Disproving evolution?

Can you really disprove evolution?
I mean honestly, if we all came from ONE set of people, that means we'd be spacial needs people.
I mean if god does exist, Wouldn't he have made the one celled organisims that mutated into what we see humans as...

today?

Honest opions, and debate is welcome.

Being disprovable is one essential component of any scientific theory. Evolution could be disproven - otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific theory. (Creationism or ID, in contrast, make no disprovable claims).

However, what we refer to today as 'Evolution' is what's also called 'the modern synthesis'. It's more complex than Darwin's original formulation, and is really a set of theories, rather than a single one.

Darwin's original theory could be disproven if you could show, for example, that random variation (in our modern understanding, DNA mutation) does not occur in nature, or that it's not inherited, or that the fittest (best suited) individuals do not have the highest chance of survival.

Homosapians didn't come from just one homoeructus, there were many different kinds. The ones most able to adapt , the fittest of the fit, were the ones who lived & passed dwon their jeans to the nest. The ones who weren't died & fell out of the gene pool. Evadeince of evalotion can be sought out everywhere. There's an island in particular in which evaluation quite rapidly & can be seen within a decade.
I don't believe evolution can be disporved.

Evolution is a theroy based on what we know and can find. If evidence is found that changes the theroy thats ok. According too the bible, I guess thats where you got that God created man, said that God created man in one day. Most christians I've talked to agree that it was 1 24hour period. Not a lot put much stock in the gap theroy. there for if you believe in the bible, evolution could not have accured.

Evolution <by the way theres 6 different kinds> says that the earth is millions of years old. the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old. Both cant be right.

Taking an objective views on both evolution and creationism. I find there is simply more evidence for evolution than creationism.

some has said its better to believe in the bible because its constant, but I think the more we discover the more our understanding grows and something that dosent grow with us just hinders our growth

***there are many things we won't know until we get to Heaven and transformed into His image***

...MEHHH??? Weren't we already CREATED in his image?

Created in one day? Just how long is a day if you are God? If man were told it happened in one day, he writes it down to his understanding, one revolution of the earth. I don't know what "one day" is to a God in a near infinite universe. Could evolution AND Divine Creationism both exist? I think it can. I do know science is still seeking the answer of how life began, there are many theories still being researched. And scientists are still seeking the theoretical Higgs boson or the God Particle to explain the beginning of the universe.

We sit on this small planet in exactly the right position for life to exist as we know it in the temperature we can withstand, protected to a tolerable radiation in this small galaxy we call the Milky Way. And we conjecture on how it all began. Just as scientists used to conjecture that the earth was the center of the universe and was a flat world - until we found otherwise. We are still seeking the answers and the jury is still out for me. But I don't think it all happened coincidentally.

And we've not proved or disproved evolution. We find "windows" of what is believed to be "evolution" in the form of fossils that scientist conjecture were the forefathers of later species, but the fossils are just that windows in time.

seao2florida, you are engaging in a logical fallacy: There is no exact position or conditions for life to exist, based on evolution theory. Evolution is the survival of organisms best adapted to existing conditions, hence adaptation is what we should expect.

I do not doubt at all that evolution occured, however I do doubt the notion of the existence of god.

***And we've not proved or disproved evolution.***

Uhhh... no. Evolution has already been proven to occur in nature. IF you're referring to 'The Big Bang' ...then yes... that cannot really be proven or disproven since nobody was there to witness it. But evolution DOES occur...

Changes occurs in the gene pool - indisputable fact. HOW evolution occurs is still a theory. There are many theories out there as to how these changes occur.

"We sit on this small planet in exactly in the right position for life to exist as we know it in the temperature we can withstand, protected to a tolerable radiation in this small galaxy we call the Milky Way."

"For life to exist as we know it." And though try as we may, we've not found any life out there thus far, that is my point niocil. Our earth is in a constantly changing position within our solar system and it is just right at this point for life "as we know it" to exist. All the elements to form this life, and keep it existent are now present on our planet. Was that coincidental? Might have been, but it is not what I believe.

Any theories on how God would've created the universe?

