[deleted]
You can do it yourself and see it firsthand. You can breed plants and artificially select the traits you want to see in future generations.
[deleted]
Submitted 1 week ago by mez@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
cattywampas@lemm.ee 1 week ago
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 week ago
But that’s Mendel, not Darwin.
A different flavor of ice cream doesn’t make a wholly new dessert.
cattywampas@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Mendel’s experiments are a lot easier to recreate on your own than Darwin’s observations at Galapagos. And that’s what good science is all about.
meyotch@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
Does anyone notice that OP and his personal assistant won’t engage with the well written comments on this post? Only the snarky or non-substantive comments get their attention.
I’m starting to think this question may not be asked in good faith.
Shocked, I tell you, that kind of behavior in this day and age.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
OP seems to have some problems in general-- I think questioning evolution might be the least of their issues
the_dopamine_fiend@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Science, or at least the scientific method, is not “Religion 2.0” because faith is not a requisite for belief. If you can replicate the outcomes of experiment with further experiment or confirm the predictions of theory with observation, you are engaging with the real world in a more objective way than Just Making Shit Up™.
db2@lemmy.world 1 week ago
since science appears like religion 2.0
🤦♂️
SolidShake@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Google “Galapagos Island”
davesmith@feddit.uk 1 week ago
The thing that makes something ‘scientific’, rather than ‘faith-based’ is that it can be proven wrong. Think of it as our best guess so far, rather than some incontrovertible truth.
I am sure a basic search will return plenty of well researched and evidenced books on evolution.
As an aside I will say that I heard an interview with a data scientist whose recent work had found that genetic mutations weren’t random (in some way). Which could potentially throw an interesting wrinkle in there, lol. The bloke I heard interviewed stressed his paper had not yet been peer reviewed, and, iIrc, really just pointed towards the need for more research. I am just mentioning this as a bit of an aside.
TheIvoryTower@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you look at all the traits animals and plants have, there are correlations and patterns unrelated to the environment, consistent only with a pattern of descent with modification.
For example, all the animals that produce milk also have fur, while all the animals with beaks and hollow bones also have feathers.
These groups of correlated organisms are found regardless of their environment, so penguins have all the bird traits even though they live in the ocean, seals have all the mammal traits even though they live in the ocean.
This pattern only has one consistent explanation: life on earth is a result of descent with modification: evolution.
mez@lemmy.world 1 week ago
or coder like copy pasting
Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 week ago
You’ll have to prove the existence of a coder first.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 week ago
The thing about science vs bible is this, if all human knowledge got lost today we would eventually find all the same natural laws we found until today. But the same wouldn’t happen with the bible, it would be lost forever.
To really find out why evolution is real you would have to study biology to understand all the evidence beyond a superficial level.
LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe 1 week ago
Evolution is real because that is what the evidence says. You can come up with gymnastics to explain away the evidence, but you are not changing the facts of what we observe. I can come up with many far fetched ideas, but without evidence they’re worthless.
richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 week ago
Read www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ and learn something.
Your comment reveals you don’t have a clue how science works.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Look at what humans have done with breeds of dogs. Before we even knew what genetics was, we understood that if you bred two small dogs, the offspring would be small. Then, if you bred those offspring with other small dogs, they would be even smaller still. That’s how we got from a wolf to a Chihuahua. That is how we manipulate the forces of evolution for our benefit.
There are countless little “tells” that species evolve. Human skeletons have a tiny tail. All embryonic mammals look virtually identical. Whales have vestigial pelvis bones. Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics after generations of repeated exposure. Sickle cell anemia is an evolutionary adaptation in human populations frequently exposed to Malaria. Moths have been observed becoming darker in color so their camouflage matches trees darkened by pollution.
protist@mander.xyz 1 week ago
Evolution as a theory predates our understanding of genetics by many decades. Even before we were able to sequence genes, we were using morphology and a variety of other factors to determine relationships between living organisms.
Well, along came genetics. We discovered that neutral mutations in DNA tend to happen at consistent rates, which meant we could compare DNA of two organism to see how similar they were, and could even use their differences to estimate how long ago they had a common ancestor.
How can you “confirm evolution is real?” Sequence the genes of many organisms and compare them. Build your very own tree of life.
edgemaster72@lemmy.world 1 week ago
How much time do you have?
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Yeah… the education system has definitely failed… 🤦♂️
xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
Buy a microscope and look at some bacteria. They evolve fast, in real time, by the same principles other living organisma do.
Science is the process of observing, puting forth hypothesis based on observation and then doing your best to disprove that. It is the best method humankind has figured out for getting to truths about what we see around us. If you want absolute proofs, look no further than maths. In the real world, we do the best we can with science. Religion does not fulfill the same role as science do. Religion is not even close to the same concept as science. Religion is more akin to fictional works, like Tolkiens, lord of the rings.
Temperche@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
Go to natural history museums and see skulls proving that we evolved through many little steps and did not suddenly pop up as we are now.
libra00@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You can never truly confirm any scientific theory, unless by confirm you mean something other than prove definitively. All you can do is keep looking for evidence that disproves it and failing. And people have done that, like, a lot over the last 100 years or so. You can either become an evolutionary biologist and do the work yourself, but those people have also helpfully published their work so you can check it out yourself.
rikudou@lemmings.world 1 week ago
You can never truly confirm any scientific theory
All of physics would like a word.
Dropper_Post@lemm.ee 1 week ago
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
You don’t “confirm” it. It’s an attempt to describe a system/outcome. It’s a model of a system, not the system itself and no model is perfect, because all models are our attempt to understand and describe things, and there is no such thing as perfect understanding.
However, it’s a highly accurate model, that explains things very well. So, either we will find that one day, we make a brand new, better model (this seems unlikely given the accuracy of the current model, but possible). Or, more likely, we continue to come to a better understanding of the system, and improve the model we use to describe it.