Evidences for evolution

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Ray K

Originally posted by Shane Roach

Creationsim certainly looks at evidence. it is empirical. It is not physical. It looks at the nature of our minds, at the world around us, and at the history of the human race, and the nature of science itself and what science is and is not capable of doing, and comes to a decision based on this.

The problem is that creationism looks at evidence through the lens of Biblical revelation, and therein lies its fatal flaw. You cannot pick and choose evidence based on whether it agrees with your preconceived notions.

It is entirely circumstantial by definition. It is not first hand. it is second hand deduction based on physical traces leftover, and everyone in the world is familiar with legal cases where overwhelming circumstantial evidence turned out to be wrong.

And yet there is no "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" for creationism. All we see are attacks on evolution and false dichotomies that assert "if evolution is false, then creationism must be true".

I should point you to some Islamic sites that make the same incoherent attacks against evolution as evidence of the truth in the Q'ran.

And there you went with the pervasivnis statement again. This is really the scary part of this from the point of view of a person who used to actively enjoy science. It is a recent turn of events that people continually try to press evolution out of the realm of speculation where it belongs and try to make it inot science-fact.

What's scary is that you claim to enjoy science but continually attack the only scientific theory explaining the diversity of life on Earth. You brush off requests to provide an alternative as if that were an unimportant or trivial request.

And you apparently consider it a personal insult that non-Christians consider your faith nothing more than a primitive mythological system.

I started this thread with detailed explanations of what I consider evidence and falsifications for evolution, and you are apparently intellectually incapable for formulating a similar defense for your mythological creation story. For a theory that you consider as weak as evolution, surely you can concoct something better.

You can rant and rail all you want at me, but you've got nothing left but bluster and I'm not the only one who sees that.

I have said continually I am not trying to prove or disprove any of these. I am pointing out the fundamental properties of science and I am saying that there is plenty of room for doubt of this theory.

Your attempt to control the debate or what it is about, and to try to simply imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just wrong, is unconvincing.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


I think that depends on how you define creationism. Until recently there wasn't even any attempt to reconcile data to any theory other than Darwin's evolutionary model. I think it's to be expected that people doing this are having some troubles jump starting from behind.



Creationsim certainly looks at evidence. it is empirical. It is not physical. It looks at the nature of our minds, at the world around us, and at the history of the human race, and the nature of science itself and what science is and is not capable of doing, and comes to a decision based on this.



It is entirely circumstantial by definition. It is not first hand. it is second hand deduction based on physical traces leftover, and everyone in the world is familiar with legal cases where overwhelming circumstantial evidence turned out to be wrong.

And there you went with the pervasivnis statement again. This is really the scary part of this from the point of view of a person who used to actively enjoy science. It is a recent turn of events that people continually try to press evolution out of the realm of speculation where it belongs and try to make it inot science-fact.

1. No Creation 'scientist' has ever done any research that has stood up to peer review by the broader scientific community. There is no empirical evidence - please provide some if you believe there is - that supports the Genesis account of a literal, 6 day creation event.



2. Evidence for evolution - DNA. I'm not only talking about fossil evidence and radiometric dating. I also refer to genetic evidence that supports the ToE - please provide evidence by creation 'scientists', subjected to peer review, that shows that current Genetic evidence in support of evolution is flawed. Please also provide evidence as to why current interpretation of fossil records do no show why evolution is accumulated adaptation in a dynamic environment. I have asked for this several times.

3. I still love science. I just really don't like it when religious zealouts try to undermine honest scientific research with thinly veiled religion in order to affirm their own belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs


That depends on how detailed an explanation you want to provide. Given that most people outside of biology can't understand more than a very vague description of how heredity works...

That is so untrue, and more on that attitude later.

Originally posted by seebs
So, you believe that God lies to us, and has created a world in which there is evidence for things that never happened? I certainly won't accept that.

That's not what I said at all. Try again.

Originally posted by seebs
I have looked at the conclusions, and I see nothing particularly surprising. As conditions change, the creatures that can survive change. No big deal.

If you don't even understand why people find it hard, no wonder you have a hard time clarifying it for those who don't agree.

Originally posted by seebs
I don't think people who don't agree are dumb; I think many of them are ignorant, especially about biology and statistics.

It's not everyone else's fault if I can't explain things in a convincing way, but it is their fault if they refuse to learn something, and then argue that there's no support for it. If you haven't got at least a biology degree's worth of understanding of the basic mechanisms, and how DNA works, and how we can track DNA from one animal to another, you're in *no* position to discuss whether or not there is "evidence" for evolution; all you can say is that you don't understand the issue well enough to comment.

