"Prove" evolution is real without resorting to the consensus fallacy. Can you do it?

Well to a creationist who can't be convinced by scientific evidence, you could extrapolate from common sense. Everyone knows that children take some characteristics from their parents. And no one will disagree that certain characteristics are more desirable when finding a mate. And then your children will also share characteristics of both parents but less so of their grandparents. Just repeat that over and over for millions of years and you have evolution.

Evolution is change in the allele frequency of a population over time/generations.

It's trivial to show evolution is true.

So maybe you are not talking about evolution but common ancestry? Like how can we prove that most (or all of) life has a universal common ancestor, or perhaps that humans and chimps share one?

I'd say genetics but I'm too lazy to write a long responce. Maybe read the huge article at talk.origins about evidences for macroevolution.

It's experimentally observed:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
>Over the course of the experiment, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of phenotypic and genotypic changes in the evolving populations...The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate

>consensus fallacy
wat

>arguing against a strawman
>can't even win

fedoras everyone.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1507275415163.webm

If you had to prove the obvious you'd be trapped in an infinite cycle.

This is literally what it's like to be The Fairy Queen:
>I'm not doing any illusion/dream magic/manipulative Fae bullshit, this is the real world! I can prove it!

I don't see anything wrong with this. Most people aren't going to spend hours meticulously studying chemtrails, the timecube, flat earth, aliums and such but it is safe to assume they are bullshit.

I will never understand every angle of carbon 14 dating unless I specialize in it and study it for years. As with many things you rely on those who have specialized in it. Who should I trust? Good wholesome citizens from many countries and walks of life who did study it from every angle and disagree with reasonable arguments like this.

ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

>Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?

>Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14. The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.

Or a few people with a religious motivation to disagree with it?

Do your own homework, lad. Start by googling genetics

Interesting, although I would have two responses to that:

1) As I'm not an expert in carbon dating, I am hesitant to speak on it with any significant degree of certainty.

2) To the layman, pseudoscience can sound extremely similar to that.

You can't prove Evolution because it's a theory, but it's the best theory we currently have.

*quotes Dawkins

>immunity heredity is proof you can evolve a fish into a human

This is not even debatable, like the only reason we have this thread is because christianity is so deeply rooted in our society that everyone doubts anything that would argue with the allmighty god. Why dont we prove wothout ad populum why general relativity is real.

>"Prove" evolution is real without resorting to the consensus fallacy.

Still no fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

>prove evolution
nah, prove creation.

Absense of proof is not proof of absense, you dumb fucking stupid 2-digit IQ ISFJ underachieving basement-dwelling NEET weeb.

youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr8s
youtube.com/watch?v=UCxT8765KSY

If hereditary exists via copying information;
And the copying mechanism has

CIRCULARITY IN EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT:

1. Evolution is the survival of the fittest.
2. Definition of "fittest": those who survive.
I.e. evolution is the survival of those who survive.
It's a meaningless statement!

EVERYBODY STAND BACK HE'S GO.....some YouTube videos.

Assume evolution isn't real, then god exists, a contradiction

>"Prove" evolution is real without resorting to the consensus fallacy.
That which endures, endures.
That which does not does not.

the conclusion is only that there is some sort of evolution, but it doesn't say anything about the extent of it

Christianity can fully agree with evolution theory, only idiots would say otherwise. Christian theologists of the Middle ages have stated the 'damnatio curiositatis', though. They didn't do science because they were too dumb, but because they didn't see any benefit from looking too deep into creation. They were just positive that there certainly is some mechanic in the world that makes the whole thing work. This is also true for evolution, sincere theologists wouldn't ever deny it

>the conclusion is only that there is some sort of evolution
QED

Christianity and Evolution do not contradict each other. Only American Protestants think so.

it doesn't mean that this evolution is responsible for the differences between the species and I think that's what most creationists criticize about Darwinism

>Cow to a whale disproves evolution!
No, it just proves you don't understand evolution.

We can look at recent history as observable proof that natural selection is real. The heikegani is a type of crab that looks like a samurai mask. As japanese fishermen threw them back out of respect, that crab was adhering to a trait of fitness. The more samurai-like it appeared, the more fit to avoid human predation, thus more of the pronounced samurai-featured crabs bred, refining their appearance. There are more groups of evidence like this, dog breeding, plant breeding, etc.

I think we need to illustrate the extreme time-scale that evolution occurs in.

