Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Not_By_Chance]

OK, so we hear a lot on this forum that masses of evidence overwhelmingly confirms evolution to the extent that for all intents and purposes it can be regarded as fact. In that case, can someone please present a non-scientist like myself with perhaps half a dozen pieces of evidence that if presented in a court of law, would be sufficient to convince a jury that evolution were true beyond all reasonable doubt. At least one of these should directly relate to the claim that one type of creature (e.g., a reptile) can turn into a bird, with some examples of actual creatures where this has happened or is happening.

Let’s flip the coin now. Can someone also present a similar amount of ideas presented by creation scientists that can be shown to be false, again using the above court room scenario.

Finally, could someone answer the question about how the first life could have got started all on its own without any divine intervention. In particular, where all the information came from to start life and build the first self-reproducing cell and how the problem of chirality could have been overcome in such a process.

Since you would be presenting these ideas to non-scientists, could you for each piece of evidence you present, indicate what the specialism of any scientist working in that field would need to have.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OK, so we hear a lot on this forum that masses of evidence overwhelmingly confirms evolution to the extent that for all intents and purposes it can be regarded as fact. In that case, can someone please present a non-scientist like myself with perhaps half a dozen pieces of evidence that if presented in a court of law, would be sufficient to convince a jury that evolution were true beyond all reasonable doubt. At least one of these should directly relate to the claim that one type of creature (e.g., a reptile) can turn into a bird, with some examples of actual creatures where this has happened or is happening.

That's not what evolution predicts will happen. If you are asking for evidence of a crocoduck, then you are not asking for evidence of evolution, but something else altogether.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Some theories have more support than others. Bottleneck, founder effect and genetic drift for example are accepted as true without much controversy.

 

[pshun2404]

Just a thought from outside the box…

David Pilbeam, (Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127), says “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to the actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted ”.

(Pilbeam is the Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University, and curator of Paleoanthropology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and was a graduate of Yale and his specialty if Hominid Evolution.)

This problem with some of his colleagues conclusions is reflective of the Geobbels principle in promoting successful propaganda. The Geobbels principle (adapted from the observations of Psychologist William James) states that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the…consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Now just replace the word “State” with any mandated insisted upon belief among the pedagoguery of our (or any past) time. Just because a majority accepts something as true and have been convinced of it, does not necessarily make it correct or right or true. The Geobbels principle works the best if you can get a group of people that appear to have the authority to know to come out publically espousing the view. The masses almost always fall for the “Argument from Authority” logic fallacy. Let me give you an example….

A while back, the pedagogues insisted on the accepted Clovis People theory so adamantly that science historian Josh Clark in Were the Clovis the first Americans tells us “they jealously guarded their ideas and evidence. A "Clovis barrier" shielded by the scientists who formed a sort of "Clovis police" discounted any other theory that placed other cultures in the Americas earlier than the Clovis.” We know from history that scientists and professors who saw and expressed other possibilities were often discredited and sometimes removed from positions of authority, denied funding for further research, and their papers were sometimes "selectively excluded" from peer reviewed journals.

Now after decades of enlightenment to the role other source peoples played (especially now through DNA studies) we have revised the “theory” according to the facts….now it is called “The Clovis-First” theory. The genetic markers sought out from North American tribal peoples appear to confirm this, and then we add slightly later (from around 10,000 years ago) a Mesopotamian influence (blended in) among some north eastern tribes (Cherokee and Iroquois) and among some of those related to the ancient Toltecs, plus more recently (5,000 to 4,000 years ago) some European influences (backed up from tools and weapon archaeology that finds similar items in France), and so on.

SO now it is not assumed the sole source for all indigenous Native Americans are Asian (though this is apparently the first wave) but later others made their way here and some blending occurred. This to me is great science….it allows the facts to shape or create the theory.

In fact some latest studies indicate there were already people indigenous to South America over a millennia before any of these influences (see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070223-first-americans.html

So we all should always step back and ask “though the possible conclusions fit the theory nicely are we just letting what we can know and then the data we later collect, shape or form the theory, or are we letting the theory shape and form how we interpret the data?”

IMHO the first approach is the only valid science ….

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

Here is one…not one you will find on Christian or apologetic websites, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why. A chemist friend once told me it is probably because the instance is so insignificant to most people. They just see protein folding as a process in macro terms and do not really pick apart what happens on the micro level though it is commonly known. Aaron, a former atheist, born and educated in China, became interested in Intelligent Design as a more reasonable explanation for some things just a few years ago.

One aspect of protein folding is called di-sulfide bonding and refers to di-sulfide bonds which determine the folding that occurs, whichdetermines the function of the protein produced. This is very significant in animal biology.

