of many small changes added together: if I step an inch a day, I will eventually walk a mile.

An excellent example is from a long-term study of the evolution of populations of E. coli bacteria. These bacteria evolved the ability to metabolise citrate - the inability to do which is a DEFINING characteristic of the E. coli species (in other words, the population had changed into a new species). This required at least three seperate mutations - each of which was catalogued by the experimenters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...

> "and use it to throw God out of a job."

No field or discipline of science can address the issue of God at all.

Science operates by examining and using the laws of physics. God, if He exists, created those laws and can arbitrarily decide to obey them, or not to obey them. So science cannot examine Him in any way (and does not try).

It is true that scientist-philosophers like Richard Dawkins point out that evolution permits a model of the universe which does not require God. But it cannot EXCLUDE Him either.

The belief in God (unlike the acceptance of a scientific theory) is supported by Faith - not by evidence. And Faith is the ability to believe in something despite the lack of any evidence for it. If your faith in God is so weak that it is threatened by anything which suggests He doesn't need to exist (but doesn't prove that He doesn't exist), then that is your problem. Stop attacking science because it doesn't support your beliefs.

Answer 8

> What is one thing that you know for certain about evolution?

It happens.  Allele frequencies in populations change over time.  Mutations occur.  Speciation events occur.  Polyploidy occurs in plants, occasionally resulting in new species.  Selective breeding works.

> throw God out of a job.

a)  God hasn't been seen nor heard from in 1,975 years.  No evidence He's been on the job in recent years.  With this shabby attendance record, He'd be fired.

b)  The ONLY source crediting God (the god of Abraham) with Creation is Moses.  Moses wasn't a scientist.  He did not invite peer review of his work.  Quite to the contrary -- Moses silenced his critics by killing them, or by having his gang of Levite thugs kill them.  Everyone except Aaron who disagreed with Moses had a painful death.  See your Old Testament.

Answer 9

umm like these fossils of like apes which are bipedal (on two feet) who dont share the same skull as us but similar to ours and mordern apes. Who are they then? Birth defects...... no alieans....... no walking chimpanzees......... no

http://www.accessscience.com/images/Diki...

http://compuball.com/Inquisition/av/imag...

http://www.boneclones.com/images/bh012_w...

We know what bipedal animal is because their back bone enters at the base of the skull which all the fossils of our ancestors we have found

This is none bipedal

http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-003-...

Chimpanzee

This is a human skull

http://www.infovisual.info/03/photo/huma...

compare them to the human skull and compar them to the chimpanzee or gorilla or orangatang etc they will more resemble humans and also humans are the only bipedal and those skulls are all bipedal except the chimp of course.

How do you explain that then  

Answer 10

Science is not about knowing things for certain.  Taken to the extreme, there is really nothing we can know for certain (except our own existence).  Science is about determining the best explanation for a given phenomenon.  We create models, or theories, that describe how the phenomenon works and we test these theories by how well they make predictions.

To ask what we know for certain about evolution is to miss the point of what science is.  The question should be: "What does the evidence tell us about evolution?"  And in fact, the evidence very overwhelmingly tells us that organisms have evolved over millions of years.

Evolution is one of the best supported theories in all of science.  Like any good theory, there are multiple independent lines of evidence that support it.  Everything from the fossil record to molecular evidence to bio-geography to physics, chemistry and geology and more... all these things converge to paint the picture that life on earth has evolved over a long period of time.

Evolution also does not put god out of a job.  In fact there is nothing we could ever learn through science that would put god out of a job because whatever science finds, one could always say that was how god did it.  Perhaps god set into motion the process of evolution and that is how he created us.  There is and can not be any conflict between a belief in god and anything science finds.

The conflict happens when someone wants to maintain a literal interpretation of the bible.  Stating that the universe is 6000 years old, for example, is an empirical claim about the nature of the universe.  Its a scientific claim... its something that can be tested... And, in fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

I suppose my question to you would be, what is it about evolution that you do not find convincing?

Answer 11

I know that evolution takes place constantly. It's easily observed.

I know that creationists make a distinction between micro and macro evolution that scientists don't make.  I know that this distinction is really an example of moving the goalposts. The evidence they asked for 50 years ago has been found, but they no longer admit it will convice them.

I know that there are countless scientific innovations based on or informed by the theory of evolution. I know of none informed by creationism.

I know that creationism is a front. Perhaps not one many adherents understand they have aligned themselves with, but a front nonetheless. Their agenda?  To rid the world of reason and critical thinking. These are people who are comfortable with ideas like "holy wars" and the concept of flying planes into buildings.

I know creationists are a marginal cult of sheeplike followers who mutter, over and over, that the evidence everyone else can see just isn't there. They are sad little people, more worthy of our sympathy than our disdain. But they know, because we operate in ways that thet don't, that they are safe and free to spout their nonsense and poison the minds of their children.

Answer 12

But I know so much about evolution that one thing would just be silly.

1 The universe is older than 6000 years old and the speed of light constant and basic trig proves it. Otherwise we couldn't see 99.9999995 of the universe.

2 The earth is older than 6000 years old and zircon radiometric dating proves it. Never say "carbon -14", it makes you sound stupid or crazy, nobody uses it in anyway.

3 Humans and Complex Life haven't always been on earth, The Moon and other large impacts prove it.

4 Bacteria and Viruses evolve so fast we can see it and the Flu shot proves it. Without evolution your just injecting yourself with a mercury based preservative. Um, mercury.

  

5 Humans have evolved because of malaria its called sickle cell anemia. Lactose tolerance is another one.

That's five to get you started if you need more just ask, glad to help

Answer 13

We know so many details....and it is sooooo logical and non-controversial.  Basically we know that species have a lot of variability and that the variability can be acted upon by selective pressures in the environment to favor one type over another and that sometimes different environments (like on different islands, Darwin's finches, for example) will keep these new types apart so that they also evolve different behaviors or physical differences that would keep them from interbreeding if they got back together again....thus new species formed.  It is not complicated, it is simple and elegant, and it is most decidedly not "anti-God" since no supernatural powers are required.  

It is just so simple and logical I have no idea why anyone would object to the basic process. Of course, it is WAY more complicated in nature, with genes transferred in many different ways and turned on and off by environmental variables....but the basic process of variability acted upon by variable environmental forces and separation producing speciation makes sense.

If one wants to imagine supernatural stuff, that's fine too, but it is just that...."imagination" or "faith" or whatever you want to call it.  One can also easily imagine that "God" created the universe (Big Bang, whatever....) and then all these elegant processes like evolution were all part of his grand scheme.  Why not go with that? Evolution has been shown many times on the macro and micro scale....not to mention the fossil record, for "heaven's" sake.