Evolution's Brick Wall

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read.
Macroevolution hasn't been proven, far from it. It's simply not possible.

What drove you to adopt that axiom? Because it wasn't the evidence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Er, did you fail to notice the title of this sub-forum?

If you don't want to hear about evolution, why are you here?

Er did you fail to see my point? More than one non christian subject is allowed on this site, and well it should be, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to challenge them. Some of us would otherwise not bother to bring them (evolution) up/waste our time with them.

And this is going right back to the whole "prove evolution to me" bit. Which as I said, isn't the right approach to learning about the subject.

Are you listening to yourself...proving evolution is not the right approach to learning whether it is a fact or not? Seriously? It's the only approach to any such matter. When I ask you all to prove it, I'm not being a smart #$%, it's a dead serious request.

I don't feel you understand evolution because you have done nothing to indicate you do understand it. Especially when claiming there is no evidence to support it, which there definitely is (because otherwise, the scientific theory of evolution wouldn't exist). But you can certainly come to understand the evidence for the theory of evolution without necessarily agreeing with the theory of evolution.

Let's take that fossil record I've mentioned twice in our present conversation, some thing you did not even bother to defend, and that's fine, but to me, that fact suggests you know it would be tough for even you to defend what's missing there, hence you yourself know some of what is supposed to make me "understand" just isn't worth a thing.

How important is just that record? Some have presented it as proof of evolution when it's nothing of the sort. You have to give us something viable, something we can take seriously before we can even start to understand. And fossil record or some virus evolution are far from proving the big picture of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

That is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read.

Macroevolution hasn't been proven, far from it. It's simply not possible.

No, it isn't. Scientific theories are never proven, just confirmed by evidence. They are also constantly at risk of the discovery of new evidence which they fail to explain. It's really not a difficult concept. Science never gets to the point where scientists can say with certainty, "This is absolute truth and can never be disproved." The theory of evolution is on reasonably firm ground because there are multiple lines of evidence which confirm it from a variety of scientific fields like paleontology and genetics but it is clear that we don't know everything there is to know about it and there is always, at least in principle, the chance that something new will come along and require that the theory be modified. I'm not sure why you seem to find this unsatisfactory, but there it is.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I know you have been told multiple times that science does not prove anything,

I must protest....again.

You act as though because someone has been told multiple times, that makes it true, while it's absolutely/positively untrue. It's another convenient way around proving evolution.

Science proves just about everything physical.

And BTW, being told evolution is a fact "multiple times" is the only reason some believe it, and not because it is actual fact...power of suggestion.

 

[Speedwell]

I must protest....again.

You act as though because someone has been told multiple times, that makes it true, while it's absolutely/positively untrue. It's another convenient way around proving evolution.

Science proves just about everything physical.

I think you are having the same problem with science that Inquiring Mind seems to have--looking for a level of certainty in science which is just not there. Science proceeds by inductive logic. That is, scientists assemble the evidence they have for a particular phenomenon and try to come up with an explanation for it. That explanation, called a theory, is accepted provisionally, pending new evidence which may be consistent with it--or not, in which case the explanation has to be modified or abandoned.

That's all there is to it.

 

[DavidFirth]

1. no scientific theory is ever considered "proven". only supported.

2. according to evolution, period A is dominated by fish. period B is dominated by tetrapods. Evolution predicts: near the end of period A and near the beginning of period B, we should find fossils of species that look like fish/tetrapod hybrids. Paleontologists then look for a suitable spot with rocks from that specific period and start digging. What do they find? A fish/tetrapod hybrid. A previously unknown species.

How that isn't supportive of (macro)evolution, I have no idea.

Also note it is just one example. The entire fossil record exhibits exactly the fossil succession predicted by evolution. All fossils are found the correct strata with the correct anatomical features that they would need to be/have if evolution is accurate.

Not a single exception.
You don't find mammals in pre-cambrian rock. Ever.

That, together with the many other independent lines of evidence(*) which all converge on the exact same answer, makes evolution theory (micro and macro) the most solid theory in all of science.


(*) I hope you are aware that evolution is supported by many independent lines of evidence, and that fossils are just one small part of it.

Until you or one of your wonderful scientists are able PROVE macroevolution I will hear none of your BS about it.

You have all the evidence you need to PROVE it beyond a doubt. So why can't you?

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN is the only logical conclusion.

Please DO NOT reply to this post unless you have absolute proof. I won't waste my time reading outrageous and rather stupid presumptions and assumptions.

Thank you. Have a good day and God bless you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

looking for a level of certainty in science which is just not there.

