Evolution Theory - please show the proofs

[Skipper]

Don't take my words out of context mate. That was clearly a reply in the context of what Thor wrote.

I went on in the rest of the post to pretty much say evolutionarily we are top dog. Just that if a god meant us to end up in this form why didn't he give us all the other great things we could benefit from in terms of survival that are present in other species.

That was entirely my mistake. I mistook the direction the conversation was going and responded inappropriately.

I, and Jesus, forgive you.

[HeyItsZeus]

absolutely. I agree. I think microevolution ans speciation is true. It happens. What i do not believe, is in common ancestry. I don't think evidence leads to this direction.

Micro and macro evolution are not scientific concepts. What you would call micro evolution, when spread over long time periods equates to what you would call macro evolution.

How can you believe in speciation but not common ancestry? So, what, you believe evolution works species to species but if you go back far enough at some point it wasn't working? If you accept that evolution can work species to species, then why do you not accept that the first species there ever was evolved into more species and hence we are descended?

Futhermore, you are being completely illogical by asking proof for evolution. There is no proof of any science. Scientific facts are not proven facts they are based very heavily on evidence.

The only proof there is are tautologies.... i.e. natural selection is somewhat a tautology in the sense that whatever survives is left to multiply, so those better at surviving stay to be multiplied while those worse at surviving, not so much. IOW: Whatever survives survives, and only what survives can multiply.

It's because theists are irrational. I have always tried to refrain myself from assuming that but I can no longer hide it. It's because they don't know and refuse to understand. Sorry theists. I hope you can change the way I think.

[Watson]

^I would have to politely disagree with you on that, Zeus. I don't think we're irrational at all.

[Minimalist]

The irrational never do.

[The Omnissiunt One]

I went on in the rest of the post to pretty much say evolutionarily we are top dog.

Hardly. We're just well adapted to our environment, like most other species still alive. In our case, it's our intelligence which allows us to adapt. This is why creationists moronically say, 'Why haven't all monkeys evolved into humans if humans are the best species?' Anthropomorphism at its best.

[downbeatplumb]

^I would have to politely disagree with you on that, Zeus. I don't think we're irrational at all.

More deluded.

The rationalisations to support that delusion are rather amusing though, give us another Watson, I could do with a chuckle.

[Skipper]

I went on in the rest of the post to pretty much say evolutionarily we are top dog.

Hardly. We're just well adapted to our environment, like most other species still alive. In our case, it's our intelligence which allows us to adapt. This is why creationists moronically say, 'Why haven't all monkeys evolved into humans if humans are the best species?' Anthropomorphism at its best.

We are, for better or worse, the most successful animals on the planet. We control it (some may say ruin), we can adapt environments to suit our needs, we can manipulate other animals, make them breed to our demands, and more and more so we can effect nature itself. We are clearly the top dogs. All using the intelligence you acknowledge, and not alot else but that's all we have needed.

We are the most complex life form that can sustain itself (granted via technology, but that's directly due to the evolved intelligence we have ) in the most varied of climates and environments. I'd say that gives us good claim to being top of the pile when it comes to evolution.

[Watson]

dbp and Min, my two best friends! You're so kind in the face of politeness!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

We are, for better or worse, the most successful animals on the planet.

Hardly.We are recent arrivals whose stay will be temporary. We have failed to learn to adapt to our environment without making it uninhabitable for ourselves,destroying countless other species in the process.I think that's the antithesis of a successful species. I think you maybe conflating 'dominant' with ' successful'. The most successful life form on the planet is bacteria.

Sharks, crocodile, rats and cockroaches are far more successful and will probably be here long after we are extinct. (OK perhaps not some species of cockroach)

Humans are just a species of mammal with delusions of adequacy. We will soon be gone.The planet will shrug off our existence leaving no trace above the molecular level .This will take less than a million years,an eye blink in geological time.

[Skipper]

Fair enough. I agree we are, at the current rate, likely to destroy ourselves...but never has a species facing extinction had a better chance of saving it's self than ours. Via technology we can adapt to situations as they arise, quicker than any other species can that depends on evolution.

I also agree bacteria, if looking at numbers, reproduction rates and resilience to different climates and environment is the most successful life form, but if we were to be that resilient and that numerous our environments would be even more threatened, so thankfully we are as brittle as we are haha. I go back to my previous statement of:

"We are the most complex life form that can sustain itself (granted via technology, but that's directly due to the evolved intelligence we have ) in the most varied of climates and environments. I'd say that gives us good claim to being top of the pile when it comes to evolution."

To me our ability to go to the north pole and live, then go underwater and live, then go up a mountain and live then shoot off into space and live all due to our evolved intelligence puts us at the top of the pile. As animals on our own in nature, we are far from great, but with our evolved minds and what we have achieved over thousands of years of technological advancement we aint half bad.

I may be muddying the waters between successful and dominate as you say, but I guess it's all subjective to an extent as to what you use as a measure of success evolutionarily speaking.