Evolution is not evidenced simply by similarity

[SkyWriting]

Nested hierarchies aren't imaginary.
They are observably real.

The recreation of past events in your mind is imaginary.
But I concede that all reality is in your mind.

 

[Hoghead1]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation, therefore, If no observation or experimentation is made, it remains unproven, sorry guys.

There are tons of observations to back evolution. That's why it is a central tenet in the scierntific community. Experimentation may or may not be necessary, depending on the subject matter. No one feels the need to do experiments to prove that there is gravity, do they?

 

[Abraxos]

There are tons of observations to back evolution. That's why it is a central tenet in the scierntific community. Experimentation may or may not be necessary, depending on the subject matter. No one feels the need to do experiments to prove that there is gravity, do they?

Let me put it this way,

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell:

• Evolution in the sense that things change = is evident because we can observe change. (micro-evolution & natural selection)
  
• Evolution in the sense that all life including bananas came from a single cell and eventually morph into humans or other things like bananas = Fantasy.
  
• Darwinian Evolution is pseudo-science.

Trying to fit the evidence into the theory isn't good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually anti-science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let me put it this way,

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell:

• Evolution in the sense that things change = is evident because we can observe change. (micro-evolution & natural selection)
  
• Evolution in the sense that all life including bananas came from a single cell and eventually morph into humans or other things like bananas = Fantasy.
  
• Darwinian Evolution is pseudo-science.

Trying to fit the evidence into the theory isn't good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually anti-science.

Do you actually have any scientific evidence that proves the 'macro'-evolution is wrong? And I am not referring to a poor and intentionally dishonest reading of a scientific text by a creationist website.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let me put it this way,

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell:

• Evolution in the sense that things change = is evident because we can observe change. (micro-evolution & natural selection)
  
• Evolution in the sense that all life including bananas came from a single cell and eventually morph into humans or other things like bananas = Fantasy.
  
• Darwinian Evolution is pseudo-science.

Trying to fit the evidence into the theory isn't good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually anti-science.

In the end, this is just an argument from incredulity.
Your failure to understand how small changes accumulate over eons to make up for big changes in the long run, is not an argument against it.

Contrary to popular belief among creationists, "macro" evolution is not just some extrapolation of "micro" evolution. Both are just evolution. The kind of evidence that proves that all dogs share an ancestor is the exact same kind of evidence that proves that all primates, all mammals, all tetrapods, etc share an ancestor.

You can stick your head in the snad to that reality, but it is what it is.

 

[In situ]

So the scientific method does not work for past events.

Are you saying it is not possible to record past events?

 

[In situ]

Nested hierarchies aren't imaginary.
They are observably real.

You need to use words a creations can relate to: you need to say parent-child relations (i.e. nested hierarchies) are real and not imagined. I.e. the parent-child relation is the observed cause to the nested hierarchy.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let me put it this way,

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell:

• Evolution in the sense that things change = is evident because we can observe change. (micro-evolution & natural selection)
  
• Evolution in the sense that all life including bananas came from a single cell and eventually morph into humans or other things like bananas = Fantasy.
  
• Darwinian Evolution is pseudo-science.

At first I was going to agree with you, then I realised you had said nutshell, not nuthouse.

 

[In situ]

Evolution in the sense that things change

And that "sense" has been confirmed by observation. You can't deny that change do ocure.

Evolution in the sense that all life including bananas came from a single cell and eventually morph into humans or other things like bananas = Fantasy.

If you agree that things do change, then it seams that you only disagree on how much it can change. So the question would boil down to what would prevent a "cell" to change into a banana or a human and how much change we can accept before we think it is unlikely to happen.

The facts to consider here is the fact that a banana and a human are still made up of cells. Neither a bananas or a human is something fundamental different or some other "kind" of cell - a banana cells and human cells have unique differences but they are more similar than different.

Banana cells and human cells are the same kind! They are both the same kind of eukaryote cells!

That "change" you claim is needed, has never happen, does not need to happen, have not happen and will never happen!

The theory of evolution teaches; things stays the same kind they always been (preserving what their parents was) but also add unique changes to each generation. The theory claims observed unique inherent changes (the parent-child relation) is the cause of the nested hierarchy and the diversity of life. Creationists on the other hand claims that the theory of evolution claims that things change to something fundamental different (from one "kind" to "another kind") but such claim has never been made by the theory of evolution - nor Darwin - nor have it ever been observed to happen! It is a straw man!

Darwinian Evolution is pseudo-science.

