Is Evolution Observable?

[ManMachine]

---

You hear a lot of creationist going around saying evolution is not observable. Is it not able to be observed? Are the creationist right? As we know creationist are wrong on almost anything. In fact is there anything they're right about? First it's good to know what the scientific definition of observation is. I said scientific definition because we are dealing in the realm of science.So what is the definition. Well there is two.(1)

1 The act of attentive watching, perceiving, or noticing

2 The data measured, collected, perceived or noticed, especially during an experiment

Is there any way evolution can fit any of these?


The first one evolution can fit. Let's take noticing for example. Darwin him self said that humans were apes. How can this be? Well humans and apes have the same behavior and the same bone structure, like thumbs for example.(2). So that's are observation, we have noticed that humans and apes have similar traits. So what evidence do we have to affirm this observation? Well there is the fact that humans and chimpanzees practically have the same DNA.(3) There are also a list of transitional fossils(4) and we know those confuse creationist.(5) So we have notice the traits of what non human apes and humans have in common and made a observation. We made predictions of this observations and conformed it with evidence. So what about the second definition? I will go over that too.

So what data can we notice or perceive during an experiment to confirm evolution. Lets go over the scientific definition of experiment.(6)

Noun: a procedure done in a controlled environment for the purpose of gathering observations, data, or facts, demonstrating known facts or theories, or testing hypotheses or theories. Verb: to carry out such a procedure.

So what controlled environment can we use to demonstrate evolution. Well lets take bacteria. In many controlled conditions bacteria change "kinds" all the time.(7) So in a controlled experiment we can change bacteria from one shape to another or change diet. Like when a culture of E.coli bacteria became larger due to eating a diet not usually eaten by the E.coli bacteria. I'd also like to mention that if we try to name every new bacteria that evolves then we would have to come up with a lot of new names.


So when confronting someone who decides to say evolution is not observable tell them the definitions and show them my examples. I would use the second one first, if they ignore that use the second one. If they keep saying it's not observable because you can't watch it tell them about something we can't witness like the planets orbits. Thanks for reading and tell me what I have gotten incorrect. Thumbsup

1. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Observation

2. http://www.releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/overview

3. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exh...and-chimps

4. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/huma...ls/fossils

5. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

6. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Experiment

7. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14...u0i9fldWSo

---

Darwin never said humans were apes, he said we share the same common ancestor. That's not the same thing.

MM

[Duke Guilmon]

---

You hear a lot of creationist going around saying evolution is not observable. Is it not able to be observed? Are the creationist right? As we know creationist are wrong on almost anything. In fact is there anything they're right about? First it's good to know what the scientific definition of observation is. I said scientific definition because we are dealing in the realm of science.So what is the definition. Well there is two.(1)

1 The act of attentive watching, perceiving, or noticing

2 The data measured, collected, perceived or noticed, especially during an experiment

Is there any way evolution can fit any of these?


The first one evolution can fit. Let's take noticing for example. Darwin him self said that humans were apes. How can this be? Well humans and apes have the same behavior and the same bone structure, like thumbs for example.(2). So that's are observation, we have noticed that humans and apes have similar traits. So what evidence do we have to affirm this observation? Well there is the fact that humans and chimpanzees practically have the same DNA.(3) There are also a list of transitional fossils(4) and we know those confuse creationist.(5) So we have notice the traits of what non human apes and humans have in common and made a observation. We made predictions of this observations and conformed it with evidence. So what about the second definition? I will go over that too.

So what data can we notice or perceive during an experiment to confirm evolution. Lets go over the scientific definition of experiment.(6)

Noun: a procedure done in a controlled environment for the purpose of gathering observations, data, or facts, demonstrating known facts or theories, or testing hypotheses or theories. Verb: to carry out such a procedure.

So what controlled environment can we use to demonstrate evolution. Well lets take bacteria. In many controlled conditions bacteria change "kinds" all the time.(7) So in a controlled experiment we can change bacteria from one shape to another or change diet. Like when a culture of E.coli bacteria became larger due to eating a diet not usually eaten by the E.coli bacteria. I'd also like to mention that if we try to name every new bacteria that evolves then we would have to come up with a lot of new names.


So when confronting someone who decides to say evolution is not observable tell them the definitions and show them my examples. I would use the second one first, if they ignore that use the second one. If they keep saying it's not observable because you can't watch it tell them about something we can't witness like the planets orbits. Thanks for reading and tell me what I have gotten incorrect. Thumbsup

1. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Observation

2. http://www.releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/overview

3. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exh...and-chimps

4. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/huma...ls/fossils

5. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

6. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Experiment

7. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14...u0i9fldWSo

---

Darwin never said humans were apes, he said we share the same common ancestor. That's not the same thing.

MM

But humans are apes.

[Rahul]

So I guess he should have said it. We know now we are apes but did Darwin ever say that humans were apes?

[Lemonvariable72]

So I guess he should have said it. We know now we are apes but did Darwin ever say that humans were apes?

Not really. There had next to information on human ancestry during Darwin's time.

[Anomalocaris]

Darwin never said humans were apes, he said we share the same common ancestor. That's not the same thing.

MM

But humans are apes.

