Evidences for evolution

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Umm..no we actually haven't

Well, you can argue that all you want, but at that point, we're no longer using enough of the same tools to be able to discuss this informatively. The observed evidence of speciation meets conventional scientific standards.

As to "data to meet theory" vs. "theory to meet data", this is an interesting point. However, in fact, the scientific method calls for a bit of a compromise. If you find data that don't fit your theory, there's a problem with your theory, and you need to adapt your theory. However, you don't know that the new theory is any good until you can get some new data that match with it. Ideally, a good theory should predict that something will exist, and you can go out and find that thing; if it does this, it's probably a good theory.

I have to admit, from where I sit, not believing in evolution makes about as much sense as not believing in internal combustion engines.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The observed evidence of speciation meets conventional scientific standards. "

True, but as I pointed out..leeching was real science too and an accepted theory of medicine. Science can, is and will continue to be wrong in many many things, evolution being one of them.

"I have to admit, from where I sit, not believing in evolution makes about as much sense as not believing in internal combustion engines."

then you're 1. sitting upside down or 2. sitting with your eyes closed. BELIEVING in evolution is like *to use your analogies* believing the moon is made of green cheese.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The observed evidence of speciation meets conventional scientific standards. "

True, but as I pointed out..leeching was real science too and an accepted theory of medicine. Science can, is and will continue to be wrong in many many things, evolution being one of them.

So, what exactly is your evidence? You're now moving from "I don't have enough information to make me believe this theory" to "this theory is clearly wrong". Got any scientific evidence against it?

I would also point out that the leeches are about as fair as an indictment of "science" as indulgences and the inquisition are of Christianity. They were never universal, and they were reached by methods that are totally unlike the scientific method as we describe it today.

Can you point to a single double-blind clinical study that supported leeches? I can't.

I can point to a number of very good research projects that have carefully approached individual tenets of modern evolutionary theory, and it holds up quite nicely.

"I have to admit, from where I sit, not believing in evolution makes about as much sense as not believing in internal combustion engines."

then you're 1. sitting upside down or 2. sitting with your eyes closed. BELIEVING in evolution is like *to use your analogies* believing the moon is made of green cheese.

No, it's about like believing that there's subatomic particles. No observed data contradicts the claim, it explains a vast quantity of data, and it has made correct predictions about previously untested things.

I expect the details of evolutionary theory to still be under debate in a hundred years, but I doubt the core model will ever change.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Got any scientific evidence against it? "

How much time you go?

I would suggest not doing it on here as there are several other threads.


"I would also point out that the leeches are about as fair as an indictment of "science" as indulgences and the inquisition are of Christianity. They were never universal, and they were reached by methods that are totally unlike the scientific method as we describe it today. "

and i would disagree on your logic. Science condoned it just as other things it condoned and is now changing. The inqusitions were christians not being christians, or are you saying science in that time period was ALL wrong? They were exactly like science today, same method, same steps.

"Can you point to a single double-blind clinical study that supported leeches? I can't. "

history books

"No observed data contradicts the claim, it explains a vast quantity of data, and it has made correct predictions about previously untested things.
"

No, because you're talking two different things here. Time is not invovled in this theory, in evolution it is. Just like weather patterns. You can't predict that because time is involved. Two totally different subjects.

"but I doubt the core model will ever change."

Really? http://www.grisda.org/origins/14007.htm

good read.

Evolution will be right when they finally admit macro doesn't happen and then change the name to what it really is. the theory of adaption.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

"but I doubt the core model will ever change."

Really? http://www.grisda.org/origins/14007.htm

good read.

Evolution will be right when they finally admit macro doesn't happen and then change the name to what it really is. the theory of adaption.

I read it, but I don't buy it at all; it contradicts substantial actual research. If you take carbon and other atoms, and zap them for a few months, you get *VERY* complicated molecules. There's an underlying problem in assuming that it's all "random chance". If it were random chance, water would randomly turn into hydrogen and oxygen, but chemistry isn't "random" at all.

Certainly, the article you pointed at has nothing against macroevolution. All it takes is a few fossils of odd things that don't look like either of two categories that seem related, and we have good evidence for transitions from one to another. And we've got that.

