When was evolution proven by the scientific method?

Question

When was evolution proven by the scientific method?

Answer 1

Let me start with an analogy that should clarify this:



When did the hypothesis that 300-foot redwood trees grow from seeds ever go through Step Two? To wit: In what controlled environment was a seed observed to grow into a 300-foot redwood tree?



Since the hypothesis includes the idea that this can take a *very long time* (2,000 years), do we reject the hypothesis and say "since there is no way to have a controlled experiment from seed to fully-grown 300-foot redwood tree ... we should declare the hypothesis 'not proved' and reject it in favor of the idea that all redwood trees were created 'in their current form'."?



No. Here's what a scientist would say ... We can plant a seed and observe it for five years as it grows into a seedling, and then a sapling. And we can plant other seeds of other *faster-growing* trees and observe them grow to saplings in only 1 year. And then we go into the forest and look for the saplings with *features* (like needles or bark, or even do DNA samples) that resemble the features of fully grown rewood trees and infer that these are related redwood saplings. And we can find other redwood trees in various stages of growth and infer from them that all redwood trees do this. And we can find dead rewood trees and "date" them using the premise that that the number of tree rings tells us how old the tree is (a technique we can again test on faster growing trees). And we can make a secondary "dating" technique of measuring the diameter of a tree to estimate its age without cutting it down. And on and on.



This is called science by *INFERENCE*. We *INFER* things from observations we can make.



The theory of gravity was developed by *inference* ... it was not "proven." There is no way to "observe in a controlled experiment" that the same force that attracts an apple to the ground is the same force that causes tides to rise, or the moon to orbit the earth, or the sun to shine, or a distant galaxy to form. We conclude that the same force is in effect in all these cases by *INFERENCE*.



The cell theory of biology was developed by *inference* ... it was not "proven." There is no way to "observe in a controlled experiment" that ALL life must be based on cells. There is no way to say that we won't find some life form tomorrow that does not have cells, or does not have chromosomes, or does not grow or reproduce by cell replication. We conclude that cells govern all life by *INFERENCE*.



So how does inference work with evolution?



Well, a scientist would say ... because we can start with a population of bacteria and observe it for five years as it develops immunity to an antibiotic in its environment. And we can observe other *faster-reproducing* organisms (like fruit flies) and observe them separate into reproductively isolated species in only a small number of generations. And then we go into the lab and look for the organisms with *DNA* that match letter-for-letter the DNA of human beings and infer that these identical sequences are markers of common ancestry. And we can confirm that the patterns with which these DNA markers are found in nature correlate perfectly with the *tree-like* organization of living organisms (taxonomy). And we can find other species showing these features in various stages of development and infer from them that all species do this. And we can find dead (extinct) species and "date" them using a technique based on the premise that the depths of layers, and ages of rocks in those layers tells us how old the fossil is (a technique we can agin test using many different methods). And we can make a secondary "dating" technique of observing the presence of reference fossils that are always found in certain layers of certain ages. And on and on.



There is no NEED to do a controlled experiment from slime to Homo sapiens any more than we NEED to do a controlled experiment from seed to 300-foot redwood tree before we can conclude that redwoods grow from seeds!



-----



Bottom line: If you have any interest in understanding WHY the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the world are absolutely convinced of evolution ... then don't START by rejecting it and wondering how scientists can be such idiots!



Don't *START* with the belief that evolution is wrong, and then develop an understanding of science that confirms that rejection. Don't *START* with a specific conclusion, and then work backwards toward understanding science. That will *guarantee* that you never understand science ... not just evolution ... *ALL* of it. You will misunderstand cells, gravity, atoms, the formations of stars, the behaviors of galaxies ... ALL of it!



Scientists do the opposite. They have an overriding knowledge of the scientific method. They live, eat, and breathe it every day of their lives *FOR A LIVING*.



Scientists FIRST understand how science works, and THEN set out to understand the principles of science as they are accepted by rest of their peers. Only then can they intelligently *CHALLENGE* those concepts. Many scientists have challenged those past assumptions ... and succeeded. But they *STARTED* by becoming scientists ... which starts by understanding concepts like inference.



If you start with a *rejection* of evolution, and then work backwards to understanding just enough science to justify that rejection ... then you will not only never understand evolution ... you will never understand science. Ever.

Answer 2

It was validated 150 years ago. Proof is a concept in mathematics.



You can test something in ways other than a direct experiment. You can test its predictions. That is actually the hallmark of a scientific theory, an experimental model that survives based on the accuracy of its testable predictions.



