So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

Slam dunk confirmed, you just can supply the article
That's funny

But can you read and comprehend such articles?

If you could, we wouldn't be here still arguing pointlessly about what you don't even care to look at, let alone absorb.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Did you read the op?
Did you read where I asked for scientific, peer reviewed articles stating evolution was a proven science

What's wrong, do I write in Chinese?
I can't make the question any simpler

Using the term 'Proven science' means you don't understand science enough to understand what you're being shown. Look up the scientific methodand start there then come back.


learn.genetics.utah.edu...

Also here. Look up sticklebacks. Or African chichlids. Or look up BC's westcoast. All of our freshwater fish species have only existed since the glaciers retreated. Thia has been proven genetically.

If you want to see some 'proven' evolution look uo evolutionary papers on fish. Fish evolve relatively quickly and we've tracked several species evolutions as they've happened in a relatively recent time frame and is still visibly happening.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

it's probably because people don't care about evolutionary biology as much as they want a compelling reason to feel worthwhile as sentient beings stranded in the middle of a cosmic wasteland, gifted with acute sensitivity to fear of death and obscurity yet unable to avoid either. It's a philosophical thing, I'm guessing.

You nailed it right there, TzarChasm. It's pretty much based on emotion and ego. I've said a million times I don't care if people want to believe in god. That doesn't bother me at, just the irrational postulation of it as fact and denial of numerous fields of science to rectify it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

what if the Earth was just inhabited by single celled creatures until the mother ship arrived and populated the planet with "people", a really long time ago? We just don't know. But we are 97% sure we do about some things.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Did you read the op?
Did you read where I asked for scientific, peer reviewed articles stating evolution was a proven science

What's wrong, do I write in Chinese?
I can't make the question any simpler

I think the point is that since you keep posting thread after thread on this, that perhaps maybe you should do a little work yourself on this matter. There is plenty of proof of evolution. Don't be lazy, go and look or it., after all you are the one with the questions. I believe in both creation and evolution, but i don't believe the God worshiped in religions is the one that did the creation.

a reply to: Barcs

What bothers me just a little is when people ask for information and then disregard it without reasonable cause. But such are the forums.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Here you are equating gravity with evolution, that's disingenuous in the context

Don't be retarded. That's not what I was doing. I was distinguishing the difference between liking the belief in science to that of religious belief or faith. And you know that, hence your crap attempt to discredit my analogy.

Science and its proponents should welcome questions but just look at the average response here
I didn't paint anything, just asked a question

Again, where is anyone saying science doesn't welcome questioning? Where is anyone saying you cannot question scientific claims or discoveries?

What we ARE saying, is if you are contesting the argument, bring evidence. Not your opinion, not your belief in fairy tales or mythos. Bring evidence to counter the scientific claim.

And this happens ALL the time. Hence why science adapts and changes and 'evolves' to our ever increasing intellect.

As per my sig from Tim Minchin:

Science adjusts its views based on whats observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: schuyler
What does "peer reviewed" mean, exactly? Let me give you a clue. "Peer Reviewed" means an article has passed muster among other experts in the field. Usually it works like this:

1. An article is submitted to a journal
2. The editor of said journal takes off the author names and sends it to experts in the field.
3. Experts review said article and return comments with suggested changes, approval, or disapproval.
4. Editor sends suggested comments to author(s)
5. Author(s) resubmit revised article
6. Journal publishes said article.

Now, here are a few journals on evolution or which often publish on evolution now published that adhere to peer review. If you would care to look through even one issue of one of the publications listed below my guess is you will find several articles per issue on evolution that are peer reviewed. To find copies of these journals a visit to any local academic library should find a number of them.

Is there anything else you need help with?