Yep "proof", and I agree, it just isn't there. But I know, we are all supposed to just take the word of those who tell us the most silly things as in Science proves nothing so evolution cannot be proven, just believe it because we do. And as I mentioned in one of my recent posts, all while giving us no good reason to take it seriously.

 

[pitabread]

Until you or one of your wonderful scientists are able PROVE macroevolution I will hear none of your BS about it.

And once again we have an example of someone who is stuck in treating this as a contest about changing their mind.

 

[Speedwell]

Yep "proof", and I agree, it just isn't there. But I know, we are all supposed to just take the word of those who tell us the most silly things as in Science proves nothing so evolution cannot be proven, just believe it because we do. And as I mentioned in one of my recent posts, all while giving us no good reason to take it seriously.

Sure, you don't have to take it any more seriously than it deserves. It is the best explanation anybody has come up with for the observed diversity of life, based on the evidence at hand. Some new evidence could sink it, to be sure, but it's the best we have to be going on with.

 

[pitabread]

Science proves just about everything physical.

Except it doesn't.

The problem is that "proof" in most contexts implies 100% certainty. This is why proof gets used in mathematics. Something can be proven in mathematics and it will always be 100% true.

But science doesn't work with 100% certainty. It works with varying degrees of certainty approaching, but never reaching 100%.

A lot of this would become clear with an understanding of the scientific method. That's why I keep suggesting forgetting about all this evolution and biology stuff. Just start with the scientific method and learn how it works.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We don't tell you that because you don't agree. We instead tell you that because every post you make about the topic shows how deeply rooted your ignorance is concerning evolution.

This coming from someone who is basically telling us there is no proof for evolution...we should just believe it. Calling me ignorant without explanation is mighty convenient.... I guess you figure you don't have to prove that anymore than you do evolution. I'f I'm ignorant, it's because you all have fallen way short of presenting anything to curb my ignorance.

Perhaps you read stuff and perhaps you learned from it. But whatever the topic was, it certainly wasn't evolution. The things you get wrong are really really basic.

Show me. Oh that's right, another "perhaps" with no proof it is a fact, or something that means nothing. You really have a bad habit of that, but it fits right in with some of your others that I've already mentioned.

lol, owkay then.

So you are saying I don't have enough info, and you are certain of that? Even after my mention of some of the info that has been said to prove evolution that in reality is nonsense?

See, and I am repeating myself, but once the evolutionist harps on the fossil record and virus evolution for instance, and touts them as major players/evidence, then when one looks closely at those things, they turn out to not mean diddly.... how many times am I/we to look at major evidence, and see it's worthless before we say I've seen enough to draw conclusion?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sure, you don't have to take it any more seriously than it deserves. It is the best explanation anybody has come up with for the observed diversity of life, based on the evidence at hand. Some new evidence could sink it, to be sure, but it's the best we have to be going on with.

Fair enough, and it's enough for you, but not for me, and that isn't because I don't understand what you present...it's because I do.

 

[Speedwell]

Fair enough, and it's enough for you, but not for me, and that isn't because I don't understand what you present...it's because I do.

It's enough for me; it's plausible, explains all the evidence and has useful practical applications. I can't see any downside to accepting it provisionally--as with all scientific theories, and if it turns out to be wrong then a better theory will replace it. Why isn't it good enough for you?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Except it doesn't.

No, it absolutely does, and hey, if nothing else I've told you all that multiple times so it must be true.

A lot of this would become clear with an understanding of the scientific method.

Or as I would call it, the scientific Cop Out. We've been through this already, bit I'll explain again.

A lot of this would become clear with an understanding of the scientific method. That's why I repeatedly suggest forgetting about all this evolution stuff and biology and so on. Just start with the scientific method and learn how it works.

Except it doesn't.

The problem is that "proof" in most contexts implies 100% certainty. This is why proof gets used in mathematics. Something can be proven in mathematics and it will always be 100% true.

But science doesn't work with 100% certainty. It works with varying degrees of certainty approaching, but never reaching 100%.

The "Science proves nothing" is based on what you are saying there, or maybe that's a new take, bur some explain the excuse as, what is true today may be found not to be true tomorrow. to that I say, untill it is disproven, it is proof. It has always been that way in the past but nowadays, because yhthyere simply is no proof of evolution they try to rely on that slight twist, whgen it means nothing. again, it;s proof until it's prove3n not to be.


And on yours, that I suppose is one of the evidently many explanations for the "science proves nothing" excuse. When doing my past scientific experiment of sticking my hand in the fire and claiming now I have absolute proof the fire will burn my hand when that experiment is done every single time under the exact same conditions.

Now, under those exact conditions, lets say I get third degree burns every time.

What part of that experiment is not 100%?

