Talk:Evolution hasn't been proved

From EvoWiki

Removed creationist "response":

If "evolution is extremely well-supported", then why do some still seek alternative answers? Because they are blind and stupid, or because they see better answers elsewhere?

Blind and stupid is a bit harsh, but it goes in the right direction. --tk (t) 10:02, 29 Aug 2005 (BST)

I don't have a problem with "seek[ing] alternative solutions", myself; after all, scientists are human, and they could be wrong. I do have a problem with people who start out with an unshakable a priori conviction that evolution must be wrong, never mind that they don't bleeding understand the thing they oppose, and who all-too-often support their "evolution is bogus" conclusion with arguments which are just plain wrong on their own (lack of) merits. Basically, it's the difference between "Yeah, this is well-supported, alright, but I think I can find a better explanation", on the one hand, and "It's not well-supported, it's not it's not it's not well-supported! It's just wrong, I tell you! Wrong, wrong, wrong!", on the other hand. cubist

Evolution is well supported. Look around at the huge variety of species on earth AND the chains of similarity across species in phenotypic traits. There is a huge amount of data regarding genetic structure and evolution has been demonstrated in the lab. I don't think we should pay attention to those who say that evolution is not a solution to life's diversity but that we need to address those who say that the complexity in traits such as the human eye "seems" too complex to have evolved through natural selection -- they commonly ask what good is half an eye? This is a good question because it seems counterintuitive that a simple process could generate such an amazing feat. However, simple common-sense intuition is not always the best tool to describe sequences of events over long periods of time in systems with large numbers of parameters. We assume that the stages unfold in a particular way and that we need "half an eye" to eventually reach a full eye. That's not how things work though if one has a deep understanding of replication and natural selection. Of course half an eye that has no functional value would not have persisted in the gene pool. But light sensitive cells that eventually form a concave structure and form fluid deposits, etc., could be adaptive at each stage. The problem is that it's not easy to see the stages from the lack of a genetic trait to a complex trait because the pathway is hidden. If we were good at this sort of thing we'd have already figured out how the brain works, etc. But the problem is in listening to people's naive common-sense assumptions and letting these guide the way we do science... --Jsusskin 06:56, 1 Sep 2005 (BST)

The "evolution hasn't been proved" assertion demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. --RonZ 23:32, 1 August 2006 (BST)