Journal List

This list is by no means complete. It includes journals primarily devoted to evolution and others that frequently publish evolutionary articles. Mainly national journals, or those focusing on particular taxonomic groups, are not included.
Evolutionary Biology

Evolution
American Naturalist
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Molecular Ecology
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Nature
Science
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)
Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) B
PLoS Biology
Current Biology
Biology Letters
PLoS One
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
Annual Review of Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Evolutionary Biology
BioEssays
Current Opinion in Genetics and Development
Quarterly Review of Biology
Biological Reviews
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) B Genetics
Genetics
Heredity
Nature Genetics
Genetics Selection Evolution
PLoS Genetics
Genome Research
Genome
Genome Biology
Trends in Genetics
BMC Genetics
Genes and Development Theory
Theoretical Population Biology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
Journal of Mathematical Biology
Physical Review E Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics
Physical Review Letters
Journal of Statistical Physics
Ecology
Ecology Letters
Population Ecology
Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology
Evolutionary Ecology
Evolutionary Ecology Research
Molecular Ecology
Development
Evolution and Development
Development Genes and Evolution
Developmental Biology
Genes and Development
Paleontology
Paleobiology
Systematics
Systematic Biology
Cladistics
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Biochemical Systematics and Ecology
Plant Systematics and Evolution
Human Genetics and Evolution
American Journal of Human Genetics
Annals of Human Genetics
European Journal of Human Genetics
Genetic Epidemiology
Human Genetics
Journal of Human Evolution
Evolutionary Anthropology
Behavior (including Human)
Animal Behaviour
Behavioural Ecology
Brain Behaviour and Evolution
Sociobiology
Ethology Ecology and Evolution
Journal of Evolutionary Psychology
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolution & Cognition
Evolutionary Computation
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation
Conservation
Conservation Biology
Biological Conservation
Education
Evolution: Education and Outreach
Journal of Evolutionary Economics
Journal of Biogeography
Biology and Philosophy
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
PLoS Computational Biology
Infection, Genetics and Evolution

Please read my op, comprehend, understand, think it through.
Then reply

I'm sorry. I can't help you any more than I can help a Flat Earther.

To be fair what we should have done is just post the ATS evolution mega thread links to his request it has all the evidence he needs.
It is just a repeating thing every few weeks he asks for "empirical evidence" people explain or attempt to explain evolution to him he ignores it and repeat..
and repeat and so on.
Just post the links next time let's not waste our time.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: eriktheawful

Yeah, thanks, I know
That's a fair and genuine assessment of the issue
Hope others read your post in depth and comprehend it
My question is why are so many people telling me it's a fact

Oddly I agree, evolution sounds genuinely plausible, I just don't believe it

Cheers

I would just like to re-state my position on evolution in this thread.

I believe that every process within the framework of evolutionary theory has been substantially shown to have occurred.

I believe that chaining those processes together in a rational manner, as evolutionary theory does, is an entirely valid as a paradigm for understanding biodiversity.

I believe that chemical abiogenesis is also reasonable but until we actually fill in some major holes in our observation of actual processes, it will have to remain hypothetical.

I have issues with the science of evolution on several grounds:

- The concept of a single common ancestor for all life based (partly) on the structure of the phylogenetic tree (an entirely man-made system of classification). If life arose by abiogenesis, as is proposed, it would have done so in many separate instances and in many separate ways. Saying it only ever occurred once is 'magical thinking', not science.

- Evolution does not encompass all the ways biodiversity may arise. Horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, directed breeding (such as human intervention) and saltation are factors that can stand alone and are outside of evolutionary theory as proposed in the MES. Moreover, we have evidence of biological change in situations which do not conform to evolutionary gradualism and partitioned populations.

- There is a major issue in that evolution has not been observed where one species becomes a new species unable to breed with the ancestor species. From a rational genetic stand point at the step were accumulated changes exceed the threshold of allowing cross-breeding, those 'species defining' changes represent a terminal genetic line. There are no breeding partners for the thus modified genome.

- It is arguable that humans (ancient and modern) are outside of the processes of natural selection and that a technological species, especially now represented in our genetic manipulation, represents a new paradigm beyond codified evolutionary process.