Evolution was validated with the discover of Archeopteryx 150 years ago. Fossil finds since then have further supported it. All of genetics provides independent verification.

Answer 3

Your conception of how science works is oversimplified. , Ernst Mayr's book "This is biology: the science of the living world" goes over this topic in great detail.



Long story short: Observational data, such as fossils, can stand in for experimental data so long as you A) add careful controls and B) Treat the data as containing an approariate level of error/bias.



Other elements of evolution, such as the gene-population models laid out in the modern synthesis, have been well evaluated in experimental trials.

Answer 4

even if scientists knew which variables to control to achieve that outcome, no one has a spare billion years to watch the experiment. however over the decades there have been thousands of experimental and observational tests supporting the theory of evolution. only a creationist could think up a test like this... if you don't want to believe in evolution don't... but please stop pretending that your objections are scientific.

Answer 5

No modern theory of evolution states that you should be able to observe pond slime giving birth to modern humans. In fact, such an observation would destroy evolutionary theory. You've masterfully destroyed a straw man.



However, to address your main question, anybody, with knowledge of evolutionary theory, can predict the order of the age of fossils one would expect to find if it were true, they can then see for themselves if the fossils really do occur that way. A verifiable, testable experiment.



There have also been experiments to observe if evolution does occur, by observing if a species adapts new novel traits to adapt to a new, controlled environment. Off hand, I can name the E. coli long-evolution experiment.

Answer 6

Evolution has been observed and tested many times.



http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714104000.htm



http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8225000/8225219.stm



Care to tell me how God has been proven using the scientific method?

Answer 7

Happigirl,



Secretsauce offers some excellent advice, but let me explain more or less the same concept in a somewhat different way so that you have multiple chances to understand.



When your science book, or whatever source you are using, says that "a hypothesis must be subjected to many repeatable, verifiable, controlled experiments," this does NOT mean that we must explicitly observe every single natural process from start to finish before we can be sure it's real. If a scientist proposes the hypothesis that life has evolved into its present state over the past 4 billion years, how do you expect scientists do to a controlled experiment for 4 billion years within the space of 150 years? Is this REALLY what you expect them to do??? You must have a much higher opinion of scientists than you let on!



When a science book talks about an "experiment" or "test", all this means is that the hypothesis should be used to PREDICT what we should see in nature if it's true, and then go out and see whether we can actually make those observations. The test does not necessarily have to be an observatioin of the entire process, it can also be the observation of an EFFECT that we know that process should have. If we see that effect in nature, we have gathered evidence that the process took place WITHOUT having to observe the entire process.



Take secretsauce's redwood example.... if we begin to grow redwood saplings for a few years, and we observe that a new ring grows on the trunk of the tree once every year, and we propose the hypotheses that most grown redwood trees are 200 years old, we can use these ideas to PREDICT that grown redwood trees will have about 200 rings around their trunks. If our hypothesis that grown redwood trees are 200 years old is correct, then this is what we SHOULD observe. Suppose we check the grown redwood trees, and they DO actually have 200 rings. Even though we have not watched the entire process, we have still performed a TEST or EXPERIMENT of our hypothesis, and that experiment provided us evidence that our idea is correct!



Science tests whether past processes took place based on evidence those processes have left in the present ALL THE TIME. To give you another example, suppose you come home and find that your window is broken, and your TV and DVD player are missing. What do you suppose happened? Most people would conclude that their house was burglarized. But if you truly believe what you wrote in your question, you should REJECT this idea until you are able to find this same burglar, bring him to your house, and do a controlled experiment to see whether he breaks into your home a second time.



Do you really think that we need to run this experiment in order to be sure about what happened? Of course not. We know that the process of burglary will leave behind certain EFFECTS in the present. The window was broken from the outside. There are footprints on the floor. There are fingerprints on the window pane. When the police come over and gather this evidence, they are able to find the culprit because ONLY SOMEONE WITH THOSE FINGERS AND THOSE SHOES could have produced the effect that was observed.



In the same way, there are certain diagnostic effects that ONLY evolution would have on the biological world, and we OBSERVE those effects. For example, great apes have 24 chromosomes and humans have only 23, which means that if humans actually did evolve from apes, we should be able to find in our genetic code a place where two chromosomes became one. We find EXACTLY THAT... your chromosome #2, present in ever cell of your body this very instant, is composed of two great ape chromosomes fused together!!! This evidence shows that the evolutionary process from apes to humans actually happened. Just as we didn't have to be there when the burglar broke in to know what he did, we didn't have to watch evolution happen in order to know that it happened... it left us a very clear fingerprint of its presence.