>find a creature with a short reproductive lifespan.
>Cause a mutation.
>Roll in creationist tears.

1) Look at homology between organisms. Arms mostly look at arms. Okay, so what.

2) In the 19th century, people were playing with embryology to see what cells in the Blastula (cleavage stage embryo, right after fertilization), mostly in simpler organisms. Out of say 8 cells, removing 2 of them might grow an organism missing its muscle cells. Higher organisms actually work differently than this (if you split at the 2-cell stage, you get twins, and you're not missing parts), but nevertheless it shows can fuck with what animals have based on expression patterns.

3) We've since learned DNA is necessary for growing your parts. Networks of genes are necessary to perform functions. Those genes are also regulated at the RNA and Protein levels. All cells have the same DNA, but only some of those cells express particular DNA. This is why the embryo was missing its muscle; it wasn't expressing muscle DNA because it was missing proper "muscle" cues in all cells, except for in those which we removed. So, no muscle.

4) There is a variety of DNA between species, and also within a species. Sometimes the DNA changes don't mean anything. Sometimes they create advantages. Sometimes they create disadvantages. In those that have an advantage, they can compete out the weak, reproduce more, and their populations become dominant. During times of crisis (ie let's say an organism's forest gets obliterated, and they're really meant to live in forests), a mutant that is best adapted to change - and not necessarily best adapted to pre-crisis environment - could take the dominant seat. Alternatively, weak variants might just roam and be dominant in a different niche.

Now look at phylogeny. It's pretty reasonable that over the millions of years where life has existed that mutations gave rise to new functions and allowed organisms to occupy new niches. Consider environments, fossils, etc all that shit.

That's all I have time for but I think it covers the broad ideas that support it.

Do you even know what is evolution? Is not only "we're descendee from monkeys" (btw not the current monkeys). The main idea is that the different species originate naturally.

>it doesn't mean that this evolution is responsible for the differences between the species
How could it not?

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

>29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Read particularly the sections called:
>Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species
>Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent phylogenies

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the "twin nested hierarchy". This term is something of a misnomer, however, since there are in reality multiple nested hierarchies, independently determined from many sources of data."

Evolution is quite possibly the most well-established theory in all of science. In quantitative terms, there is a greater agreement between prediction and observation, than for the most well-confirmed theory in all of physics. The standard phylogenetic tree of life has been verified to an accuracy of at least 38 decimal places.

>salty retard who failed both biology and math detected

Still no mice or robins, either, kek. In fact, no major, theory challenging surprises, ever.

Where's your proof of alternative theory, btw? Up your ass with your uncle's penis, I'm guessing.

bbc.com/earth/story/20160323-the-unique-mosquito-that-lives-in-the-london-underground

smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/london-underground-has-its-own-mosquito-subspecies-180958566/

we've seen it happen dipshit, adaptation to a point of two prior individual species where then unable to reproduce effectively.

there is a pdf on it by the national cent for science and education but i cant send the link on my phone.

also,

theblaze.com/news/2014/06/03/why-crickets-on-hawaiian-islands-stopped-singing-20-years-ago-and-never-chirped-again/

ansp.org/explore/online-exhibits/stories/crickets-of-hawaii/
now fuck off evolution diptard, the only argument that used to be valid is "bu we habbent seen it habben" now you cant say that anymore.

there are some more examples but fuck off

evolution is just a theory (a geuss)

>drugs

>
get out

>Life replicates itself
>It is, by the imperfect nature of chemicals and shit, bound to make mistakes
>Mistakes either improve or lower the chances of survival
>if a mistake improves chances, the thing reproduces more
>if it reproduces more, it grows faster than the other life
>boom, evolution

Any truth can be questioned, only power is evident, go back to cave.

>being this mad
the point is that everything we find in the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory.

>Definition of "fittest": those who survive.
back2gradeskool 4 (You)

this has been done, and they proceeded to freak the fuck out and claim it was all a fake.
>rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

electromagnetism is just a theory (a gauss)

>consensus fallacy
Do you even know what a scientific consensus is? It's not a popularity contest, it's the consensus of published research, aka evidence.

>1. Evolution is the survival of the fittest.
No, that's natural selection.

>2. Definition of "fittest": those who survive.
Wrong, fitness is a quantitative measure of the success of reproduction.