First I will describe what happens and how they bond, and then point out the significance of this as a refutation for a random chemical coincident explanation. I will describe this process in lay terms so any not of a science background can understand what I saying. For those interested you can find more at Wiki under “Protein Folding” or if you care to go deeper, you can hear it in a lecture at:

http://www.learnerstv.com/video/Free-video-Lecture-1389-Medical.htm

Start at around 3:45…Or for further study you may also try…

http://labs.mcdb.lsa.umich.edu/labs/bardwell/files/publications/2008_nov-dis.pdf

to learn of the importance of the process in forming polypeptide chains as polypeptide chains are essential to all animal life forms.

Here is the dilemma….

Since every protein (every organ, every function, every vessel, every hormone, etc.,) in your body is dependent on what happens in this process I thought you might find it important. When polypeptide chains fold to their three dimensional structure they do this because certain sulfide molecules bond with other PARTICULAR sulfide molecules. The combinations of bonded sulfides determine the shape, the folding of the protein produced, thus the function of the proteins.

What we found is that when by chemical process we unfold these proteins and allow them to re-bond freely, even if the string has 100 sulfide possibilities, the exact same sulfides re-bond with their particular component sulfides.

However there is absolutely no reason scientifically that these mindless allegedly planless, designless sulfides should only bond with those exact same specific sulfides in the presence of such variety and opportunity. Even if and when we try to force an alternative bonding, they just will not and immediately revert to their original site. Now some claim the responsibility lays with certain enzymes but the problem then arises why these same exact enzymes in different proteins cause different bonding combinations (if they are at all the “cause”).

The kind of bonding (called covalent bonding, where two molecules share their valence electrons) is natural when two elements which bond this way come into contact so when we try and force alternative di-sulfide bonds they should automatically covalently bond with any random sulphide molecule, but they will not. The particular shape of the folding is inherent in the protein (producing its function and purpose)…now we know what catalysts cause bonding but not the specificity. No matter if we repeat the unfolding and allowance process 100 times in a row, they will only bond with the exact same partner sulfide, over and over.

If chemical random coincidence were the rule for this reaction, they would occasionally randomly bond (at least some of the time) with any of the other available sulphide molecules, but they do not! There is clearly an irresistible intention in the resultant fold, shape, and function for which science has no satisfactory materialistic explanation.

Now to be fair I need to mention the rarest cases a mistake does in fact occur (usually one or more do not bond at all) and this always leads to disease.

Paul

 

[ScottA]

Science (thank God!) is slowly coming around to the reality that Time, Space, and Matter are not what they seem, but are mere illusion.

When everyone catches up with Einsteins findings, we will all have the truth.

Meanwhile, if you want to embrace the notion that Time (specifically) is an illusion, it makes evolution void...as well as a biblical timeline (no time, no line). Interestingly, if everything we have experienced throughout history all happened at once...it would make a BIG BANG!

That is not to say that history (God's story) is not true and real, or that something organic is instead...heaven forbid. Certainly not! No...it's just not what it has appeared, from EITHER perspective.

 

[[serious]]

double nested hierarchy is probably the biggest slam dunk. we also have the e coli long term evolution experiment, domestication of animals, observed evolutionary changes in wild populations, observed mutations in the lab, ERVs, etc.

as for a reptile turning into a bird, that isnt really how it works. the broader group amniota split into the sub groups reptilia, aves, and mammalia

 

[Not_By_Chance]

So far then, nothing significant to convince the "jury" that evolution is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, but some scientific evidence to indicate that it's not possible (from post #5 above).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So far then, nothing significant to convince the "jury" that evolution is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, but some scientific evidence to indicate that it's not possible (from post #5 above).

Nothing significant? See post #7. Those findings are very significant to your question.

 

[Audacious]

There's the Scopes trial and the Dover trial, both of which were about evolution versus creationism.

Evolution won every time because it has the vast majority of scientific evidence behind it, whereas creationism has a bunch of charlatan's lies and slander against real science, reality, and Biblical interpretation.

To quote this article:
"In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum. Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

He's a conservative judge appointed by Bush, by the way -- no liberal agenda here.

 

[lasthero]

So far then, nothing significant to convince the "jury" that evolution is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, but some scientific evidence to indicate that it's not possible (from post #5 above).

What do you consider 'beyond all reasonable doubt'?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What do you consider 'beyond all reasonable doubt'?

If creationism is the notion that a magical all-powerful being hand-carved every last living thing in existence, "reasonable" becomes a very subjective term.

 

[pshun2404]

Science (thank God!) is slowly coming around to the reality that Time, Space, and Matter are not what they seem, but are mere illusion.

When everyone catches up with Einsteins findings, we will all have the truth.

Meanwhile, if you want to embrace the notion that Time (specifically) is an illusion, it makes evolution void...as well as a biblical timeline (no time, no line). Interestingly, if everything we have experienced throughout history all happened at once...it would make a BIG BANG!

That is not to say that history (God's story) is not true and real, or that something organic is instead...heaven forbid. Certainly not! No...it's just not what it has appeared, from EITHER perspective.

Indeed! Thanks for saying this. Time (chronological time) IS a function of space and varies from place to place according to speed, gravity, and even personal experiential perception...