This is like watching a room full of people argue with a tax accountant that there *must* be some way for them to pay no taxes. You really do need to do the initial study, or all you can do is accept the best judgement of the people who have done it.

This is no different from trusting an engineer when he says that a bridge needs to be built with concrete, iron bars, and a sort of arch-like structure.

This is revealing. This is an assault on free speach and even science itself. There are people with degrees in biology on this forum who don't agree with you, so aside from being a fundamentally hostile philosophy about open discussion, it's also irrelevant.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


1. No Creation 'scientist' has ever done any research that has stood up to peer review by the broader scientific community. There is no empirical evidence - please provide some if you believe there is - that supports the Genesis account of a literal, 6 day creation event.

I have addressed this before. There is no possible way to create a wholly physical model for something that is created by design of a sentient being. You'd have to ask the person why they made certain things a certain way. Again, I am not refuting evoltuion, I am simply pointing out that it is not some sort of foregone conclusion.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
2. Evidence for evolution - DNA. I'm not only talking about fossil evidence and radiometric dating. I also refer to genetic evidence that supports the ToE - please provide evidence by creation 'scientists', subjected to peer review, that shows that current Genetic evidence in support of evolution is flawed. Please also provide evidence as to why current interpretation of fossil records do no show why evolution is accumulated adaptation in a dynamic environment. I have asked for this several times.

No one is faulting the study of genes. It is a foregone colclusion though, that creatures of similar design have, well, similar design. Form follows function. Airplane wings and bird wings have very specific design similarities, as they must, in order to operate as wings. This is not a clear indicator of evolution.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson

3. I still love science. I just really don't like it when religious zealouts try to undermine honest scientific research with thinly veiled religion in order to affirm their own belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

You also don't like to admit you might be wrong.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


You were the one telling me evolution does not involve the idea of one common ancestor. What are you doing?



Exactly! SO exactly how fast is too fast, and exactly how slow would be so slow that species would simply die out before any diversity appeared?



Straw man? Far from it, that was about the weakest response I've heard from you yet. Loom, if it is a forgone conclusion that it somehow "saves" energy or something for an eye to devolve and become useless, when or how was it ever energy efficient (or whatever) to develop the thing in the first palce?



See number 2.

1. Evolution is all about common ancestors - but only in terms of populations, not individual creatures that you have trouble believing (and with good reason - it's a straw man argument that is not part of evolutionary biology)

2. Re speed of diversification. I suggest you read up on Punctuated equilibrium. It's quite simple, but I don't have the time nor the space. (sorry) Steven J Gould has some great books on it.

3. Re: Redundancy of organs. It was useful to have it because at some point in it's history, let say a bat, was histrorically an organism that COULD see! However, as the environment changed a certain populations of individuals broke off from the common ancestor to exploit a different niche (ie caves, flight etc) the use of eyes was no longer required, and the eyes became vestigial organs - to be replaced by a different sort of guidance systems - sonic navigation. Things do not devolve - they simply become redundant to the survival in a new niche. With adaptation, you can't 'get rid' of what a common ancestor previously had, your genes can really only modify it. Over time this leads to completely new species.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


1. Evolution is all about common ancestors - but only in terms of populations, not individual creatures that you have trouble believing (and with good reason - it's a straw man argument that is not part of evolutionary biology)

So you're saying several different populations of single cell organism all popped up using the same 4 hydrocarbons? See I'm curious about this because a friend of mine who is a microbiologist explained to me why this is indicitive of one common ancestor, not several different massive populations of single cell organisms.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
2. Re speed of diversification. I suggest you read up on Punctuated equilibrium. It's quite simple, but I don't have the time nor the space. (sorry) Steven J Gould has some great books on it.

Amazing the things you have time to discuss, and the things you don't. Have anything to do with the reason you posted your thread with such a narrow and limited scope to begin with? Anyhow, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with punctuated equilibrium, and it doesn't directly address what I just asked you. Other than perhaps to say "dunno".

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
3. Re: Redundancy of organs. It was useful to have it because at some point in it's history, let say a bat, was histrorically an organism that COULD see! However, as the environment changed a certain populations of individuals broke off from the common ancestor to exploit a different niche (ie caves, flight etc) the use of eyes was no longer required, and the eyes became vestigial organs - to be replaced by a different sort of guidance systems - sonic navigation. Things do not devolve - they simply become redundant to the survival in a new niche. With adaptation, you can't 'get rid' of what a common ancestor previously had, your genes can really only modify it. Over time this leads to completely new species.