Just look at penguins and dolphins; penguins are more like fish than they are like birds, except that they're clearly birds. Give them another half-million years, and they may be even more like fish.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I read it, but I don't buy it at all; it contradicts substantial actual research. "

umm..ookkkaaayy...hehehe...

"If it were random chance, water would randomly turn into hydrogen and oxygen, but chemistry isn't "random" at all. "

Umm..you didn't read the paper did you...?

"There's an underlying problem in assuming that it's all "random chance". "

Umm..isn't that was evolution is based on? Well if we are considering Origin it is. the chemical part is quite a random occurance..to quote you..."The thing about statistics is that about six thousand people a day will have experiences which happen one time in a million. Every *DAY*. We're talking about a whole planet, and half a billion years... "

sounds like chance to me...

"Just look at penguins and dolphins; penguins are more like fish than they are like birds, except that they're clearly birds. Give them another half-million years, and they may be even more like fish."

Nope, they will be more like...penguins

 

[brt28006]

... I want you to know that leaches have turned out to be excellent tools in fighting infection, and preventing blood clots which could complicate limb reattachments.

Its becoming fairly common practice now when a person has to have a hand, foot, or even whole limb reattached, to put a leach or two around the area of the operation in order to keep the blood flowing afterwards.

Sure the traditional use of leaching in order to bleed out bad blood was relatively invalid... but not completely... and that bloodletting practice evolved, pardon the pun, into the modern application of leaches as I described above.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Sure the traditional use of leaching in order to bleed out bad blood was relatively invalid... but not completely... and that bloodletting practice evolved, pardon the pun, into the modern application of leaches as I described above."

Yup, that's right, but the common use of them was wrong, but like most things, in moderation and with the right appication stripping away what wasn't right, made it applicatiable..in this example, stripping away macro would do the same thing

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Yup, that's right, but the common use of them was wrong, but like most things, in moderation and with the right appication stripping away what wasn't right, made it applicatiable..in this example, stripping away macro would do the same thing

You are all wrong with your leeches analogy. Leeches were used in Europe well before the Renaissance and the introduction of the scientific method. Their use was as scientific as the belief in a flat Earth.

It was the application of scientific principles to medicine, measuring the results of treatments, that led to the disuse of leeches. It is scientific principles that have recently brought them back in a limited form.

You do understand that any European practices that predate the Renaissance cannot really be called scientific, right?

 

[brt28006]

Originally posted by Ray K


You are all wrong with your leeches analogy. Leeches were used in Europe well before the Renaissance and the introduction of the scientific method. Their use was as scientific as the belief in a flat Earth.

It was the application of scientific principles to medicine, measuring the results of treatments, that led to the disuse of leeches. It is scientific principles that have recently brought them back in a limited form.

You do understand that any European practices that predate the Renaissance cannot really be called scientific, right?

Application of scientific principles in recent times, has led to the resurrection of leech use, albeit in a different type of treatment.

Also (taken from a website I forgot to get the address to)
"Use of the leech for medicinal purposes did, of course antedate its mention in Old English (the Anglo-Saxon) language: its first occurrence in such a context seems to be that found in a medical poem by Nicander of Colophon who died ca. 132 B.C."

Also, about European practices predating the rennaisance not being science, that is hardly the case.
Both Rome and Greece, as well as other cultures like that of the Celts, had thriving scientific communities.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by brt28006
Also, about European practices predating the rennaisance not being science, that is hardly the case.
Both Rome and Greece, as well as other cultures like that of the Celts, had thriving scientific communities.

You are correct, of course. I was speaking of Europe after the Christians took over the Roman Empire and proceeded to burn millions of non-Christian books as pagan. It was the reintroduction of Greek thought into Europe 1000 years later that triggered the Renaissance. Thank the Arabs for preserving them!

I am not too familiar with the scientific tradition of the Celts. Do you have a reference you can direct me to?

 

[brt28006]

Celtic science, much like that of ancient Egypt, was half research and half magick. However, much of it had completely valid scientific applications. The use of honey as a disinfectant and anti-scarring agent, for example.
I'll try to find some resources on the net. Most of what I know comes from the History Channel and the like.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I read it, but I don't buy it at all; it contradicts substantial actual research. "

umm..ookkkaaayy...hehehe...

