What is the proof that evolution is true?

Question

Just wondering, because mutations cannot have been the driving machine for evolutionary processes; for mutations giving rise to new species to have occurred, information would have to have been added to the genetic code. In all mutations studied thus far, all have resulted in a cumulative loss of information from teh genetic code. Since this is not an option, how can evolution be true?

Answer 1

This is a standard bogus argument cut and pasted from an anti-science website - in other words, a lie.

This page has some relevant scientific information:

"Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB...

and this page is where the asker likely got their information:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...

It's so full of lies that the authors are destined for h**l.

Answer 2

Well first off, you should read up on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution which has been proven to be a very accurate response  to the theory of how species on the earth have evolved.

But in a nutshell, species have had to adapted to their location and environment changes. An example would be the turtles which inhabit the galopogose islands.

But you should google Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and it'll be much more clear to you.

Answer 3

"In all mutations studied thus far, all have resulted in a cumulative loss of information from teh genetic code"

that is totally false.  It has been documented that mutation can also over-replicate DNA which increases the information which can be mutated by futher generations

So your whole claim is invalid

The proof is in the accumlated knowledge of science

Response to your response to Kathy S> It could also indicate that a planet with life on it blew up and the scattered remnants ended up on Earth which caused biochemical reactions to the alien bio-matter for a Random Design concept (which is as equally valid as ID).  So out of the 3 ideas only 1 (Evolution) has chemical, genetic, palentology, geology, etc backing it up so i would choose the one with evidence other the other 2 which are interesting but at this time lack any evidence

Answer 4

Here is my usual answer to evolution questions...

Evolution is built on lies and deceptions. Only people that refuse to open their eyes and see the truth can believe in it.

Here is a small part of that truth...

Evolution teaches that we came from animals.

Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.

Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.

Sea life from single-cell life.

Single cell life from chemicals.

Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.

Conclusion, all live came from rocks.

Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?

The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that “Micro-evolution” is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only “Micro-evolution” has ever been observed.

1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)

2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.

3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.

4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.

5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.

6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be “Adaptation”

The Sun is Shrinking.

o.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big...

The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?

Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.

1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.

2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.

3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14

4. The rate of decay is a constant.

1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.

2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.

The Geological Columns.

Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.

Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.

There is only 2 possibilities for this...

1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.

2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.

The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.

The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ½ of its strength every 1450 years.

Time Magnetic strength

2,000 AD 1

555 AD 2

900BC 4

2,350BC 8

3,800BC 16

About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.

About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.

About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.

Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.

5,250BC 32

6,700BC 64

---

50,200BC-68,719,476,736

Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.

What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?

Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.

How do stars form?

There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.

Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.

This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.

Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.

The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.

Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.

The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?

The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.

1) Lucy.

A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.

2) Heidelberg Man.

Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.

3) Nebraska Man.

Built from a pigs tooth

4) Piltdown Man.

The jaw was a modern ape

5) Peking Man.

Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.

6) Neanderthal Man.

Old Man with arthritis.

7) New Guinea man.

? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.

8) Gro-Magnon Man.

Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.

PS: the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..

Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.

Answer 5

>"In all mutations studied thus far, all have resulted in a cumulative loss of information from teh genetic code."

Sorry, but that is flat-out false.

What creationist sources don't tell you is that there are many different kinds of mutations that *together* produce "added information" ... ALL THE TIME.   They don't have to occur at the same time.   For example, a mutation called a 'gene duplication' will cause a second copy of a gene to be added to the same or a different chromosome.   And another kind of mutation called a 'point mutation' can change the letters in one of the duplicate genes and change its properties.   Again the two mutations don't have to occur at the same time ... they can occur hundreds of generations apart.  

The result:  what was one one gene producing one protein is now two genes producing two proteins with different properties.  Would you not call a new gene coding for a new protein with new properties, "added information"?