Nice end run. See how much faster thigns devolve than they evolve? See the implication for evolving something complex from a single celled organism? There is no niche pressure among those types of organisms towards complexity. Indeed your complex animals are typically less survivable than the simple ones. There appears to be no evolutionary pressure towards complexity at all.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
Nice end run. See how much faster thigns devolve than they evolve? See the implication for evolving something complex from a single celled organism? There is no niche pressure among those types of organisms towards complexity. Indeed your complex animals are typically less survivable than the simple ones. There appears to be no evolutionary pressure towards complexity at all.

A suggestion: Before you continue saying things that don't correlate well with reality, study genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are a well-known branch of computer science, and, no matter what you might predict, they produce extremely complicated and surprisingly effective outputs.

You might want to think about the implications of this. It's instructive, because it lets us simplify the inputs dramatically, and we still find that, time and time again, complicated things are formed.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs


A suggestion: Before you continue saying things that don't correlate well with reality, study genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are a well-known branch of computer science, and, no matter what you might predict, they produce extremely complicated and surprisingly effective outputs.

You might want to think about the implications of this. It's instructive, because it lets us simplify the inputs dramatically, and we still find that, time and time again, complicated things are formed.

A genetic algorithm aritificially defines what is "fit". Once again, this supports the viability of the theory, but not its truth nor its liklihood. We need a way to verify exactly what the pressures were in early life in order to do much here, and obviously we can't.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


I have addressed this before. There is no possible way to create a wholly physical model for something that is created by design of a sentient being. You'd have to ask the person why they made certain things a certain way. Again, I am not refuting evoltuion, I am simply pointing out that it is not some sort of foregone conclusion.



No one is faulting the study of genes. It is a foregone colclusion though, that creatures of similar design have, well, similar design. Form follows function. Airplane wings and bird wings have very specific design similarities, as they must, in order to operate as wings. This is not a clear indicator of evolution.



You also don't like to admit you might be wrong.

1. I am not saying that evolution is a forgone conclusion - evidence may come to light that refutes it entirely. However, contrary to literal biblicist claims, that hasn't happened. You, however, are treating Creationism as a forgone conclusion. It may well be that God did create all life on earth. It's just very apparent from records of life that it didn't happen literally the way Genesis says it did.

2. Creatures of similar design often do not have similar design in terms of genetic blueprints. In fact convergent evolution or analagous structures, are very definite evidence for the natural selection process at work. Bat wings, insect wings and your run of the mill bird wings are completely different in their structure and their genetic characteristics - indicating that although all three are capable of flight, they each evolved flight after they split from a common ancestor (and judging by how ancient insects are - that was a long time ago). The only similarity between them is that they are capable of flight.

3. Birds wings are not similar to airplane wings - there is a very different set of principles involved. Just because both can achieve flight does not mean that they are based on the same design

4. I'll admit to being wrong. I haven't seen convincing evidence to show me that I am though.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


A genetic algorithm aritificially defines what is "fit". Once again, this supports the viability of the theory, but not its truth nor its liklihood. We need a way to verify exactly what the pressures were in early life in order to do much here, and obviously we can't.

Indeed - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider this, or even "believe" it the way we believe other things about the physical world. It just means we'll never have proof that that's what happened, any more than, when I find a wallet in the street, I can "prove" that it was dropped by accident.

Genetic algorithms show that "complexity" is not a good argument against evolution; in fact, as soon as you apply selection pressures, complexity is quite possible. That's one of the biggest arguments against evolution.

Personally, I find a God who can build a system that produces humans and cats much more impressive than one who waves a magic wand and creates humans and cats.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


1. I am not saying that evolution is a forgone conclusion - evidence may come to light that refutes it entirely. However, contrary to literal biblicist claims, that hasn't happened. You, however, are treating Creationism as a forgone conclusion. It may well be that God did create all life on earth. It's just very apparent from records of life that it didn't happen literally the way Genesis says it did.