>Mistakes either improve or lower the chances of survival

This is commonly taught, and somewhat confusing and inaccurate. Example:

>giraffes developed increasingly longer necks to eat leaves on branches other animals couldn't
>the shorter necked giraffes died of starvation

Except they didn't, or probably didn't...they just evolved into some other type of animal. This is the answer to the Creationist bleat, "why are there still monkeys in Africa?!"

A better way of phrasing that step:

>mistakes either improve or lower the chances of filling an ecological niche

Sometimes the niche collapses and extinction results...dinosaurs are a good example, with birds filling a niche that was easier to survive in after the asteroid impact.

>The utter disagreement in this table as to whether fossils are "ape" or "human" is moot testimony to the fact that there is no clear delineation -- all are related in a family tree. As biologist Kenneth Miller observes, "Ironically, validation of our common ancestry with other primates comes directly from those [creationists] who are most critical of the idea." [Miller2008, pg. 95].

in short, it's because it's not a pure field and it takes less intelligence

there could be changes that are so tiny that they are not observable, but we make the wrong deduction that the evident differences come from the mechanism you concluded

it's an informal fallacy, and barely so.

consensus is, in fact, a form of evidence; it's not ~proof~, but almost nothing in science has been ~proven~ except by consensus desu.

It's spelled Gauß

>why haven't evolutionary algorithms produced a perfect AI yet?

WTF are you talking about? we got TONS of AI perfectly adapted to a single specific task. If you want a perfect general AI that's adapted to all tasks that simply can't exist. Not possible.

If you want an AI that rivals human intelligence then you'll have to wait for the hardware to catch up. Moderns computers have less processing power than a fruit fly. Can you imagine trying to give a fucking fruit fly human intelligence??

>Except they didn't, or probably didn't...they just evolved into some other type of animal.
>he doesn't know about allopatric speciation
>he doesn't understand how selective pressure works

>mistakes either improve or lower the chances of filling an ecological niche
>he doesn't understand niches
>confusing individual selection with population selection
>2017

I'm a paleofag and holy shit you don't understand evolution.

Do you expect us to run an experiment here on Veeky Forums? You understand that there is no rational proof in science, but a consensus reached after meticulous analysis of empirical evidence.

fuck you science needs evidence cuck fuck.

heres a small bit of the evidence for you camel humping inbred half-chimpanzee
fuck you

fku2

ßrainlet

>allopatric speciation
>selective pressure
>individual selection
>population selection

Factors into filling a niche...so fucking what? Did your autism make you think I wasn't including those elements because I didn't explicitly call them out?

>I'm a paleofag

The fag part is correct, yes.

>Factors into filling a niche
the fact that you think those go into niche partitioning shows how little you know. of the four, only population selection does (and even that's kinda fuzzy).

Prove that God did not design Evolution. Prove that he cannot decide on a whim how long of a timespan a day actually covers. Prove that he did not design a riddle for us to untangle.

>we're descended from monkeys
We did not descend from monkeys (implicit: that are alive today). We ARE monkeys (cladistically).

First purple word: Purple

First Blue word: We

Inception: Faggot

>so autistic he thinks a broad term like "niche" has a highly specific universal interpretation he blundered into from a flawed exposure to evolutionary concepts

I hope your parents kept the receipt on your university tuition.

Something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

cont.
On the topic of the OP, this has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

cont.
what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).

>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both.

>chimps don't have a scalp, eyes, nose, mouth, lips, capability of making expressions, teeth, brain capable of reasoning and decisions (albeit at a much more limited level), etc, etc, still on the head, won't go on

Evolution occurs at a varying rate for different species. Protozoa are relatively unchanged from hundreds of millions of years ago, and like chimps, they're our cousins.

>However, if chimps evolved into humans, then how are there still chimps?

How are there still protozoa? Just about any animal you can name is more advanced than a protozoa. How are there still bikes when we invented cars a century ago? How are there cars if we have airplanes? How are there planes if we have rockets?

It all has to do with filling an opportunity in the ecosystem.

>On the topic of the OP, this has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution?

You have the aforementioned misunderstanding of evolutionary processes, and then you have the nerve to express your bewilderment at those who comprehend its mechanisms.

>Richard Darwin

Your understanding is so fuzzy, you just conflated the two separate people in pic related, separated by more than a century.

Not sure if troll, pretty sure is copypasta. I'm deep in the heart of Poe's Law country here, but I write this for the sake of witnesses. Veeky Forums needs to sticky a thread with evolutionary theory links and be done with it.