An example of this are the three proteins that give us three-color vision.   We can trace this quite clearly to a gene duplication in an early primate that had two-color vision ... a duplication of one of the two pigments ... followed much later by a point mutation that changed the wavelength sensitivity of one of the two copies ... producing, in effect, a third pigment.   This mutation can be seen quite clearly in humans, apes, and Old World Monkeys ... all of which have exactly the same three-color pigments ... but not in New World Monkeys (the monkeys of central and south america), which have two-color vision like most mammals.  

The "common designer" idea just does not explain why primates on one side of the Atlantic have two-color vision, while those on the other side have three-color vision.  Evolution explains it perfectly ... the gene duplication mutation occurred *after* the split in the continents!

Second example ... a bacterium waste pond next to a factory has developed a mutation that produces an enzyme that digests *nylon*.   Since nylon is a man-made material that didn't even exist before 1935, this new enzyme is absolutely "added information" that was not in the genome of the bacterium 100 years ago.

So this "no added information" argument is just well-known Creationist rubbish.

Answer 6

Evidence that is often cited as proof of evolution:

1. Species change over time: this doesn't necessarily have to mean macroevolution.  For example, the soapberry bugs in florida have been witnessed changing over time.  They've had changes in not only morphology, but also life history and genetics ever since a new host tree has been introduced to their environment.

2. Vestigial Organs: Useless or rudimentary versions of a body part that has an important function in other, closely allied, species.  The North Island brown kiwi, a flightless bird, has tiny, stubby wings.  The rubber boa snake has remnant hind limbs.  The evolutionary interpretation of these structures is that kiwis and boas are descended, with modifications, from ancestors in which the wings or hind legs were fully formed and functional.

3. Fossil Record: The simple fact that fossils exist, and that the vast majority of fossil forms are unlike species that are living today, argues that life has changed through time.  While there are gaps in the fossil record, the fact of extinction, the law of succession and transitional forms all support evolution.

4. Homologies:  Homology is the study of likeness.  Even though many vertebrate forelimbs are used for different functions, they all have the same sequence and arrangement of bones.  Look at the forelimbs of humans, moles, horses, dolphins, and bats.  All of the bones are in the same arrangement.  There are many more examples of homologies (developmental, molecular, etc.), but the bone thing was one example.

And information can be added to the genetic code.  One example is that during replication, a sequence in the code gets duplicated and now there are two repetitions of that exact section of DNA on each chromosome.  Those two sections are now free to evolve separately, allowing new proteins/enzymes etc.

A duplication of genetic material may produce the same thing right away, but given enough time, they may begin to become two separate proteins.  Most likely, at least one of these proteins will be new...meaning that there is now new genetic material.

Answer 7

Similar genetic Codes are the signs of a p**s-poor designer.  God can make a man and an ape in any combination of the genes, but they just so happen to line up in the genomes of both?  Seems to me if he wanted to prove himself, that'd be the way to do it, you know, mixing it up a little.  

Being a theory doesn't make it less true.  Theory is a body of knowledge that encompasses a wide range of material on a subject that has been subjected to scrutiny by peer review and is falsifiable.  Something a designer isn't.

Mutations can be neutral or beneficial, but most evolution occurs by using old genes in new ways, with different combinations and that sort of thing.

I don't expect you to believe me, but I hope you realize that faith and science don't conflict.  Science is materialism, it doesn't have anything that cannot be falsified or tested.

Answer 8

goldfish and poodle

Answer 9

It's been said for decades now that there isn't any "proof" of evolution because 1) we don't have a time machine to go into the past to see for ourselves, and 2) the fossil record (as well as geological) is open to interpretation.  That's changed now.  We have proof of primate evolution, in that primates of the world today, including man, are all related, i.e., we're all distant cousins.  This proof is found in the study of Endogenous Retroviral Elements in the mDNA of primates, showing that there are a number of viral "invasions" of the mDNA that's shared by primates in such a manner that there is no other explanation of how we've come to share such "viral tracks" except by common descent.  Thus, the modern mDNA is serving as a record of past events, and it's almost as effective as having a time machine in establishing primate common descent.  Creationists deny this proof by simply not understanding how this proof works, and claiming that it's still open to interpretation and guesswork.  But in fact, the quality of this proof equals to proof by DNA analysis used to convict (or exonerate) suspects in our legal courts today.  Check link on ERV (Endogenous Retroviral Elements), and how it's applied in the study of common descent of primates.