I don't say Genesis is a forgone conclusion. I accept it as more likely than evolution based on weighing the trust worthiness of sources, meaning the church, the Bible, the general behavior of the scientific and secular community, and other such things. If I were an atheist, I would still question evolution on the basis of the assumptions made and the lack of ability to really get at the truth through experimentation, since the subject is impossible to go back and observe directly.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
2. Creatures of similar design often do not have similar design in terms of genetic blueprints. In fact convergent evolution or analagous structures, are very definite evidence for the natural selection process at work. Bat wings, insect wings and your run of the mill bird wings are completely different in their structure and their genetic characteristics - indicating that although all three are capable of flight, they each evolved flight after they split from a common ancestor (and judging by how ancient insects are - that was a long time ago). The only similarity between them is that they are capable of flight.

My post was sloppy. Let me explain again. I am not talking so much about wing design being generally tied to genes, I am talking about animals that tend to be identified as close relatives are identified as such due to physical characteristics, and these characteristics have to be a function of the genes, so it is no suprise that when you go to look at the genes, viola, they are similar.

It also comes as no surprise that the genes in bats and locusts are different. What would be a surprise is if you had two identical locusts and tested their genes and got something totally different. The whole thing really is indicative of nothing in particular.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
3. Birds wings are not similar to airplane wings - there is a very different set of principles involved. Just because both can achieve flight does not mean that they are based on the same design

As an aside, this is not true. The inside portion of the wing is the part that provides lift through aerodynamic design, and is longer in birds that soar. Birds that rely more on just propelling themselves through the air by main force tend to have elongated outer wing portions and shorter inside wing proportions.

Not too terribly long ago I knew what the wing parts were called but my brain is not cooperating with me.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
4. I'll admit to being wrong. I haven't seen convincing evidence to show me that I am though.

I didn't say you had a problem admiting you are wrong. It takes a certain special something to keep from admitting one is wrong when it has been demonstrated. I said you have a problem admiting you might be wrong.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs


Indeed - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider this, or even "believe" it the way we believe other things about the physical world. It just means we'll never have proof that that's what happened, any more than, when I find a wallet in the street, I can "prove" that it was dropped by accident.

Genetic algorithms show that "complexity" is not a good argument against evolution; in fact, as soon as you apply selection pressures, complexity is quite possible. That's one of the biggest arguments against evolution.

Personally, I find a God who can build a system that produces humans and cats much more impressive than one who waves a magic wand and creates humans and cats.

I'm not particularly worried about what is impresive. Either is pretty impresive to me. I do not read of a magic wand in Genesis though. It is a function of a being having available power and kowledge to design using that power and knowledge to do a thing. There is no "magic" involved. Indeed, heh, the Bible has a rather poor attitude towards magic. Oddly enough.

Something about your wallet example lost me. Are you saying when you see a wallet on the ground you know for a fact it wasn't stolen and left there? I mean, we kow the probability because we observe directly that more people lose their wallets than get them stolen, and even when stolen they tend to end up somewhere aside from on the street, but this statistical probability comes through direct observation.

There is a set of circumstances that would supress the evlution of complex systems, and a set that would encourage it. The trick is to measure exactly which set has been in effect for the last billion years, assuming we've actually been here this long.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


So you're saying several different populations of single cell organism all popped up using the same 4 hydrocarbons? See I'm curious about this because a friend of mine who is a microbiologist explained to me why this is indicitive of one common ancestor, not several different massive populations of single cell organisms.



Amazing the things you have time to discuss, and the things you don't. Have anything to do with the reason you posted your thread with such a narrow and limited scope to begin with? Anyhow, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with punctuated equilibrium, and it doesn't directly address what I just asked you. Other than perhaps to say "dunno".




Nice end run. See how much faster thigns devolve than they evolve? See the implication for evolving something complex from a single celled organism? There is no niche pressure among those types of organisms towards complexity. Indeed your complex animals are typically less survivable than the simple ones. There appears to be no evolutionary pressure towards complexity at all.

1. 4 hydrocarbons indicates one common ancestor. If you understood evolutionary biology you would realise that one common ancestor refers to an entire species, (even an entire genus when refering to a single celled Prokaryote). Do not twist words, or at least attempt to understand the principles involved.

2. You asked the question: "SO exactly how fast is too fast, and exactly how slow would be so slow that species would simply die out before any diversity appeared"
My answer to that is that you have oversimplified the situation - rates of diversification are dependent on a whole range of variables - selection pressure (need for change) rates of mutation (different rates exist for different organisms, chromosomes, genes etc) rates of genetic interaction (eg sex). Punctuated equilibria (and catastrophism) also affect the rate of evolution that you simply can't answer the question above. There is, however, that evolution occurs over a vast timescale, often with millions of years of stasis during which time the rate of change slows considerably. That is why I referred you to someone who has written many books that could put you (at least partly) on the road to understanding the basics. References are a very common practice. I suggest you try it if you want to regain any credibility.

