Where is your evidence?

Question

There remain two hypotheses in the evolutionary model that have not been proven 

1. The accumulation of mutations can produce novel alleles that are both beneficial for survival and selectable.

2. The combination of novel alleles and natural selection can produce a novel phenotype.

Both represent the minimum necessary for Evolution to explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere.  When has either been observed in nature or objectively validated by experimentation?

Don't argue proving natural selection is enough, natural selection explains variation with a genus and amounts to selecting existing information. Formation of a novel phenotype requires new alleles, as well as modification of the non-coding control areas of the gene that mediate morphological development and physiology. This is why mutations was presented, natural selection alone fails to explain the source for new alleles.

Don't argue every little mutation provides new information etc. Dawkins debated Gould back and forth for 3 months the allele is the basic unit of selection. Anything less than a novel allele is not sufficient to the task.

Good luck!

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Your in this evil world now but what about the world to come, we have to go to God for more answers yes yes he has more for you and me as individuals we stand!

Momofthreeboys · Answer

False premise. Those two assumptions are not necessary for evolution, no novel alleles nor phenotypes are necessary for species differentiation, minor, subtle and gradual changes can accomplish this. 

That said, those two have been seen both in the lab and in the wild. 

This argument sounds "sciency" but is the same old "nothing can be added by mutation" argument and has been refuted a hundred times over. Nice try, thanks for playing.

Nous · Answer

Animals were generally thought to evolve when a single species gradually splits into two over many generations. But scientists now believe that behavior that has been called animals' sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution.
 
Hybrid-formed species are usually extremely difficult to detect because of their close physical resemblance to their parent species.  But today scientists are able to collect the detailed molecular data needed to identify previously unrecognized hybrids.  10 percent of animal species and 25 percent of plant species are now known to hybridize.

Thesaurus Worm · Answer

It's not so much humans anymore, because we adapt our environments and not ourselves. But other animals need to adapt to the changes in their environments.
And BTW, what's your proof that god exists? What's your proof that he created the world in what ever number of days? Your religion was designed to give men all the power, and make everyone else looked down upon. Just keep that in mind.

? · Answer

Disproving evolution does not prove god or "disprove" atheism (As if you could disprove a lack of belief).  Thus there is no reason this should be in the R&S section.  This is not only a red herring, but also an argument from ignorance.  Just because we don't know does not mean "God did it."

Sean · Answer

So you think evidence is required for evolution, but not for religion? Evolution is proven, and makes perfect sense. Th strong survive, species adapt, etc. It's simple.

Anonymous · Answer

Ask in biology section. Jesus ****** Christ.

I've did some research and momofthreeboys has the right idea.
Some more evidence from another person.

Both have been demonstrated multiple times.

Examples: 
1) 
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf 
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract

2) 
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf 
http://www.pnas.org/content/70/6/1841.full.pdf 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC345072/

Anonymous · Answer

Here's an interesting bit of info...

Before he died, James Darwin said that he had been WRONG in his theory; that he had made a mistake and evolution wasn't possible or true - but you will NEVER hear someone who believes the theory talk about that, because the people who teach evolution work to keep the word down. 
Really, it's crazy that so many people jump to the defense of Darwin because of a theory that he himself later disagreed with.

Storm B · Answer

Still,helluva lot better believing than praying to some jew nailed to a piece of wood.

WTFWJD · Answer

http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/felsenstein2.pdf

chap 3 has a lot of what you are looking for.

Trending News

Where is your evidence?

13 Answers