Answer 10

Because the alternative theory is that some invisible flying "god" created everything from nada in six days, 6000 years ago. That's all the proof I need.

Answer 11

how else would humans be here?

they adapt to the conditions that they faced with. And how they know that evolution is true is: They have been studying it and they have found that some things have some of the same genetic codes. EXPLAIN THAT!

Answer 12

The problem of Muller's ratchet (the accumulation of mutations) is successfully explained by the presence and advantage of s*x over asexual means of production.  s*x, by way of genetic recombination, essentially acts as a means of repair for mutations that are accumulated in an individual.

Not all mutations are deleterious; the vast majority are deleterious, but on occasion there are those that are not.  These are the ones that provide new genes and variation.

It's also a misconception that mutations are the driving machine for evolutionary processes.  They are the ultimate source of new genes, but critics like yourself forget to include natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift in their discussions.  In the specific discussion of Muller's ratchet, natural selection and gene flow are key components along with mutation.

Answer 13

> What is the proof that evolution is true?

There's no proof, but plenty of "smoking gun" evidence, including the biodiversity we observe on semi-isolated islands and archipelagoes, "fossil" genes in our DNA, selective breeding, the fossil record, ...

> all mutations studied thus far, all have resulted in a cumulative loss of information from teh genetic code

False.  Check out corn.  Information has been added by polyploidy.  Corn isn't its teosinte ancestor.  Our own DNA has examples of gene duplication too.

Answer 14

It's not just the fact that genetic codes and bodies are similar, it's the WAY that they are similar and the way that they are different that points to common ancestry.

For example:  Every single vertebrate develops the a**s before the mouth in embryogenesis.   And every single mollusk develops the mouth before the a**s.

Why?  What does having a spine have to do with the order in which your digestive tract develops?

Nothing.  It just so happens that the digestive tract evolved before the spine.  So every animal that ever had a spine already had it's digestive tract set to open the a**s before the mouth.

Answer 15

The idea that new information can't be added simply isn't true.  We see gene duplication all the time, resulting in an extra copy of a short sequence, a whole gene, and sometimes even a whole chromosome.  At the same time, if the duplication doesn't harm the organism, then the change usually isn't dramatic enough to prevent reproduction.  As a result, the duplicated sequence can sometimes be passed on to the offspring.

When a mutation arises in a critical gene, it's often a fatal mutation.  While it may lead to a useful new protein or trait, it also leads to the loss of a critical trait.  Let's say that the gene becomes duplicated first, though.  One copy would be conserved, and would remain unchanged, while the copy could be 'tinkered with,' and mutations could arise in the copy without affecting the original.

>>In all mutations studied thus far, all have resulted in a cumulative loss of information from teh genetic code.<<

This simply isn't true.  Like I said above, gene duplication is a well-known type of mutation, which certainly results in an increase in the raw genetic material that mutations need to work with.  

It may be that all of the mutations that your source chooses to look at result in a loss, but that's an intellectually dishonest practice known as 'cherry picking' (accepting the evidence that supports their argument, while ignoring that which refutes it).  Either your source is simply ignorant of the facts (in which case, they shouldn't be posing arguments) or they've ignored the truth to support their pre-conceived ideas.

Answer 16

The Theory of Evolution is just that, theory.  It's called theory because there is no "scientific" evidence proving that such a thing occurred.  

A good article on the opposing theory is here...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thre...

Answer 17

A) Creationists have no definition of "information" in this context

B) Your premise is faulty

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-...