3. Using terms like 'devolution' indicate that you do not grasp even the basic principles of evolution. Evolution is not inherently a drive towards complexity. As a result, bacteria are just as prevalent today as they were 3 billion years ago. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they aren't the same species as they were then. Complexity arises as a result of a dynamic environments forcing organisms to change by building on what they already have. Thus complexity will naturally develop if the organism is to survive and better exploit it's environment - it is all niche specific. While a bacteria can exploit certain niches better than more complex species, a more complex niche will pressure for a more complex organism. Similarly, as organisms become more complex, the environment similarly increases in complexity.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


1. 4 hydrocarbons indicates one common ancestor. If you understood evolutionary biology you would realise that one common ancestor refers to an entire species, (even an entire genus when refering to a single celled Prokaryote). Do not twist words, or at least attempt to understand the principles involved.

So the only distinction you are drawing here then is that it is possible or likely that when life formed, more than one of the things formed at once, but for some reason they were all identical?

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
2. You asked the question: "SO exactly how fast is too fast, and exactly how slow would be so slow that species would simply die out before any diversity appeared"
My answer to that is that you have oversimplified the situation - rates of diversification are dependent on a whole range of variables - selection pressure (need for change) rates of mutation (different rates exist for different organisms, chromosomes, genes etc) rates of genetic interaction (eg sex). Punctuated equilibria (and catastrophism) also affect the rate of evolution that you simply can't answer the question above. There is, however, that evolution occurs over a vast timescale, often with millions of years of stasis during which time the rate of change slows considerably. That is why I referred you to someone who has written many books that could put you (at least partly) on the road to understanding the basics. References are a very common practice. I suggest you try it if you want to regain any credibility.

In order to establish that evolution did create complexity and diversity, you would have to know the things which you just got through saying you can't answer.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
3. Using terms like 'devolution' indicate that you do not grasp even the basic principles of evolution. Evolution is not inherently a drive towards complexity. As a result, bacteria are just as prevalent today as they were 3 billion years ago. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they aren't the same species as they were then. Complexity arises as a result of a dynamic environments forcing organisms to change by building on what they already have. Thus complexity will naturally develop if the organism is to survive and better exploit it's environment - it is all niche specific. While a bacteria can exploit certain niches better than more complex species, a more complex niche will pressure for a more complex organism. Similarly, as organisms become more complex, the environment similarly increases in complexity.

Using terms like devolution indicates that I am trying to explain to you something that you asked about. A complex niche would pressure for a complex animal? What exactly is a complex niche? How much pressure is applied? How do you even measure the evolutionary pressure of various niches? Can you even define a complex vs a simple niche?

Creatures may have simply found their niche. They did not necessarily have to develop into one. Many of these so called niche pressures wouldn't even have existed if all there was was a population of single celled organisms.

 

[Shane Roach]

One almost has to hypothesize more than one creature to create the niches to drive evolution to begin with. See this is exactly where I was with my friend. This idea of even some mild diversity in the species in the initial life creating circumstance was met by quite vigorous oposition from him, but yet you seem to be kind of waffling on that point.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


I don't say Genesis is a forgone conclusion. I accept it as more likely than evolution based on weighing the trust worthiness of sources, meaning the church, the Bible, the general behavior of the scientific and secular community, and other such things. If I were an atheist, I would still question evolution on the basis of the assumptions made and the lack of ability to really get at the truth through experimentation, since the subject is impossible to go back and observe directly.




My post was sloppy. Let me explain again. I am not talking so much about wing design being generally tied to genes, I am talking about animals that tend to be identified as close relatives are identified as such due to physical characteristics, and these characteristics have to be a function of the genes, so it is no suprise that when you go to look at the genes, viola, they are similar.

It also comes as no surprise that the genes in bats and locusts are different. What would be a surprise is if you had two identical locusts and tested their genes and got something totally different. The whole thing really is indicative of nothing in particular.





As an aside, this is not true. The inside portion of the wing is the part that provides lift through aerodynamic design, and is longer in birds that soar. Birds that rely more on just propelling themselves through the air by main force tend to have elongated outer wing portions and shorter inside wing proportions.

Not too terribly long ago I knew what the wing parts were called but my brain is not cooperating with me.



