Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Gene2memE]

How could you know? I must say, someone claiming to know what God could or couldn't do might be an unsurpassable height of arrogance.

With an omnipotent being, theoretically anything is possible. If you presuppose a magic man, then you can't rule anything out. I could just as easily argue "a wizard did it" and have at least as good a rational founding as arguing for any sort of divine creation.

All of the evidence available to us leads to a conclusion that life is the result of a chain of evolutionary processes that started somewhere around 3.7 to 4.1 billion years ago. Genetics, the fossil record and biogeography all support the understanding that evolution is what produced the current diversity of life on the planet, as well as being the only viable explanation for the history of life on the planet.

None of the evidence points to a deity being involved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, there's a problem in that I've apparently been told by several people in this thread that science doesn't prove theories, therefore it's not a scientific fact.

Because, as has been said many times too, science doesn't deal in proof. Only mathematics and alcohol deal with proof. Science deals with evidence, and since the consensus after 100+ years of scientific have shown, the theory of evolution is a solid and factual theory of science.

 

[Astrid]

Only one of those posts was addressed to me.

Yes it makes sense. And thank you both and the others for affirming that the theory/hypothesis/idea/story/legend/mythos of evolution is unproven. My work here is done.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes it makes sense. And thank you both and the others for affirming that the theory/hypothesis/idea/story/legend/mythos of evolution is unproven. My work here is done.

You've really done nothing of the sort. Though talking to you about evolution is like playing chess with a pigeon...

 

[BeyondET]

With an omnipotent being, theoretically anything is possible.

None of the evidence points to a deity being involved.

Hmm except doing something with no evidence?

 

[Chesterton]

You've really done nothing of the sort. Though talking to you about evolution is like playing chess with a pigeon...

"chess with a pigeon"? I'm a boomer twice as old as you and even I'm more hip than to insult people with such stale insults. Anyway, for the second time in this thread, pro-tip: insults are not arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

With an omnipotent being, theoretically anything is possible. If you presuppose a magic man, then you can't rule anything out.

Is that what an omnipotent being is to you? a "magic man"?

None of the evidence points to a deity being involved.

Unless you factor in cause-and-effect evidence.

Then you get:

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edicices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs

 

[NxNW]

The Creator Provides immeasurable Truth, and is Delighted in Joy to Reveal Truth including Salvation to little infants, and to hide it from the educated.

He Even Says HImself that no one has an excuse for not believing in His Existence because His Creation is seen near and far, in every direction, without measure - so everyone will be held accountable (and judged righteously) who refuses to acknowledge His Authorship , His Doing, of All Creation.

All you need is some evidence to support that claim.

 

[NxNW]

Well, there's a problem in that I've apparently been told by several people in this thread that science doesn't prove theories, therefore it's not a scientific fact.

It's not proven, because theories are never proven, but it's a widely accepted explanation for what we see because it makes correct predictions about what we discover, and it's never been disproved. It's a fact that evolution happens, but the exact mechanism(s) aren't totally nailed down.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

What sort of facts could prove it?

Does anyone have any?

cameras at the beginning

 

[Larniavc]

My work here is done.

A victory lap for affirming what first year undergrads get taught before they even do any real research is not the flex you think it is.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is that what an omnipotent being is to you? a "magic man"?



Unless you factor in cause-and-effect evidence.

Then you get:

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edicices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs

None of this is evidence for the existence of a God. All it says is that there is a belief in a God.

'Evidence' of belief could be used to 'prove' the existence of any god.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

None of this is evidence for the existence of a God. All it says is that there is a belief in a God.

Which is first?

God? or belief in God?

And do we really have to rehash #14 again?

Jesus' disciples were martyred for claiming they had been with the Messiah and wouldn't shut up about it.

 

[Gene2memE]

The Creator Provides immeasurable Truth, and is Delighted in Joy to Reveal Truth including Salvation to little infants, and to hide it from the educated.

He Even Says HImself that no one has an excuse for not believing in His Existence because His Creation is seen near and far, in every direction, without measure - so everyone will be held accountable (and judged righteously) who refuses to acknowledge His Authorship , His Doing, of All Creation.

All that and five dollars will get you an ice-cream.

Hmm except doing something with no evidence?

Even that. If I grant you that an omnipotent being is responsible for life, the universe and everything, then I would also have to acknowledge that appears to have done so in a matter that it is completely indistinguishable from observed natural processes.

Like I said an omnipotent being is theoretically capable of anything (or a 'maximally great' being is theoretically capable of any logically consistent thing).

But, what's a more parsimonious explanation? That the observed natural process of evolution, which is supported by all available evidence, is the best explanation for life and it's history. Or that an invisible, intangible, unevidenced omnipotent being created life, but did so in a way that it was impossible to tell it acted.

Natural evolution or trickester god. That's what your argument boils down to.

Is that what an omnipotent being is to you? a "magic man"?

Unless you factor in cause-and-effect evidence.

If you're looking at the character of the God of the Bible, yes it's precisely that.
And, none of those things you've listed are evidence - as in 'facts that support a claim'

They're evidence people believe in various formulations of the Abrahimic God, and that beliefs can inform actions. But, they're certainly not evidence that such as thing actually exists.