Needless to say, neither abiogenesis nor evolution impact negatively on my Christian faith, simply stated, they are methods which it is likely for God to have used, but God's 'toolkit' is far larger than proposed by theorists.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: schuyler
What does "peer reviewed" mean, exactly? Let me give you a clue. "Peer Reviewed" means an article has passed muster among other experts in the field. Usually it works like this:

1. An article is submitted to a journal
2. The editor of said journal takes off the author names and sends it to experts in the field.
3. Experts review said article and return comments with suggested changes, approval, or disapproval.
4. Editor sends suggested comments to author(s)
5. Author(s) resubmit revised article
6. Journal publishes said article.

Now, here are a few journals on evolution or which often publish on evolution now published that adhere to peer review. If you would care to look through even one issue of one of the publications listed below my guess is you will find several articles per issue on evolution that are peer reviewed. To find copies of these journals a visit to any local academic library should find a number of them.

Is there anything else you need help with?

Journal List

This list is by no means complete. It includes journals primarily devoted to evolution and others that frequently publish evolutionary articles. Mainly national journals, or those focusing on particular taxonomic groups, are not included.
Evolutionary Biology

Evolution
American Naturalist
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Molecular Ecology
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Nature
Science
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)
Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) B
PLoS Biology
Current Biology
Biology Letters
PLoS One
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
Annual Review of Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Evolutionary Biology
BioEssays
Current Opinion in Genetics and Development
Quarterly Review of Biology
Biological Reviews
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) B Genetics
Genetics
Heredity
Nature Genetics
Genetics Selection Evolution
PLoS Genetics
Genome Research
Genome
Genome Biology
Trends in Genetics
BMC Genetics
Genes and Development Theory
Theoretical Population Biology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
Journal of Mathematical Biology
Physical Review E Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics
Physical Review Letters
Journal of Statistical Physics
Ecology
Ecology Letters
Population Ecology
Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology
Evolutionary Ecology
Evolutionary Ecology Research
Molecular Ecology
Development
Evolution and Development
Development Genes and Evolution
Developmental Biology
Genes and Development
Paleontology
Paleobiology
Systematics
Systematic Biology
Cladistics
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Biochemical Systematics and Ecology
Plant Systematics and Evolution
Human Genetics and Evolution
American Journal of Human Genetics
Annals of Human Genetics
European Journal of Human Genetics
Genetic Epidemiology
Human Genetics
Journal of Human Evolution
Evolutionary Anthropology
Behavior (including Human)
Animal Behaviour
Behavioural Ecology
Brain Behaviour and Evolution
Sociobiology
Ethology Ecology and Evolution
Journal of Evolutionary Psychology
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolution & Cognition
Evolutionary Computation
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation
Conservation
Conservation Biology
Biological Conservation
Education
Evolution: Education and Outreach
Journal of Evolutionary Economics
Journal of Biogeography
Biology and Philosophy
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
PLoS Computational Biology
Infection, Genetics and Evolution

Please read my op, comprehend, understand, think it through.
Then reply

I'm sorry. I can't help you any more than I can help a Flat Earther.

Thanks for the altruism
Yeah that's obvious you can't help me, I knew that from the get go, in fact you even attempting to reply was a train wreck
my issue is you can't even help yourself

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Here you are equating gravity with evolution, that's disingenuous in the context

Don't be retarded. That's not what I was doing. I was distinguishing the difference between liking the belief in science to that of religious belief or faith. And you know that, hence your crap attempt to discredit my analogy.

Science and its proponents should welcome questions but just look at the average response here
I didn't paint anything, just asked a question

Again, where is anyone saying science doesn't welcome questioning? Where is anyone saying you cannot question scientific claims or discoveries?

What we ARE saying, is if you are contesting the argument, bring evidence. Not your opinion, not your belief in fairy tales or mythos. Bring evidence to counter the scientific claim.

And this happens ALL the time. Hence why science adapts and changes and 'evolves' to our ever increasing intellect.