Yes, but that could only be definitively and unambiguously said under a new overarching system of classification of organism developed in the late 20th century.

Prior to that it was recognized humans and apes shared a recent ancestor, but whether humans themselves ought to be considered apes remained an open question, without a universally accepted definition of "ape" to adjudicate the answer.

---

So I guess he should have said it. We know now we are apes but did Darwin ever say that humans were apes?

Whether we are apes depends on how "apes" are defined. You'd be surprised how inexact an art animal group definition and classification had been until late 20th century.

We had a reasonably accurate picture of how different animals such as chimps and men might have been related long before we developed a theoretical framework for rigorously classifying different organisms based on ancestry. Prior to this classifications were based on comparative anatomy rather than ancestry, and it was largely subjective what anatomically distinctive traits were important enough to give an group of organisms a separate grouping of its own. Prior to modern cladistic classification, the combination of bipedalism, tool use, and large brains were considered by many to enough grounds to put hominids into a separate group from apes. In this system, hominids and apes were sister groups sharing an common ancestor. But hominids were not apes.

Darwin would have been familiar with classification by comparative anatomy, but would not have known cladistics. So he would have know calling humans apes would not only be controversial, it would not have received universal backing of all those who otherwise would agree with him on common human and ape ancestry.

[Lemonvariable72]

But humans are apes.

Yes, but that could only be definitively and unambiguously said under a new overarching system of classification of organism developed in the late 20th century.

Prior to that it was recognized humans and apes shared a recent ancestor, but whether humans themselves ought to be considered apes remained an open question, without a universally accepted definition of "ape" to adjudicate the answer.

Good ol phylogenetic cladistics. The fact that twin taxonomist would likely argue about who there own mother doesn't seem to help the creation crap fest.

[Rahul]

But humans are apes.

Yes, but that could only be definitively and unambiguously said under a new overarching system of classification of organism developed in the late 20th century.

Prior to that it was recognized humans and apes shared a recent ancestor, but whether humans themselves ought to be considered apes remained an open question, without a universally accepted definition of "ape" to adjudicate the answer.

---

So I guess he should have said it. We know now we are apes but did Darwin ever say that humans were apes?

Whether we are apes depends on how "apes" are defined. You'd be surprised how inexact an art animal group definition and classification had been until late 20th century.

We had a reasonably accurate picture of how different animals such as chimps and men might have been related long before we developed a theoretical framework for rigorously classifying different organisms based on ancestry. Prior to this classifications were based on comparative anatomy rather than ancestry, and it was largely subjective what anatomically distinctive traits were important enough to give an group of organisms a separate grouping of its own. Prior to modern cladistic classification, the combination of bipedalism, tool use, and large brains were considered by many to enough grounds to put hominids into a separate group from apes. In this system, hominids and apes were sister groups sharing an common ancestor. But hominids were not apes.

Darwin would have been familiar with classification by comparative anatomy, but would not have known cladistics. So he would have know calling humans apes would not only be controversial, it would not have received universal backing of all those who otherwise would agree with him on common human and ape ancestry.

Yeah, I got this..

My biggest hobby in life is studying evolution, the history of evolutionary theory, and the biological history of man.

[ThePinsir]

Every year we need to create a new flu vaccine because the flu virus evolves to make the old one less effective.
Bacteria have now evolved immunity to antibiotics which were effective a few years ago (MRSA)
Just two things that spring to mind, I'm sure there are many other examples of evolution in action

But that's not changing into another KIND!

trollface.jpeg

[Laza]

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html

Observed birth of new species through common ancestors and even birth of multicellular life.

This is a nice video of what happens when you show creationists the fossil evidence of human evolution. Skip to 44:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug

[Duke Guilmon]

But humans are apes.

Yes, but that could only be definitively and unambiguously said under a new overarching system of classification of organism developed in the late 20th century.

Prior to that it was recognized humans and apes shared a recent ancestor, but whether humans themselves ought to be considered apes remained an open question, without a universally accepted definition of "ape" to adjudicate the answer.

---

So I guess he should have said it. We know now we are apes but did Darwin ever say that humans were apes?

Whether we are apes depends on how "apes" are defined. You'd be surprised how inexact an art animal group definition and classification had been until late 20th century.

We had a reasonably accurate picture of how different animals such as chimps and men might have been related long before we developed a theoretical framework for rigorously classifying different organisms based on ancestry. Prior to this classifications were based on comparative anatomy rather than ancestry, and it was largely subjective what anatomically distinctive traits were important enough to give an group of organisms a separate grouping of its own. Prior to modern cladistic classification, the combination of bipedalism, tool use, and large brains were considered by many to enough grounds to put hominids into a separate group from apes. In this system, hominids and apes were sister groups sharing an common ancestor. But hominids were not apes.

Darwin would have been familiar with classification by comparative anatomy, but would not have known cladistics. So he would have know calling humans apes would not only be controversial, it would not have received universal backing of all those who otherwise would agree with him on common human and ape ancestry.

This is true. I only say we are apes because animals don't grow out of their evolutionary ancestory. Like we are still chordates and vertebrates and tetrapods. So you can say we are apes or just a subset.