Seriously. That paper is mostly nonsense; it's bald assertions, mostly unsupported by experimental dat. It's not science.

"If it were random chance, water would randomly turn into hydrogen and oxygen, but chemistry isn't "random" at all. "

Umm..you didn't read the paper did you...?

Read it. I don't buy it. It's mediocre science. Essentially, their argument boils down to "but chemical reactions tend towards simpler states, not more complicated ones". If that were true, hydrogen and oxygen wouldn't form water; they'd separate. They are grossly oversimplifying thermodynamics, and simply *ignoring* crucial parts of chemistry.

Take away the "molecules go only towards lowest energy" claim, and the whole thing falls down. And, of course, that claim simply isn't true; thermodynamics describes closed systems, but the surface of the earth is far from a closed system.

(re: "random chance") Umm..isn't that was evolution is based on?

No, Selection is a very non-random process.

"The thing about statistics is that about six thousand people a day will have experiences which happen one time in a million. Every *DAY*. We're talking about a whole planet, and half a billion years... "

sounds like chance to me...

The point is: In so far as there's "chance" involved, the sheer scale of the environment means that "very unlikely" occurrances should happen fairly often. However, most of what evolution talks about isn't *chance*. It's not equally likely that H2 and O2 will form water or separate; there are circumstances under which they do each. It's not *chance*.

Nope, they will be more like...penguins

What's your evidence? When we have thousands of examples of things gradually changing over time from one form to another, why should we believe that penguins, in particular, are "done" and that they are designed to be awkward flightless birds that swim?

 

[kern]

Someone mentioned a while back that the principles of natural selection and evolution were used in all branches of science. Even the fake science (computer science) uses it in something called the "genetic algorithms", which I won't go into in detail unless people are interested.


-Chris

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


The original assertion was that extrapolation of adaptation to include speciation was not relevant to any field of biology. I'm simply pointing out that this is falsehood

Evolution and adaptation are inseparable. Evolution is simply accumulated adaptation over an extended period of time, with the result of new species being formed.

Evolution cannot be seperated from adaptation, but one need not believe that all species come from the same creature to understand adaptation and a certain amount of evolution within species. There is a question of magnitude here on top of the assumption of developing complexity that I find unreasonable and certainly not proven.

The conflict between evolution and Christian creation is more a philosophical one, but the philosophy itself has a scientific basis in observation. But the poor science of evoution as the sole origin of species comes from the blind assumption that because we don't understand the formation of life that it must be something that rarely happens. Most likely it is something, like most chemical reactions, that has to happen, when certain materials come together under certain circumstances.

I imagine once life can be manufactured, that it will be quite obvious that it is perfectly natural for more than one type of creature to be created by that process. This is an entirely different objection that I have, completely apart from the assumption of evoutionary theorists that they know things of the past without having been there to observe them.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
You're right [to a degree] when you asser that it is not necessery to know how life began in order to study how it works now - that's why that field of study is called abiogenesis and not evolutionary biology. But that doesn't mean that our observations of evolution in the past are irrelevant to our understanding of modern biology

How?

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
Evolution cannot be seperated from adaptation, but one need not believe that all species come from the same creature to understand adaptation and a certain amount of evolution within species. There is a question of magnitude here on top of the assumption of developing complexity that I find unreasonable and certainly not proven.

How can there be "a certain amount of evolution within species"? That is a conjecture completely unfounded in the evidence. It strongly suggests that there is some natural limit that prevents the amount of variation possible for a species.

What evidence do you have of such a limit to variation?

And where do you draw the line for this limit? In other words, how much genetic change would you require before you were willing to accept that the line had been crossed?

The conflict between evolution and Christian creation is more a philosophical one, but the philosophy itself has a scientific basis in observation.

No. The conflict between evolution and Christian creation has always been one of reason vs. faith. That is why evolution will continue to convince -- because it is based on reasoned analysis of evidence. Religious faith has no evidence to support it, so believers are left with no defense other than to attack the evidence of the scientific theories that impinge upon their faith-based beliefs.