As per my sig from Tim Minchin:

Science adjusts its views based on whats observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved

Seriously you are calling me retarded, you
On a thread you can't answer a question I asked on
A scientific question I proposed and you can't answer and you call me retarded
Simple question that you should have acces to an answer on and I am retarded
Pot calling kettle
In fact I have lead you down a path to the obvious and you have still no clue

And I am the retarded one

I asked a question, you can't, won't answer the question, bitched and moaned at me then say questions are welcomed and then call me retarded
Onya

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: weirdguy

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: RaggedymanHere is a peer reviewed journal specifically on evolution that is published monthly..

Test the whole journal is devoted to evolutionary science..

So you can just scroll down the list..

phys.org...

No thanks Josh, I asked for "A" peer reviewed article, I can respond to only one at a time, not a list, common sense buddy
Concerntrate on the op question

If I am going to do this, it has to be done on here in front of everyone

You scared to post an article on its own, or just cant find one relevant on your own

So people are providing you with links to what you claim to be looking for but then refuse to read anything?
Poor form, you're just being a trolling wanker

Raggedy's request was clear and simple.

It should be simple for someone to raise a single reference to a peer reviewed paper that unequivocally evidences macro-evolution such as a species transition.

If no such paper can be referenced there must be a valid reason.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Speciation has been directly observed multiple times. Stop defending a troll. The mechanisms for micro/macro evolution are exactly the same. Evolution is the accumulation of small changes and that's exactly what has been observed. You guys dishonestly pretend that macro is a separate process that shows a big sudden change. That false strawman is the reason why he's wrong and you guys are irrational. You think that in order to prove evolution you need to be able to watch a single cell for 3.5 billion years turn into a human. It's completely asinine.

Where biological diversification has been observed in situations where gradualism and partitioning don't apply, don't you think that is a disproof?

I'm not denying that evolutionary processes occur. I am saying that there is more to biodiversity than codified in evolutionary theory, that evolution isn't the only way.

... and really, just one actual scientific paper wouldn't be too hard, would it? Especially if, as you said, we have observed speciation several times.

(P.S, my definition of 'speciation' is that the ancestor and descendent species are unable to breed producing fertile offspring. I do not include the more minor 'appearance differences' as differentiators of species).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: weirdguy

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here is a peer reviewed journal specifically on evolution that is published monthly..

Test the whole journal is devoted to evolutionary science..

So you can just scroll down the list..

phys.org...

No thanks Josh, I asked for "A" peer reviewed article, I can respond to only one at a time, not a list, common sense buddy
Concerntrate on the op question

If I am going to do this, it has to be done on here in front of everyone

You scared to post an article on its own, or just cant find one relevant on your own

So people are providing you with links to what you claim to be looking for but then refuse to read anything?
Poor form, you're just being a trolling wanker

Raggedy's request was clear and simple.

It should be simple for someone to raise a single reference to a peer reviewed paper that unequivocally evidences macro-evolution such as a species transition.

If no such paper can be referenced there must be a valid reason.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Speciation has been directly observed multiple times. Stop defending a troll. The mechanisms for micro/macro evolution are exactly the same. Evolution is the accumulation of small changes and that's exactly what has been observed. You guys dishonestly pretend that macro is a separate process that shows a big sudden change. That false strawman is the reason why he's wrong and you guys are irrational. You think that in order to prove evolution you need to be able to watch a single cell for 3.5 billion years turn into a human. It's completely asinine.

Where biological diversification has been observed in situations where gradualism and partitioning don't apply, don't you think that is a disproof?

I'm not denying that evolutionary processes occur. I am saying that there is more to biodiversity than codified in evolutionary theory, that evolution isn't the only way.

The only way thats been tested and recorded. I already mentioned that any divine factor in evolution is an appeal to ignorance.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you

Once again why is evolution always debated against Creationism? They are two totally separate positions. Creationism talks about the "why", talks about how we started etc. Evolution talks about the "How" like in how does life change over time. Evolution does not touch the "why" or how life started in anyway, so I need to ask why do you put both in the same post like for some reason they are both about the same thing?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: RaggedymanSimply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you

Skipping all of the meaningless waffling, here ya go...sources for macrobiology articles:

www.omicsonline.org...

