Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Evolution is a fact, like the fact that apples fall downwards from
trees. "Almost everyones's guide to Science" J. Gribbon, Pg 124.

I note for the record that the fact of evolution is universally
recognized by all except a tiny minority of fringe dissenters.
By "fact of evolution" I am not referring to "microevolution", or
to biogenesis, or to any form of strict materialism.

I mean that it is accepted as fact that life has been around on
Earth for billions of years, that it has changed in form over that
time, and that the changes are cummulative in diverging lineages.

His(J. Gribbon) offer of proof to the doubting Thomases is in the form of the micro evolution of finch beaks (pg 128). Furthermore on pg 129 he argues that even among scientist (non biologists) many fail to comprehend how evolution works and cites antibiotic resistance. So he
argues from the observable and testable and extrapolates from micro evolution that by implication as the proof of macro evolution, also as the micro composes the macro which is only logical and no other way towards the phenomenon of macro existence. Macro also merely denotes a larger scale than the micro, but micro and macro is exactly the same in behaviour and existential properties. In short, macro is just the micro magnified.

Macroevolution,
if the term is used at all, refers to substantial changes in entire
populations, at the level of species or above. Macroevolution is thus
the fundamental fact, recognized well before the time of Darwin.
The problem for science in the nineteenth century was to identify
the processes and mechanisms by which change occurs. This is where
Darwin deserves credit for the first steps towards a viable theory.
Microevolution is basically the theory -- the study of processes
by which change arises and accumulates in populations.

The famous changes in finches are an example of macroevolutionary
change. Does Gribbon in his book "Almost everyones's guide to Science" actually call it microevolution?!? The changes
are certainly not limited to beaks. In fact, when Darwin originally
collected his samples he did not even realise they were all finches!
That discovery was due to Gould, who studied Darwin's collection on
his return to England.

Moreover, there are facts, and there are evidence, and they are presented as such. It is a fact that we have an excellent record for the ancestry of horses. It is a fact that comparative embryology reveals patterns of similarity that serve as evidence for evolution. It is a fact that
vestigal organs exist, and serve as evidence for evolution.

The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

(to be continued)

(Continued - Ian Johnston's Short Proof of evolution)

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). (To be continued)

(Continued - Ian Johnston's Short Proof of evolution)
Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. To deny evolution (as defined here) is on the same level of logic as to deny the fact that if someone jumps off the balcony of a high rise apartment and carries no special apparatus, she will fall towards the ground.

Also go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
for the 29+ facts of evolution.

then we have the missing link

The missing link is merely a pathetic attempt made by creationists to shoot down evolution. Did you know that South Africa where I live, has the oldest mountains in the world - the Magaliesberg mountains - over 3 billion years old! Also, in that same region of those mountains might be the origin of mankind - they found the oldest fossils of early hominids yet in the Sterkfontein caves!

facts remains the same regardless how pathetic the attempt is, there is a hole in the theory they cant fill......yet . Until then facts reamin that it is a link missing

The missing link is a misconception - no proof. WHat do you understand by the 'missing link' anyway?

The anthropology of human evolution has a gap between the anthropoid apes and hominidae

There might be a seeming gap, but there is clear evidence that hominidae is an extention of the anthropoid. They just did not find the skeleton connecting the two, but that is immaterial, because all other evidence suggests undoubtedly the evolution from the one into the other.

Typical naturalist response. Creationist and/or objective scientists are "pathetic for demanding evidence". "Evidence is unnecessary". Thus further proving my point that Naturilists are NOT anywhere near interested in objective science.

Vestigals organs are proof? How laughable. Vestigals organs actually do have uses even though they were not always known.

Im laughing that that article mentioned embryos.

The finches likewise are most certainly not proof of macroevolution as this is quite clear.

clickclick, "Creationist are "pathetic for demanding evidence". "Evidence is unnecessary".

You say this even though you can't provide evidence for your belief in god !Ha-ha! Obviously for you, being a creationist, evidence IS unnecesary as you blindly believe in a god, not supplying evidence. Do you call believing in a god 'objective science'?

Naturalism and creationism are philosophies. The problem lies in the fact that naturalists try to act as though their philosophy is fact when it is not even close. In fact, it isnt even scientific theory. Why not? Because unlike creationsim, it consistently fails to meet observed scientific evidence.

Dont try to blur lines and dont try to divert from the real issue at hand. Nice try though.

Where does creationism meet observed scientific evidence? You have to be kidding me!!!!!!!!

Way to shift the focus. I thought this was about you trying to prove evolution with science. To which I called you on that as it is not proven nor in agreement with observed scientific evidence.

Anyway.......... Keep on trying to shift the focus.......

"Anyway.......... Keep on trying to shift the focus......."

Look who's talking. I already proved my point and backed it up with scientific research, UNLIKE you.

You used somebodies research in an attempt to back it up but had you done more, youd know why that article fails. I could of course go in depth and break it down but Id rather you learn this stuff on your own. You even dismissed the fact that evidence matters and you believe you proved your point?

I've never dismissed the fact that evidence matters. I said the following: "There might be a seeming gap, but there is clear evidence that hominidae is an extention of the anthropoid. They just did not find the skeleton connecting the two, but that is immaterial, because all other evidence suggests undoubtedly the evolution from the one into the other."

SEE - I talk about evidence all the time.

Still, have you proved god's existence yet?

I dont recall ever trying. There are several reasons why I dont, the first being your unwillingess to use logic and your belief that evidence is irrelevant.

You said that necessary evidence doesnt matter. That speaks for itself. Clearly you have no willingness to be objective.

You are twisting my words here! I NEVER said the above you F*cking IDIOT!

YOY are the one who's unwilling to use logic, NOT ME.

Yes, Im most certainly twisting your words.

Were you objective, you would know that there is a need for transitional evidence. You clearly said that the lack of evidence is irrelevant. Again, ive requested several times that you just ignore me and I will do the same.

PLEASE READ THE FIRST POST, clickclick MESSED UP THIS THREAD WITH HIS UTTER IDIOCY.

yup the missing link

Guess what... I'm a creationist... and I believe in evolution... I find no problem between the two.... things got created, then evolved to suit the changing environment... whats so hard about that....

I believe in Evolution, but whatever....

finch beaks!!!!!!
haha give me a break man
so is a poodle proof of evidence for evolution too man?
Its called adaptation PhilO, there are breeds of dogs that can live in extreme freezing temps and there are dogs that can live in the hottest climates on earth. Now if you switch the dogs in those climates they will be hard pressed to survive. This is a example of adaptation just like finch beaks. They can adapt through different climates but they never turn into another animal.
You can bring all the "proof" to the table you want over evolution but every shred of evidence i have ever heard of has been shot down. If you want to try to post some "proof" feel free to try I am quite confident i can shoot it down for you.
Evolution is a not a fact it is a theory!!!!!
and i don't know why you are so insulting to click click calling him stupid. He seems to have a above average intelligence to me.
Your the guy whos posting a thread of what a fact evolution is when all those great facts are highly questioned. Not to call you an idiot either, you probably just need to do a little more research.
And not to say i know everything on the subject as well, i am learning just as much as everyone else, i just know enough that stating finch beaks as a fact for evolution is a mass of bull dung

Don't bash members again!

Here is an Evolution thread use it:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27866&highlight=Evolution

Closed