That is why creationists continually criticize evolution and are completely unable to come up with a scientific explanation of their own. For if they did devise a scientific alternative to evolution, that theory would also impinge upon their religious faith in creation -- which is their primary problem with evolution.

It would also run counter to thousands of years of the proven inability of religious faith to solve any problems.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Ray K

How can there be "a certain amount of evolution within species"? That is a conjecture completely unfounded in the evidence. It strongly suggests that there is some natural limit that prevents the amount of variation possible for a species.

On the contrary, what evidence do you have that there is not a line, and indeed how can it ever be decided? Certainly the theory itself claims that this is a function of time. How much time EXACTLY does it take to develop x amount of species in y environemnt? You're the one claiming to know exaclty how all life came into being in all the universe, period, full stop end of story, not me.

You claim all this power of science to answer, yet you have no convincing answer.

When exactly did life start, and how many different life forms exactly were there? Were there more than one at all? How exactly did they evolve? Trace for me the steps of every single creature as it emereged from every single predecessor. Rearange all of history for me, Ray. Is there life anywhere else in the entire universe? If so, why do you assume only one life form here, when you also assume there are others elsewhere. If not, why do you assume to know what is happening elsewhere?

Why do you claim to know what is in the past?

What, that's not science, to interpret history? That's the job of historians you say? You're just a humble scientist and just going on what you see.

Where is it that you looked to see the begining of the earth, Ray, and why should I trust that you understand every bit of it? Why should I trust you at all? You are incapable of supporting trust Ray K. I have talked to you for days on end now and you don't even have a solid understanding of what the problem is in the first place, nor do you care. You simply repeat your beliefs like a mantra, to hypnotize yourself and anyone else that is willing to suspend disbelief and to stop looking at your ideas critically.

For the thousandth time, if the universe is created by God, then there is no scientific basis for looking for proof in the first place. And we know we have consciousness, and we know we make choices, and we have no reason at all to just assume we are the only creatures, or the most powerful creatures, that can do this.

Are you going to tell me it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist? You're wrong! Are you telling me it's impossible to prove whether or not there's a God? Again, you're wrong. If God is in a place that you choose never to look, am I then to be surprised you never find Him?



As for why people want it in schools, it's because we are tired of being brainwashed in classrooms we pay for out of tax money. Either take your propaganda out, or let everyone else's propaganda in.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"every single fossil that has ever been recovered has supported this. "

actually they don't...

http://www.grisda.org/reports.htm


By the way, I've gone through that paper thanks and seveal places the author makes 1. assumptions 2. says if this is not it then it points to intellegent design

Read the paper before using it as evidence please.


"As to single to multicell, where would you expect to see it? We're talking about something that only has to happen once or twice in a billion years for the rest to follow nicely"

Okay, lets run with that...if he has only happen once or twice in a billion years then the odds are substancial that it would not survive. I once heard a harvard prof say (in his pride) I would rather believe a mathematical impossiblity like evolution then having to believe in God. I would have to say, the odds are against you


"you're complaining that we can't find an example in the hundred years or so we've had the technology to look *at all*? "

Yup, as scientists say to theists, no evidence you can't back up the claim, so yes, I am. Funny how they can do it but we can't.

1. www.grisda.org I had a look round, but I couldn't actually find any references that showed that the fossil record undermines the position that evolution is accumulated adaptation.

2. Then I went and read that:

"The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach."

Added to that, they proudly proclaim the creed of the Seventh Day Adventists on their site:

"God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was "very good," declaring the glory of God."

I don't think there's much more to say; anyone who filters science through "revelation" will automatically filter out that which does not agree with the Babble. They're just a DI or an AIG or a CRI with a different name and a different brand of cretinism.

Please provide references that a) don't rely on Scripture as evidence. b) actually stand up to peer review.

3. www.talkorigins.org

Please provide specific references where the author, with regards to observed cases of speciation makes assumptions that are not based on observation/evidence. Assumptions that are based on solid observation/evidence are not assumptions, they are inferences.