There are literally thousands, THOUSANDS of other such effects that evolution should have left behind if it is true. Many of those effects have been tested to see if they are real, and so far, EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE OF THEM that has ever been tested has been CONFIRMED. So the direct answer to your question is this: Evolution has gone through step two of the scientific method continuously over the past 150 years, as predictions that it makes (predictions that involve BOTH watching evolution happen AND checking for effects that it has left behind) have been tested and verified over and over again.



So, after reading all this, if you still truly believe that evolution has not been verified by the scientific method, you need to reject about 90% of science, and you have a lot of criminals that need to be freed from jail for lack of evidence. Hopefully you have plenty of time on your hands and lots of spare crowbars.

Answer 8

Theories are not "proven," but are made up of proven facts and explain observed occurrences. Essentially, the torture test for a theory is not needing to be proven, but needing to not be falsified by observed evidence.

Answer 9

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/aw7ZA



Let's ignore for the moment the fact that science NEVER seeks to "prove". It seeks evidence related to a theory, and determines whether that evidence supports or contradicts the theory. There's always a reasonable chance the theory needs adjustment as new information comes in. That aside, there is a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence supporting the basic theory of evolution. It is now considered nearly incontrovertible. There is scant evidence that contradicts the current theories explaining the processes of evolution. It is likely some of the explanations (theories) of those processes will need to be adjusted as we gather more evidence that doesn't perfectly fit. That's the difference between science and religion. Religion never changes its premise to fit the evidence - it just rejects contradictory evidence. Science accepts contradictory evidence, re-evaluates the premise, and refines the theory to fit the actual facts. Changes in scientific theory aren't evidence of fault, but a simple matter of how scientific explanation works.

Answer 10

Theory Of Evolution Proven

Answer 11

You have asked an extremely intelligent question. Kudos for that. The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is NOT subject to the scientific method and is therefore technically not even "scientific" and has certainly never been "proven". The reason of this is obvious. The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor which itself arose from an inorganic form billions of years ago. No scientist was around billions of years ago to see this happen, nor have they ever observed one kind of creature changing into another which must have occurred if evolution is true. Evolution has never been observed in any form, EVER. No events, including evolution, from the ancient past can be observed, repeated or measured, the three immutable properties of the scientific method.



Evolution is based squarely on the ASSUMPTION that God does not exist or had no hand in our origins and therefore everything we see today came about by purely natural means. If we use different assumptions, we arrive at different results. No fossil comes with a label telling us how old it is or what other fossil it supposedly evolved from. You must first ASSUME that evolution is true in order to INTERPRET any historical evidence in its favor. This is called circular reasoning. For example, one of your respondents stated that homology (likeness) infers common ancestry. However, this is more validly interpreted as living things having a common designer, NOT a common ancestor. In another breath he hypocritically advises you to not start with the "belief that evolution is wrong, and then develop an understanding of science that confirms that rejection". But as I've pointed out, this is EXACTLY what evolutionists do by believing that evolution is true and then developing an understanding of science that confirms that belief!



A simple example will demonstrate how evolutionary theory is based on philosophical presuppositions and not science. Suppose a girl and a boy enter a mutual friend's apartment at 2:45 and find a note next to a lit candle. The note says that he has gone to the store and will be back around 3:00. However, the girl suspects foul play because she measures the rate at which the wax is melting and the amount of wax that has dripped so far and determines that he's been gone for a whole day. She's about to call the police when their friend arrives back at the apartment. She cries out "what took you so long" and explains her calculations. The friend is surprised as he explains that he used another candle to light a used one and some of that wax dripped onto the other candle. In addition, the candle is not burning nearly as brightly as when he first lit it. He tells them that he left them a note telling them what happened and asks them why they didn't believe it.



In likewise manner, God has left us an eyewitness account of what happened in the past, but evolutionist do not want to believe it because it goes against their materialistic beliefs. Many surveys have demonstrated that the vast majority (80-90%) of evolutionary scientists do not believe in the existence of God.



Forgive me for the length of this, but I wanted to point out how evolutionists have deceptively attempted to get around these facts as your respondents have done. First they will try to redefine "evolution" to simply mean change over time. However, no one disagrees that living things change over time! That is not a statement of evolutionary theory, but simply an observation of a process for which evolutionists conjecture might have caused evolution. I have surveyed at least a hundred textbooks on what evolution is (including books by leading evolutionist such as Ernst Mayer) and 80% of them define evolution in a similar fashion as I have done above. Because we observe things changing does not mean we all arose from a common ancestor.