Maybe the "big bang" or with Higgs boson?

seao2florida, go back and reread my previous refutation it still applies.

You seem to be implying a divine arthur for the orbit of planets. It's simply how mass behaves due to the environment it's in.
I reject intelligent design, because of the evidence against it, no reason to presume. It also begs the question if earth needed a designer, who created the designer? The train of thought does not follow to the conclusion.

seao2florida: What you're making is called the 'anthropic argument'. If conditions _weren't_ right for life 'as we know it', you wouldn't be here making that argument. Possibly a tentacled monster would be making the argument (and it would think everything is perfectly normal), possibly nothing.

And do we have any other forms of life that we know of anywhere else, tentacled or otherwise? Life is very ingenious and hardy and has found in all kinds of inhospitable climates and conditions, from boiling water at the ocean floors to frozen glaciers. And that's also my point. We are seeking it, but we haven't been able to find it elsewhere as yet. Are we the only life that exists?

And based on the Anthropic Principle, Einstein questioned "did God have a choice in his design of the Universe?"

seao2florida: The rarity or otherwise of life is irrelevant to the argument. Though the universe is a _very_ big place, in both time and space, and we've only looked at a very, very small segment of it. The point is that you can't make an argument about how unlikely life is when the very fact that you're able to make the argument implies that it came about in that manner. It's like getting a particular hand of cards in poker, then exclaiming how incredibly unlikely that particular hand is, and therefore it must be divine intervention.

*** . And that's also my point. We are seeking it, but we haven't been able to find it elsewhere as yet.

The only places we've looked so far other than earth, are the moon, and Mars - and even in these two places, all we've done is collect a few hundred pounds of rocks. It's way way way too early to draw any conclusions about the non-existence of life beyond earth!

Could we be the only life in our solar system or galaxy, etc? It's possible. If life develops, somewhere has to be first.

***We are seeking it, but we haven't been able to find it elsewhere as yet. Are we the only life that exists?***

I don't think that our technological limitations, and current inability to explore other galaxies; should lead us to believe that massive expanse in the universe, is just some elaborate light show for Earthlings to view at night...

I think I should play the lottery. Of all the billions of galaxies, "somewhere has to be first"? Earth won.

And Mars and the Moon are not the only places we've searched. SETI has been listening for life elsewhere since 1960. Since Professor Drake conducted that first experiment 48 years ago SETI listening devices are more than 100 trillion times more sensitive and capable of listening to millions of channels at once, over Drake's one at a time. Over 60 projects have developed since Drake's first attempt.

Are we alone and the heavens are "some elaborate light show for Earthlings to view at night...", or is there other life out there? And whether we are alone or other life exists or Divine Creation made us, that is exactly what the heavens are is a beautiful elaborate light show for Earthlings to view.

All I know is there are millions of coincidental occurrences that had to come together at the right time for us to be here with no divine intervention making it happen.

Nobody said that earth was the first - just that it could be. And the segment of the universe we can see and observe with projects such as SETI is an incredibly narrow slice through space and time - less than 50 years of observation in a universe billions of years old and billions of light-years across.

"All I know is there are millions of coincidental occurrences that had to come together at the right time for us to be here with no divine intervention making it happen."

And again, you can't count the unlikeliness of those events when the very fact that you're here observing them presupposes them to have happened. It's akin to getting a hand of cards and declaring how incredibly unlikely it is _after_ you've already been dealt it, or looking at the exact set of ancestors and observing that it's incredibly likely you'd have _exactly_ these ancestors - so it must have been divine intervention!

Yea, being dealt a hand of cards from a deck of 52. The millions of "accidental" coincidental occurrences must have occurred from many billions of possibilities. The odds are a bit more than your card example.

You're missing the point. The exact figures aren't important. The fact that you're making an argument about the likelihood of something that's already occurred is. If it helps, imagine a deck of thousands of cards.

In short, you can't (ab)use statistics to predict how unlikely something that's _already_ happened is, when the observation depends on the outcome of that event.

***that is exactly what the heavens are is a beautiful elaborate light show for Earthlings to view.***

Uhhh... no... that is just a bonus, not the purpose.