I am aware of your opinion, but I do not agree with you for reason just stated above.

Trying to fit the evidence into the theory isn't good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually anti-science.

Can you give an example on where this happens? If you think "nesting" is such an example, then remember the nested hierarchy is caused by parent-child relations and that the nested hierarchy is an observational evidence that things are the same and never changed from some "kind" into some "other kind".

In other words the theory of evolution agrees with you; things cannot turn into something fundamentally different from what they are. When you realize this, then you understand the theory. But if your claim is that the theory claims thing change into fundamental different kinds, as creationists does, then you are making a straw man claim.

If you claim banana cells are different kinds of cells than human cells, i.e. if you claim they are fundamental different then you do not understand biology. And if you do not understand biology then you cannot understand the theory of evolution.

Understanding biology is a pre-requirement to understand the theory that explains biology, and that theory is the theory of evolution.

 

[In situ]

At first I was going to agree with you, then I realised you had said nutshell, not nuthouse.

Do not confuse a lack in understanding biology with insanity. What creationists claims is in essence correct (things cannot change into other "kinds", and this is true), but it is based on a misconception that the theory of evolution does not claim the very same thing. I.e. they do not understand the claims the theory actually makes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you saying it is not possible to record past events?

Let me know how it is used here:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_03

 

[SkyWriting]

No one feels the need to do experiments to prove that there is gravity, do they?

That would be silly.

"Gravitational Waves Detected, Confirming Einstein's Theory"

LIGO Members Testify Before US Congress on Gravitational Wave Discovery

LIGO has cost American taxpayers about $1.1 billion. That is how much the
National Science Foundation has spent on the project
over the past 40 years

 

[SkyWriting]

But if your claim is that the theory claims thing change into fundamental different kinds, as creationists does, then you are making a straw man claim.

Straw man would be one created with the intention to knock down.

 

[In situ]

The recreation of past events in your mind is imaginary.
But I concede that all reality is in your mind.

Aha, so that is were your want to walk; we cannot know if reality exist for sure. Well, then drop a load of bricks on your feet and then we can discuss how far you can continue walk.

But if we assume reality exists then the nested set of life have evidenced evolution.

 

[In situ]

Straw man would be one created with the intention to knock down.

Did I fail to explain why the creationist argument "on kind to another kind" is a straw man? Or are you saying there exists no intention to create a straw man by creationists?

 

[SkyWriting]

Did I fail to explain why the creationist argument "on kind to another kind" is a straw man? Or are you saying there exists no intention to create a straw man by creationists?

I have seen some straw man arguments put forth. But few do it intentionally.
Most just repeat what others say without putting much thought into it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have seen some straw man arguments put forth. But few do it intentionally.
Most just repeat what others say without putting much thought into it.

That not only doesn't make those people look any better, but it makes them out to be lazy people that won't check their sources, or stupid people that don't recognize strawmen for what they are.

 

[In situ]

That would be silly.

"Gravitational Waves Detected, Confirming Einstein's Theory"

I believe Hoghead1 referred to people in general and how we deal with claims from different sources.

 

[In situ]

I have seen some straw man arguments put forth. But few do it intentionally.
Most just repeat what others say without putting much thought into it.

I feel I did not get an answer to my questions. Are you saying I made a straw man?

 

[In situ]

That not only doesn't make those people look any better, but it makes them out to be lazy people that won't check their sources, or stupid people that don't recognize strawmen for what they are.

I did not meant to induce a discussion about the reasons, but wanted to try get common ground. I am saying the creationist gut feelings are correct, and science agree with them but they don't get the whole idea correct. One need to understand that classification is not about how things look like but what things really are and what it means to be that thing.

It is not the case that a mallard looks like a duck or a bird or dinosaur or vertebrate - it is all those things. Since all bird are dinosaur, per definition of what a dinosaur is, then there is no need to change from a "vertebrate kind" to a "dinosaur kind" to a "bird kind" to a "duck kind". If you are a mallard you are all those things already by inheritance - this ought to be obvious true. And if you are those things then you have stayed the same and you have not changed!

When you study variations in nature you can clearly see how different forms are related by "sameness" with each other. The theory of evolution explained the sameness (and differences) by the parent-child relation (inherent characteristics). The nested hierarchy is in a sense a summarized compilation of all studies of "sameness" and differences. Creationist claims this is evidence for design, but it is unclear to me why that would be evidence for design. In fact I feel their explanation often are inconsistent. I get the feeling of isolated cherry picking which are mutual incompatible