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.

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 into the theory of evolution, lol. The bloke I heard interviewed stressed his paper had not yet been peer reviewed, and, iIrc, really just pointed towards the possible need for more research. I am just mentioning this as a bit of an aside.

As for the question of whether we are flesh robots made by bug aliens? Maybe that is a philosophical question? I can say that I personally have chosen to trust our scientists, rather than someone on youtube, or ‘X’(, or lemmy)!

When learning about climate change I found multiple news stories with opposing headlines, that cited the same research.

My point is be careful of your sources: try and get as close to reading the research as possible. Reading an abstract, then a conclusion, and going from there is a skill that more people can develop than perhaps they first think.

You can learn what a sound research methodology is online if you really want, and can’t or won’t be in formal education!

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™.

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.

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.

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.

@mez popsci.com/science/article/201…

it’s important to really explain evolution to folks. as someone that grew up in churches but always have been very scientific… when you really talk to them simply, they kind of get on board. like ‘wouldn’t it make sense that bright colored weak prey would die quicker than camouflaged prey’ - they seem to be able to make that hurdle.

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.

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.

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. If you find something that contradicts your hypothesis, you can safely discard that idea and start over. 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. Religion makes claims that can neither be proven, nor disproven; which is completely useless for learning anything.

Science is useful in that it makes prediction that allow us to make all the technology around us. Maybe the most useful thing; it tells us what the fundamental limits to what we can do is.

Religion provides no such utility, other than maybe a social community. But I would argue that a board game club can do the same.

Science dominates our society so much, just becauce of it’s usefullness. There is an evolutionary aspect to science itself, right there. The groups that rejects science falls behind, those that embrace it prosper. The stronger prevails, thus science.

Imagine what tribes are likely to get wiped out; the technologically advanced ones or the regressive ones.

Google “Galapagos Island”

since science appears like religion 2.0

🤦‍♂️

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.

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.

Your concern is very valid. We cannot really prove that we evolved from amoeba besides saying that we do share some similar dna. Well they say banana shares similar dna to humans too…