Evolution Theory - please show the proofs

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

Why is "splitting population Z into population X and Y and putting them under different selective pressures leads to speciation and eventually leads to major differences between the two species in phenotype or their physical traits" so easy for me to understand and believe? am i crazy?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

ok. lets start with this paper. Please quote the part of the paper, which convinced you and gave you unquestionable proof, human speech was due and arose through gradual evolution.

and remember : any answer with explanations like " might be ", " probably ", " guess ", " its supposed " do not consist in proofs, but in guesswork.

will you accept the challenge, or not ??

How shall I put this...
Your question is invalid. My opinion on evolution (human speech or otherwise) did not shift because of that paper. I've been convinced of evolution based on every paper I've ever read on evolution, the class I was taught in high school, the documentaries I've seen on television, the interviews of experts in the field, the photograpic evidence (in the case of the specific documentary I saw, some ages ago, was of a kind of moth that changed color due to the change in environment due to pollutants from a nearby power plant, but to that point, I've seen other documentaries in the meantime over a variety and wide range of evidence in support of these ideas.) The change was genetic and not merely a result of some chemical reaction a trait was born to pass down from generation of moth to moth. The evidence in the fossil record and the consistency of radiometric dating also contribute to this end but the evidence exists in the genetic record as well. For example, we share well over 95% of our genetic code with our closest biological cousin, the chimpanzee. It's even been theorized by genetic scientists that a humanzee is possible (despite the different number of chromosomes) which could only be possible if the two of our species weren't closely related in the same sense that two cats of two different species are related (a tiger housecat and a siamese housecat, for example) or other animals that are a result of hybridization in plants, animals (ligers, zebra-horse hybrids, etc), and the list goes on. I only bring this up as a possibility because the only thing that has prevented someone from attempting this is the ethics of actually attempting to make a human-chimpanzee hybrid, but I've seen many documentaries and papers on the matter and one of them even spoke of a scientist working in secret in the old Soviet Union who did make the attempt between a chimp sperm and human female, but the attempt was not completed.

When I compare that to, for example, creation science - there is no fossil evidence and the fossils that do exist contradict any and all religious claims from virtually all religions that formulated the creation theory prior or despite all the evidence that is present. The evidence in astronomy, including light from galaxies literally billions of light years away and the background microwave radiation that can only be indicitive of modern theories of the big bang model of physics, and many many more examples that have yet to be cited and have been cited in our discussions never point toward the explanations given by anyone attempting to prove the existence of god unless he does so entirely in the gaps where our knowledge does not extend, such as prior to the big bang and often despite our modern understanding of physical law (the first law of thermodynamics, for example, stating that matter cannot be created or destroyed).

Miracles, for example, have a complete lack of tested effectiveness. Assuming they do at all exist, they appear at random and often have trivial consequences (jesus appears on a cheese sandwitch at the same time millions are starving to death or getting killed by natural disaster). For example, prayer has no tested or repeatable benefit to the sick in lieu of modern medicine or some other natural causation (such as remission of cancer).

And it's a combination of all those reasons and far, far more why I personally have no regard for religion or religious science.

There is another reason why your question is invalid:
The entire paper has to do with the evolution of human speech. The beginning of the paper covers the differences between us and chimps in regard to our vocal acuity in terms of differences in anatomy and essentially the hows and whys of that anatomical necessities for formulate speech as we do. The paper moves then into tracing the volution through genetic and fossil evidence with a focus on the position of the larynx within the skeletal structure (which, if you know comparative anatomy, can be accurately formulated based on the position of the skull, spine, and the bones in the upper torso) as well as all of the other necessary components of human speech, such as the tongue, changes in skeletal structure, and facial features (such as articulate lips) in order to support human speech in comparison to the evidence that can be provided by the fossil record, including accurate reconstructions of prior homo species and 'cousin' homo species, such as the neanderthalls.
The paper them moves into the neural capabilities in the same light in terms of brain size, shape, and approximate positions of certain lobes (dermined by the shape of the skull, genetic history) as well as detailed analysis of the modern human brain in terms of modern speech patterns over varying conditions. The paper then moves into comparing the results of studies involving all of the above in order to make conclusions based on the rudementary foundings of human speech based on his own studies and those of the several pages worth of 'works cited'.

Given all of the above, the only appropriate answer I can give your question is to quote the entire paper and tell you that that is the evidence of evolution of human speech. I do also need to note that I do not rely solely on this paper, but this and all others like it.

Now, let's diverge on a seporate topic for a moment and we can go back to the MIT paper in a moment because I have a few questions for you.

First, since you have stated that you believe in micro evolution, I need you to explain the difference between micro and macro evolution to have it iterated here for the benefit of me, you, and everyone else who wishes to join in on the discussion. Note that I asked you to provide your definition. I do not want a link to some website with an answer you dug up but rather I want you to explain your position on the matter. This is especially pertinent because the science on evolution as I understand it makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution.

Second, you need to better explain what evidence you're going to be satisfied with. The ones you've given at the beginning of this thread is not specific enough because right now, I'm not at all convinced that once the evidence you've asked for has been provided that you'll acknowledge it because as far as I'm concerned, all of the evidence has already been provided by me on the other thread and a casual stroll through websites with information on this specific topic that Eilonnwy has already provided.

As I've stated before, you've already chosen to completely ignore the entire fossil record but you haven't explained the reasoning behind that either, beyond a very broad statement that has more to do with your personal opinion than any science or lack thereof in the subject.