I don't see any links to peer reviewed papers posted there that are unequivocal observations of macroevolution. For example, one of the papers linked was; "Analysis of Prognostic Marker Panel for High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer through Age-Dependent DNA Methylation". I can only assume that the linked papers were merely popular ones that had nothing to do with macroevolution specifically.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

This article highlights the dissonance between micro and macroevolutionary models and, in its conclusion, suggests bet-hedging in favor of Steven J. Gould's paper, [i]"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" which, in turn, suggests macroevolutionary shortcomings of the MES.

www.indiana.edu...

Again this article describes issues between micro and macroevolution and links to articles, none of which is unequvocal proof of macroevolution as proposed by the MES.

www.oxfordbibliographies.com...

To quote this article, "Although the proof, occurrence, and mechanisms of evolution at the level of populations, or even genes, are founded on very solid evidence, the substantiation for macroevolution stands on thinner ice."

Please understand, these links just give you somewhere to start. You can't expect us to do all the work for you. The task forges the worker, as they say, and some healthy legwork is good for the committed scholar.

A little legwork might have identified that your post did not actually answer the request of the OP, nor is any of it a 'slam dunk' proof of macroevolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: weirdguy

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here is a peer reviewed journal specifically on evolution that is published monthly..

Test the whole journal is devoted to evolutionary science..

So you can just scroll down the list..

phys.org...

No thanks Josh, I asked for "A" peer reviewed article, I can respond to only one at a time, not a list, common sense buddy
Concerntrate on the op question

If I am going to do this, it has to be done on here in front of everyone

You scared to post an article on its own, or just cant find one relevant on your own

So people are providing you with links to what you claim to be looking for but then refuse to read anything?
Poor form, you're just being a trolling wanker

Raggedy's request was clear and simple.

It should be simple for someone to raise a single reference to a peer reviewed paper that unequivocally evidences macro-evolution such as a species transition.

If no such paper can be referenced there must be a valid reason.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Speciation has been directly observed multiple times. Stop defending a troll. The mechanisms for micro/macro evolution are exactly the same. Evolution is the accumulation of small changes and that's exactly what has been observed. You guys dishonestly pretend that macro is a separate process that shows a big sudden change. That false strawman is the reason why he's wrong and you guys are irrational. You think that in order to prove evolution you need to be able to watch a single cell for 3.5 billion years turn into a human. It's completely asinine.

Where biological diversification has been observed in situations where gradualism and partitioning don't apply, don't you think that is a disproof?

I'm not denying that evolutionary processes occur. I am saying that there is more to biodiversity than codified in evolutionary theory, that evolution isn't the only way.

The only way thats been tested and recorded. I already mentioned that any divine factor in evolution is an appeal to ignorance.

Horizontal gene transfer, punctuated equilibrium, epigenetics, directed breeding (such as human intervention) and saltation have all been observed, tested and recorded.

Your assumption of a religious overtone is clouding your objectivity.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you

Once again why is evolution always debated against Creationism? They are two totally separate positions. Creationism talks about the "why", talks about how we started etc. Evolution talks about the "How" like in how does life change over time. Evolution does not touch the "why" or how life started in anyway, so I need to ask why do you put both in the same post like for some reason they are both about the same thing?

It is the straw man argument of those who cannot face that their backbone edifice of their worldview is only one theory among a sea of possibilities.

Science says a lot of things I don't worry about.
Nothing trumps reality.

originally posted by: chr0naut

It is the straw man argument of those who cannot face that their backbone edifice of their worldview is only one theory among a sea of possibilities.

We all agree that life changes over time. The debate is where we are from intelligent design or just random. If we were from intelligent design evolution fits just nicely too. God would need some tool for life would he not?

With the whole 6000 year thing the argument is God made everything 6000 years ago, but he made it all look like its been here for billions of years. For that I would just need to ask why would God need or want to make anything look billions of years old if it was only 6000. Everything new would be a normal reality for us too if that is what the universe looked like...no need to fake us out with new stuff looking old...lol