I didn't say you had a problem admiting you are wrong. It takes a certain special something to keep from admitting one is wrong when it has been demonstrated. I said you have a problem admiting you might be wrong.

1. "Trust worthiness of the sources"
The Church has nothing to do with evolution. Many church goers believe evolution because it is supported by evidence.

2. "The Bible"
The Bible is not a literal scientific text book. No scientific claim re biodiversity made in The Bible has ever been supported by what actually exists

3. "The general behaviour of the scientific and secular community"
i) Secularism has nothing to do with it. Many theists believe in evolution.
ii) What behaviour? So because the scientific community don't lie, cheat, misconstrue, misrepresent and take out of context, as most Creation 'scientists' have been documented to do, you don't believe them?

4. Evolution has nothing do with atheism. Please stop merging the two. Evolution is science. Atheism is theology

5. Re: Relativity of organisms. Of course most populations that resemble each other morphologically are most likely going to be similar genetically! Hense we are similar, genetically and morphologically, to Chimps and Gorillas. However, we also share DNA with fish, insects, reptiles ands bats. What a surprise that this genetic relativity fits almost perfectly with the fossil record of the appearance of entire phyla. No coincidence I'm afraid. Your reply in no way undermines or contradicts the ToE - in fact it supports it

6. Re: Locusts. It would indeed be a surprise two related Locusts were found to have different DNA. Evolution would dictate that they shouldn't. This example is irrelevant.

7. Bird wings and Plane wings are very dissimilar. Any similarity is a direct copy of bird aerodynamics incorporated into the design of a plane.

 

[Heath Anderson]

I'm going to have to sign off for now, Shane. I really have to do some work. But I will be back, so don't think I'm skulking off.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach

Something about your wallet example lost me. Are you saying when you see a wallet on the ground you know for a fact it wasn't stolen and left there? I mean, we kow the probability because we observe directly that more people lose their wallets than get them stolen, and even when stolen they tend to end up somewhere aside from on the street, but this statistical probability comes through direct observation.

Observation, and inference; we know how wallets tend to move, so we realize that a wallet on the street is more likely lost than stolen, but that, in almost all cases, it was not merely abandoned, or left as a gift.

There is a set of circumstances that would supress the evlution of complex systems, and a set that would encourage it. The trick is to measure exactly which set has been in effect for the last billion years, assuming we've actually been here this long.

Almost any set which changes, gradually or suddenly, over time will support complex systems. When I switch from one set of selection criteria to another, there's no particularly good reason for an existing quality or feature to be removed, unless it makes the new task harder.

There are very few (if any) sets of circumstances that actively suppress the development of complex systems. Anything that was useful once tends to get carried along; DNA is a bit of a pack rat.

While we can't prove a lot of things, we have fairly good evidence about chemical compositions, energy levels, magnetic fields, and other things, and this planet has been reasonably hospitable to some kind of life or another for a very long time.

Life is very adaptable. If you go to volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, you find life which exists there and couldn't, in its current form, exist anywhere else. In polluted waters, we are now finding fish which have *adapted* to those polluted waters, because it gave them a niche no one else was in.

Essentially, if we are to believe the evidence of our eyes, and our experience with inference from observed data, we have pretty good evidence that stuff similar to what they sometimes teach in school as "evolution" happens. We don't know how similar; frankly, a lot of the stuff they teach in school is horrendously oversimplified in the hopes of making it "more accessible".

I have no good explanation for fossils that doesn't suggest that those things lived at the approximate times that carbon dating would suggest. The only other alternatives I can come up with involve God lying to us, and I don't buy that.

 

[LouisBooth]

"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?"

hahaha..okay, I would disagre, as I stated in the other thread..so science is always 100% right on everything it uses? wow..what world are you living in?

"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.
"

I showed you a link to the paper, did you not read it?

"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. "

Umm.you missed the papers that provided the scientific evidence. and as for filtering out what doesn't fit..that's EXACTLY what evolutionists do, mr. kettle.

As for dating, there have been a few studies done dating a recently dead man's bones and they were dated to around 20,000 years or so ago..or some other ridicious amount.

 

[OntheRock]

Louisbooth
quote
I showed you a link to the paper, did you not read it?
Umm.you missed the papers that provided the scientific evidence. and as for filtering out what doesn't fit..that's EXACTLY what evolutionists do, mr. kettle.
----------------------------------------------------------
I read those paper. Wow. That's some good info. They still can't proove that life spontaneously started.