Check this article out by MIT physicist and mathematician Gerald Schroeder

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

Paul

 

[crjmurray]

What do you consider 'beyond all reasonable doubt'?

Meaning the evidence points to a conclusion for which there is no other logical alternative.

Reasonable alternative may be a term that sits better with some.

 

[sfs]

One aspect of protein folding is called di-sulfide bonding and refers to di-sulfide bonds which determine the folding that occurs, whichdetermines the function of the protein produced. This is very significant in animal biology.
[...]
What we found is that when by chemical process we unfold these proteins and allow them to re-bond freely, even if the string has 100 sulfide possibilities, the exact same sulfides re-bond with their particular component sulfides.
[...]
However there is absolutely no reason scientifically that these mindless allegedly planless, designless sulfides should only bond with those exact same specific sulfides in the presence of such variety and opportunity. Even if and when we try to force an alternative bonding, they just will not and immediately revert to their original site. Now some claim the responsibility lays with certain enzymes but the problem then arises why these same exact enzymes in different proteins cause different bonding combinations (if they are at all the “cause”).

I'm afraid I don't understand this argument at all.

First, what does it have to do with evolution? Protein-folding is biochemistry. Is the idea simply that science is wrong?

Second, you're arguing that certain chemicals, under appropriate conditions, (almost) always behave in certain ways, and that chemists don't understand why . . . and therefore God. What you're describing simply sounds like poorly understood chemistry. That's what we mean by natural law: the way the physical world consistently behaves. If you simply invoked miracles every time some physical process wasn't understood, then no science would have been possible.

Third, is di-sulfide bond formation even all that mysterious? It's been pretty thoroughly studied. Incorrect di-sulfide bonds routinely occur during proteins folding, potentially trapping the protein in a local energy minimum. The enzymes you mention greatly enhance exchange of bond partners, making it possible for the molecule to move out of the local minimum and achieve the most stable conformation. It seems pretty straightforward, at least in the abstract.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, so we hear a lot on this forum that masses of evidence overwhelmingly confirms evolution to the extent that for all intents and purposes it can be regarded as fact. In that case, can someone please present a non-scientist like myself with perhaps half a dozen pieces of evidence that if presented in a court of law, would be sufficient to convince a jury that evolution were true beyond all reasonable doubt.

I discuss the ERV evidence in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

At least one of these should directly relate to the claim that one type of creature (e.g., a reptile) can turn into a bird, . . .

Those are the same type of animal. They are both amniotes.

Finally, could someone answer the question about how the first life could have got started all on its own without any divine intervention.

Could you present evidence that life started with divine intervention?

Not knowing something does not equate to "God did it".

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Nothing significant? See post #7. Those findings are very significant to your question.

What on earth has domestication of animals got to do with proving that evolution is true? Please provide some real evidence, like one kind of creature turning into another. This is regularly shown as being a fact on the so-called evolutionary tree of life, but if you remove all the dotted lines, you are left with the creationists' "orchard of life" which they say, matches the real world we see around us.

 

[lasthero]

Meaning the evidence points to a conclusion for which there is no other logical alternative.

Reasonable alternative may be a term that sits better with some.

I understand what the definition is, but what I'm more concerned with is

What on earth has domestication of animals got to do with proving that evolution is true? Please provide some real evidence, like one kind of creature turning into another. This is regularly shown as being a fact on the so-called evolutionary tree of life, but if you remove all the dotted lines, you are left with the creationists' "orchard of life" which they say, matches the real world we see around us.

What on earth has domestication of animals got to do with proving that evolution is true? Please provide some real evidence, like one kind of creature turning into another. This is regularly shown as being a fact on the so-called evolutionary tree of life, but if you remove all the dotted lines, you are left with the creationists' "orchard of life" which they say, matches the real world we see around us.

What's a kind?

 

[Loudmouth]

What on earth has domestication of animals got to do with proving that evolution is true? Please provide some real evidence, like one kind of creature turning into another. This is regularly shown as being a fact on the so-called evolutionary tree of life, but if you remove all the dotted lines, you are left with the creationists' "orchard of life" which they say, matches the real world we see around us.

The dotted lines are shared features and shared DNA. They are still here. The "orchard of life" that you describe would not produce the nested hierarchy that we see when we objectively organize life by shared and derived traits.

"The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of "the great chain of being" and the continuums predicted by Lamarck's theory of organic progression (Darwin 1872, pp. 552-553; Futuyma 1998, pp. 88-92). Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I discuss the ERV evidence in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/



Those are the same type of animal. They are both amniotes.



Could you present evidence that life started with divine intervention?

Not knowing something does not equate to "God did it".

It can't be proven that "God did it" of course, but in the absence of any evidence for an alternative explanation, it's just as valid as saying that some unknown cause was the reason that we have something rather than nothing. Christian's put their faith in God being the cause because we believe that the Bible is divine revelation from our maker. The atheist has to put his/her faith in something else and that is why those without the Christian faith are floundering trying to find an explanation that will never be found.