[NoGodaloud ?]

Francis Collins, a noted evangelical Christian and head of the Human Genome Project has stated the DNA evidence alone proves evolution and common ancestry is true. I say this to show you that evolution is not solely believed by atheists and many Christians have no problem with it at all.

i would like to see the quote of collins, where he sayst this, and the data , which backs up his claim.

---

Now, can you provide "absolute and conclusive proof" that the resurrection ever happened? A virgin birth? Jesus walking on water? If not, then how can you sanctimoniously demand the same for scientific principles and theories? If your standard is "absolute and convincing proof", how can you believe Biblical bullshit that has ZERO proof?

of course not. neither did i make the assertion, i could present such proof.

[Tiberius]

Francis Collins:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Re...tures.aspx

[NoGodaloud ?]

Am I the only one frustrated at having to give these people information that is freely available via google, wikipedia and down the local library.

Can I suggest that nogodaloud go and do some reasearch, then come back and ask more directed questions of things he doesnt understand
After he's looked at the evidence for himself that will take a while because theres a hell of alot of it.

"Its better to show a child how to think than what to think" a Richard Dawkins quote

how about search another thread, if you do not want to engange in a debate, without trying to discredit the counterpart, attacking the person, instead of the ideas ?

---

Why is "splitting population Z into population X and Y and putting them under different selective pressures leads to speciation and eventually leads to major differences between the two species in phenotype or their physical traits" so easy for me to understand and believe? am i crazy?

ok. show me empirical evidence of species, where random selection and mutation changed their physical traits in a manner, that new functional limbs, like wings, limbs etc. arose ?

---

How shall I put this...
Your question is invalid. My opinion on evolution (human speech or otherwise) did not shift because of that paper.

but you presented it as proof of evolution of human speech. Now you say this is not proof ?
In that case, do you have proof, or not ?

I've been convinced of evolution based on every paper I've ever read on evolution, the class I was taught in high school, the documentaries I've seen on television, the interviews of experts in the field, the photograpic evidence (in the case of the specific documentary I saw, some ages ago, was of a kind of moth that changed color due to the change in environment due to pollutants from a nearby power plant, but to that point, I've seen other documentaries in the meantime over a variety and wide range of evidence in support of these ideas.)

would you please stop repeating yourself ? you can say thousand times, you are convinced that is evolution is true. This is worthless, unless you can not show exactly WHAT convinced you, and WHY.
Do you understand that ? unless you stop repeating yourself, and start with showing factual evidence, our debate will be worthless. I have given you real chance to show, on what ground your position stands. So far, it seems just to be hot air....

The change was genetic and not merely a result of some chemical reaction a trait was born to pass down from generation of moth to moth.

Please show the evidence, genetics were able to generate these mutations randomly and through natural selection.

The evidence in the fossil record and the consistency of radiometric dating also contribute to this end but the evidence exists in the genetic record as well.

I want you to show it through a scientific paper, which convinced you, and which presents the evidence.
I will stop here, since otherwise i will loose my pacience with you. Handwaving will not do it. Do you understand that ?

For example, we share well over 95% of our genetic code with our closest biological cousin, the chimpanzee.

So what ? I want you to show how human speech arose. What does this have to do with the issue ?

[Thor]

Now, can you provide "absolute and conclusive proof" that the resurrection ever happened? A virgin birth? Jesus walking on water? If not, then how can you sanctimoniously demand the same for scientific principles and theories? If your standard is "absolute and convincing proof", how can you believe Biblical bullshit that has ZERO proof?

of course not. neither did i make the assertion, i could present such proof.

No, you didn't. But you demand "absolute and convincing proof" for scientific principles and theories while at the same time clinging to a belief in things that have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.

Seems to me that you're being inconsistent and disingenuous.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

but you presented it as proof of evolution of human speech. Now you say this is not proof ?

That isn't at all what I said. If you had bothered to read my entire post and not deconstruct it bit-by-bit as though each sentence were its own point, perhaps you would see my overall point and how I did answer your question.

[NoGodaloud ?]

but you presented it as proof of evolution of human speech. Now you say this is not proof ?

That isn't at all what I said. If you had bothered to read my entire post and not deconstruct it bit-by-bit as though each sentence were its own point, perhaps you would see my overall point and how I did answer your question.

ok. no proof then. therefore, your position isnt more than a guess. Personal belief. Not more than that.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

"ok. show me empirical evidence of species, where random selection and mutation changed their physical traits in a manner, that new functional limbs, like wings, limbs etc. arose ? "

i've seen pictures of fossils in reputable textbooks showing intermediate functional limbs. what's wrong with the fossils? how else would we explain the offspring of a donkey and a horse, the sterile mule, if not by genetic differences caused over time? how else would you explain why Oceania is the only place we find marsupials?

you said "where random selection [...] changed their physical traits[...]" Random selection (unless you're referring to genetic drift) is not the correct choice of words when talking about a mechanism that causes change in the frequency of alleles, however "natural selection" or any selection that favors a specific trait or group of traits is the correct terminology. I'm telling you this because I don't want people to dismiss your ideas just because you aren't using the right words.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

ok. no proof then. therefore, your position isnt more than a guess. Personal belief. Not more than that.

That isn't at ALL what I said. Read my post, otherewise you're merely presenting me with a strawman fallacy.