 

[pitabread]

Er did you fail to see my point? More than one non christian subject is allowed on this site, and well it should be, but that doesn't mean we aren't going to challenge them. Some of us would otherwise not bother to bring them (evolution) up/waste our time with them.

If you don't want to waste your time talking about evolution then don't visit this sub-forum. Easy-peasy.

Are you listening to yourself...proving evolution is not the right approach to learning whether it is a fact or not? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Approaching this from the perspective of having something "proved" to you suggests that you are looking to have your mind changed. Which really makes the whole exercise a contest.

But learning is not a contest. Learning is simply absorbing a body of knowledge and making an honest effort to understand what it means. That is what I am asking you to do: absorb knowledge and make an honest effort to understand it.

Whether you agree with or not is irrelevant.

Let's take that fossil record

No, let's not. And here's why: the minute you jump to varying types of evidence, it's like jumping to the end of a book without having read the beginning. It's not going to make any sense.

You have to start at the beginning. Learning about the evidence for evolution requires understanding the theory of evolution. Understanding the theory of evolution requires a certain understanding of biology. Understanding the science of biology, requires understanding the foundations of the scientific method.

For example, take a look at this course's sessions: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior.

You'll notice they don't get to discussing the fossil record until Lecture 19. They cover a large number of topics beforehand (especially around the mechanisms of evolution) before even getting to fossils.

some thing you did not even bother to defend

Defending something implies this is a contest. This is why I am suggesting you need to reframe your entire approach to this. It's not a contest.

Rather, there is simply a body of knowledge available to you. You can either learn it or not.

 

[pitabread]

We've been through this already, bit I'll explain again.

You're right, we have been through this already. And I'm going to disengage now because I don't feel like having this turning into another 20-page argument.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why isn't it good enough for you?

I've mentioned why more than once today. It's because of faulty evidence such as the virus evolution, and fossil record..so-called major players in the game. I see nothing at all in those things that even suggests evolution. That's the way it tends to be with any of the "evidence" brought forth, and once one sees that same thing play out so many times, they or I anyway, tend to say enough is enough and I'm convinced evolution is far from fact. Very basic and sound thought process.

 

[Speedwell]

I've mentioned why more than once today. It's because of faulty evidence such as the virus evolution, and fossil record..so-called major players in the game. I see nothing at all in those things that even suggests evolution. That's the way it tends to be with any of the "evidence" brought forth, and once one sees that same thing play out so many times, they or I anyway, tend to say enough is enough and I'm convinced evolution is far from fact. Very basic and sound thought process.

Still, as a working assumption it has useful practical applications. That's one thing any good theory ought to have, whether it is ontologically true or not.

For instance, it is possible to build a Ptolemaic geocentric theory of the universe which would predict the motions of the planets just as well as heliocentric theory. But even if the Earth really was at the center of the solar system, scientists would still use heliocentric theory to predict the motions of the planets because the equations are easier to work.

It's the same with evolutionary theory which, as a working assumption, is the basis of a multi-million dollar agribusiness industry. Stalin outlawed the theory of evolution for ideological reasons and soviet agriculture collapsed, starving tens of thousands.

So maybe it isn't true, but so what? It's useful.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're right, we have been through this already. And I'm going to disengage now because I don't feel like having this turning into another 20-page argument.

Can't say that I blame you, and I honestly don't think you have an argument for my points. Again, it's a clear cop out.

It's like, when you say I need to take a look at the principles of evolution, once I see so many things just made up like the excuse "not 100%" or science doesn't prove because things could change, I begin to see a pattern that I expect will show up in those principles of evolution, and I become uninterested for good reason.

Approaching this from the perspective of having something "proved" to you suggests that you are looking to have your mind changed.

I'm afraid convincing is a natural part of this. And I know I use the term "cop out' a lot, but I see it a lot and in this case, having to convince is just not an unusual or abnormal obstacle...I'd just drop that one.

No, let's not. And here's why: the minute you jump to varying types of evidence, it's like jumping to the end of a book without having read the beginning. It's not going to make any sense.

In this case it makes perfect sense, there are just no transitions there, it's assumption. Or, to be fair, tell me how whatever what written there, in whatever order, fills those gaps?

Rather, there is simply a body of knowledge available to you. You can either learn it or not.

I've seen it and am not convinced. Fact is, even if I came out here and astounded you all by learning everything and then told you I still disagree, you would all just find another problem/reason why I don't understand...it never ends.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So maybe it isn't true, but so what? It's useful.

As long as no one is claiming evolution is fact, I'm good with it and can move on to something else. It's like someone arguing there is no God for all these reasons and you defending God, as long as they aren't saying it, you have no need to disagree/defend it.