4. You still have yet to provide evidence that radiometric dating is flawed.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


On the contrary, what evidence do you have that there is not a line, and indeed how can it ever be decided?


That "line" is an additional construct with no evidence to support it. You want to assume this construct and then ask science to disprove it. That is backwards thinking!

Certainly the theory itself claims that this is a function of time. How much time EXACTLY does it take to develop x amount of species in y environemnt? You're the one claiming to know exaclty how all life came into being in all the universe, period, full stop end of story, not me.

You claim all this power of science to answer, yet you have no convincing answer.

Really? No evolutionist I know claims to "know exactly how all life came into being in all the universe". In fact, that sounds like something you'd read in Genesis.

When exactly did life start, and how many different life forms exactly were there? Were there more than one at all? How exactly did they evolve? Trace for me the steps of every single creature as it emereged from every single predecessor. Rearange all of history for me, Ray. Is there life anywhere else in the entire universe? If so, why do you assume only one life form here, when you also assume there are others elsewhere. If not, why do you assume to know what is happening elsewhere?

Weird. I am not making any of those assumptions. You have become completely irrational, as far as I can tell.

Why do you claim to know what is in the past?

If I walk by a graveyard, is it unreasonable to assume that people lived and died before me? Can I examine the remains and get a rough idea of how long ago they lived, their gender, how old they were when they died, and what they died from? Of course.

Therefore I do claim to know, to the limit of available evidence, what is in the past.

What, that's not science, to interpret history? That's the job of historians you say? You're just a humble scientist and just going on what you see.

Obviously incorrect. I do believe strongly that science can deduce what happened in the past.

Where is it that you looked to see the begining of the earth, Ray, and why should I trust that you understand every bit of it? Why should I trust you at all? You are incapable of supporting trust Ray K. I have talked to you for days on end now and you don't even have a solid understanding of what the problem is in the first place, nor do you care. You simply repeat your beliefs like a mantra, to hypnotize yourself and anyone else that is willing to suspend disbelief and to stop looking at your ideas critically.

Interesting. You have shut your mind off to archaeology, palentology, geology and astronomy, and thenyou accuse me of not understanding why you have done that.

For the thousandth time, if the universe is created by God, then there is no scientific basis for looking for proof in the first place. And we know we have consciousness, and we know we make choices, and we have no reason at all to just assume we are the only creatures, or the most powerful creatures, that can do this.

Of course! Who is denying that? But there is a difference between assuming the existance of life similar to what we already know to exist (carbon-based life found on Earth) and suddenly the existence of an ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWING SUPERNATURAL creator that you call God. There is no analogy for that kind of life, so evidence of our existence is not evidence of God in the slightest.

Are you going to tell me it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist? You're wrong! Are you telling me it's impossible to prove whether or not there's a God? Again, you're wrong. If God is in a place that you choose never to look, am I then to be surprised you never find Him?

Things can be logically disproven. The standard Christian interpretation of God fails most logical proofs, so therefore I conclude that, not only does he not exist, he cannot exist.

As for why people want it in schools, it's because we are tired of being brainwashed in classrooms we pay for out of tax money. Either take your propaganda out, or let everyone else's propaganda in.

Evolution is not propaganda, but I understand why you have to refer to it as such. Your continued pathetic attempts to refute it to preserve your mythology is tiresome. You have no scientific alternative to evolution, and have no desire to consider anything that could possibly take the place of your religious faith.

Evolution is not going away because it is based in solid geological evidence, and Christians have not yet figured out a way to burn geological strata.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
2. Then I went and read that:

"The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach."

Added to that, they proudly proclaim the creed of the Seventh Day Adventists on their site:

"God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was "very good," declaring the glory of God."

I don't think there's much more to say; anyone who filters science through "revelation" will automatically filter out that which does not agree with the Babble. They're just a DI or an AIG or a CRI with a different name and a different brand of cretinism.

The Babble?

So there goes your credibility posting on a Christian forum, and so goes any illusion of you being the least bit objective. Also, the assumption that there is a God is no more dramatic than the assumption that there isn't one, especially given that God only means something very much like us only with more power, and significant historical evidence for the existence of the spritual.