Next they will try to tell you that evolution has been observed. One of your respondents provided a link to the long debunked notion that peppered moths demonstrate evolution. The theory goes that the percentage of dark and light colored moths changed as the bark of the trees changed with increased levels of pollution. Since they were not camouflaged as well, more of one color was eaten by predators. However, this study was discovered to be a hoax since the moths rest on the underside of leaves, not on the bark of the tree. Evolutionists actually glued moths to tree trunks in order to deceive people that evolution was occurring. What's ironic is that even if it were true, it has nothing to do with evolution. It simply demonstrates a change in EXISTING features. For evolution to be true we must demonstrate NEW features developing. This has never been observed to happen.



In the interest of time, I'll lastly point out that the examples they gave of trees growing or your house being burglarized to demonstrate validity of interpreting past events is completely and utterly bogus We can interpret these events because we have plenty of examples in the present for which we can offer inference. For example, billions of trees have been observed to grow and many people's homes have been burglarized. However evolution is based on speculations about ONE-TIME events that have occurred in the past that have NEVER been observed in the present, nor can they ever be repeated. Growing trees and burglarized homes are subject to the scientific method. Evolution is NOT.



Sorry, but one last thing. I'd like to demonstrate how dishonest your other respondents have been when they go on about how evidence from evolution is so "overwhelming". One respondent wants you to believe in evolution because an "overwhelming consensus of scientists" believe it. Since when does a majority opinion dictate truth? If it did you should reject evolution since the majority of Americans reject it. In addition, by many accounts only about 60% of scientists accept evolution. He insists that the evolutionary tree has been confirmed, but according to Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality" he says! Remember that taxonomy was founded by a creation scientist whose objective was to determine what the originally created kinds of life were, not to confirm evolution.



Bottom line, believe what God has told us and don't rely on the fallible imaginations of evolutionists. Science only makes sense because God created a rational logical consistent world that reflects his rational logical and consistent nature. While this is already too long to go into the evidence in detail, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports God's version of our origins. There are no conflicts between God and science.

Answer 12

This Site Might Help You.



RE:

When was evolution proven by the scientific method?

In order for a hypothesis to become a theory, it must first be validated by the scientific method. Step Two of this method states that a hypothesis must be subjected to many repeatable, verifiable, controlled experiments before it can proceed to steps three, four and five. When did the...

Answer 13

Because "scientific method" observes what happens; based on those observations, form a thoery as to what may be true; test the theory by further ibservations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled

Answer 14

I think you have the beginnings of the scientific method (without seeing what you think steps 3, 4 and 5 are). However, you don't know the meaning of the word "evolution."



Evolution means change over time and more precisely: change in allele frequency in a population between generations. This is a natural phenomenon that is observed and measurable. What you want to observe is a process that took 4 billion years and it is not evolution but another phenomenon called aboigenesis.



Also, there is no single evolutionary hypothesis. There are many hypothesis that have been put forward to explain how and why evolution occurs ever since people noticed that populations change over time. The oldest and simplest explanation is magic. This hypothesis is self consistent and is a perfect answer to why something happened. It is the will of [name of favorite deity] may very well be the reason that allele frequency in a population changed but it is not testable, it makes no predictions and we know nothing more of our universe than before.



Contrast this with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection which has survived 150 years of testing using techniques and ideas that were completely unknown when Darwin first published his work.



=============

Addendum

I often question the utility of this forum especially when dealing with responses from the religiously indoctrinated as below. These scientifically illiterate persons can not even understand or agree on the basic language of science. They repeat false statements and spread ignorance with such vehemency in spite of how sadly mistaken they are.



Evolution is real. Evolution is seen. Evolution is measured. Evolution is predictable using the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I see it every day and anyone who has the proper tools and training can do so just as easily.



This same illiterate probably never read an entire paper by Eric Bapteste (who is with Dalhousie University in Halifax Canada) much less understand what it is that Bapteste is trying to debate. Much of Bapteste's work focuses on lateral gene flow in prokaryotes (which leads to evolution by the way). A webpage at his university states:



"But it’s time to update that ladder with new rungs. Dal’s molecular biologists are taking great care with this task, so evolution’s opponents don’t misinterpret their revisions as an abandonment of Darwin’s most basic premise, that we can explain the adaptability and diversity of living creatures as solely the outcome of natural processes operating over time."



=============

But, that somehow got past the keen research skills of at least one Jesus freak.

Answer 15

LOL! Basic science fail!



Great answers so far, save one...

Answer 16

I believe evolution is still a theory, yet to be proven.