You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

Dude it's copypasta

>persisting in logical fallacy
>appeal to ignorance

>everything we find in the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory
*discovers ancient human fossils in Greece*

it's interesting that you would suggest that, but unfortunately, even though you may have seen similar argumentation before, that doesn't make it "copypasta" as you seem to think. the thing is, if you have consistent reasoning, you can present almost the exact same argument multiple times in order to get the same point across. for example base mutations in DNA do not ADD information to the genetic code, they SUBTRACt it. Therefore if you did mutations over millions of years, you would have to start out with a strand of DNA that would wrap around the earth approximately 6.4 millions times in order to have enough genes to mutate down into all the variety we have today. especially since there are some organisms are so different from the others. and that's not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis)

Veeky Forums.org/rules#sci
mods sure are sleepy today.

>hurr lets just look at DNA and base of evolution from that
>all humans are half banana if you follow this logic
embarassing

>we're descended from monkeys

>I'm gonna post a bunch of nonsense about a technical term and then bitch and moan when someone calls me on it
>maybe if I pretend that "niche" doesn't actually have a specific meaning nobody will notice.

you talk pretty big for a guy who thinks that less-advantageous traits don't become extinct, that the individuals bearing them just evolve into other stuff. (which shows that you don't understand that evolution happens at the population level, not the individual level.)

>ancient human fossils in Greece
I assume you're referring to Graecopithecus (even though it's not actually a human by any definition)
please explain how Graecopithecus is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

also:
>hey, this organism must have been a hominin rather than a chimp, based on this feature of its teeth
>I know this because that feature is universally present in humans, but is present rarely in modern chimps.
back2probabilityclass

You can see "proofs" of evolution everywhere.
Vestigial organs in your own body and in animals in general.
Artificial Selection/Human-Induced Evolution being a thing.
Multiple drug resistance in microorganisms.
Drastic changes in the same species depending of their environment.
DNA Sequencing.
Embryology.

Some of them are easier to criticize than other but there's a reason we can see some evidence for evolution everywhere we look but we don't see any evidence for the alternative views of the world.
One is a scientific theory, the others are just beliefs based on absolutely nothing but people wanting the real world to be like the fairer, more comfortable version of it they have in their minds.

>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both?
I know this is bait, but still

here's a genuine question.

If God created humans directly out of soil like it is stated in religious books, and he also created all other living beings, what would he have done to give humans of the future a sign that all these living beings have one creator yet they were created differently?

He would create them all according to one system, one huge system.

But user, what about all these species that were similar to humans but not exactly..?

I would say those were indeed a result of continuous evolving, however it never reached a point of intelligence and high self awareness as humans.

Only then, God had allowed Man to be created on earth, because by that time, animals that were very similar to us had already been living on earth.

Which means God only allowed humans to exist when earth had the right conditions and atmosphere and ecological diversity for humans to co-exist and reproduce.

see

>broad
>niche
ironc

It's copypasta when you literally copy and paste an argument from a previous post.

Lol, those posts are almost the exact same as

pandasthumb.org/archives/2017/10/five-principles.html

youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig

You do know that's a disproven hypothesis, right?

>maybe if I pretend that "niche" doesn't actually have a specific meaning nobody will notice

>In ecology, a niche is the fit of a species living under specific environmental conditions. The ecological niche describes how an organism or population responds to the distribution of resources and competitors (for example, by growing when resources are abundant, and when predators, parasites and pathogens are scarce) and how it in turn alters those same factors (for example, limiting access to resources by other organisms, acting as a food source for predators and a consumer of prey). "The type and number of variables comprising the dimensions of an environmental niche vary from one species to another [and] the relative importance of particular environmental variables for a species may vary according to the geographic and biotic contexts".
>REPEAT: "The type and number of variables comprising the dimensions of an environmental niche vary from one species to another"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche

>contradicts nothing I wrote
>so, go correct the Wikipedia article, Einstein
>I double dare you, kek

I dont get how new animals are made.

Say we had a common ancestor, how did that split to form a chimp and a human?

How do you get cats and dogs? They both have noses, tails, tongues.

Where does it split that a mamall becomes to different thjngs?

In 3 million years, will we have new humanoids for example? (assuming we are around).

No troll, just curious. I understand natural selection well, but the concept of common ancestors confuses me.

someone disprove genetic entropy for me pls