If I held to that evidentiary standard, then I'd also have to accept that the existence of writings, temples and tombs from Avestan Iran are "cause-and-effect evidence" that Uhuru Mazda exists. Or that the existence of the caste system, Kumbh Mela pilgrimage and Hindu temples in modern India are "cause-and-effect evidence" that the Vedas are accurate and the Hindu gods exist.

 

[BeyondET]

Even that. If I grant you that an omnipotent being is responsible for life, the universe and everything, then I would also have to acknowledge that appears to have done so in a matter that it is completely indistinguishable from observed natural processes.

Like I said an omnipotent being is theoretically capable of anything (or a 'maximally great' being is theoretically capable of any logically consistent thing).

But, what's a more parsimonious explanation? That the observed natural process of evolution, which is supported by all available evidence, is the best explanation for life and it's history. Or that an invisible, intangible, unevidenced omnipotent being created life, but did so in a way that it was impossible to tell it acted.

Natural evolution or trickester god. That's what your argument boils down to.

Or trickester evolution creating a three hearted animal octopus or another with the most advanced optics known to man. Even he can't even create such optics like a mantis shrimp has. How's that done with no forethought?

A lot of times evolution can not explain how such things come about blindly other than intelligent design.

 

[AV1611VET]

They're evidence people believe in various formulations of the Abrahimic God, and that beliefs can inform actions. But, they're certainly not evidence of that such as thing actually exists.

Then why does academia claim that there is no evidence for the Exodus and the Jews living in the Sinai?

What if they found synagogues, hospitals, copies of the Ten Commandments, and torahs all over the Sinai Peninsula?

Would they conclude that Jews lived in the desert?

 

[Gene2memE]

Or trickester evolution creating a three hearted animal octopus or another with the most advanced optics known to man. Even he can't even create such optics like a mantis shrimp has. How's that done with no forethought?

Iterative improvement.

For instance, if you were inclined to investigate the evolution of mantis shrimp eyesight, there are quite literally dozens of published papers on the subject:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00762.x

Evolution of anatomical and physiological specialization in the compound eyes of stomatopod crustaceans

SUMMARYStomatopod crustaceans have complex and diverse visual systems. Among their many unique features are a specialized ommatidial region (the midband) that enables the eye to have multiple overlapping visual fields, as well as sets of spectral filters that are intercalated at two levels...

journals.biologists.com

Evolutionary variation in the expression of phenotypically plastic color vision in Caribbean mantis shrimps, genus Neogonodactylus - Marine Biology

Many animals have color vision systems that are well suited to their local environments. Changes in color vision can occur over long periods (evolutionary time), or over relatively short periods such as during development. A select few animals, including stomatopod crustaceans, are able to...

link.springer.com

The Evolution of Complexity in the Visual Systems of Stomatopods: Insights from Transcriptomics

Abstract. Stomatopod crustaceans have complex visual systems containing up to 16 different spectral classes of photoreceptors, more than described for any

academic.oup.com

Just because we don't have a full understanding of any one particular subject within evolution, or a complete evolutionary history of any particular body part, doesn't mean that the Theory of Evolution has been falsified.

If I don't understand how a particular building was constructed, that's not evidence that architecture isn't real.

A lot of times evolution can not explain how such things come about blindly other than intelligent design.

Can you name a body structure that biologists don't have at least a partial and plausible explanation for under the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Occams Barber]

Then why does academia claim that there is no evidence for the Exodus and the Jews living in the Sinai?

Probably because there is no evidence for the Exodus and the Jews living in the Sinai.

What if they found synagogues, hospitals, copies of the Ten Commandments, and torahs all over the Sinai Peninsula?

Would they conclude that Jews lived in the desert?

They would presumably conclude that, at some point in time, Jews lived in the Sinai Desert.

OB (why the Dorothy Dixers?)

 

[Gene2memE]

Hmmm.... Hint: There exists nothing observable to support the beginning, middle or end of evolution theory.
But to know this requires , well, innocence .

Sure there is.

There's tons of evidence about the beginning. While we may not fully understand abiogenesis, our understanding of the topic continues to improve. For instance, there was a recent breakthrough in our understanding of the RNA World. This is supporting evidence that relatively commonplace chemical reactions are subject to replication and selection and can result in the production of molecules that are capable of evolution.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2321592121

There's also tons of evidence about 'the middle'. We have evidence of early life forms dating back as far as 4.1 million years. We have evidence of adaptive radiations throughout the last 600 million years. We have evidence of mass extinctions and re-diversification animals and plants into new niches. We have genetic and physical evidence of new species being formed. We have evidence of genetic novelty increasing fitness, and such novelty being passed on to successive generations in a population and becoming fixed.

As to the "end" of evolutionary theory - there isn't one. At least, not as long as there is life to continue to evolve.

 

[Chesterton]

A victory lap for affirming what first year undergrads get taught before they even do any real research is not the flex you think it is.

Well but if it's just an unproven theory then why do people like me get insulted when we don't accept it? Why do scientists in academia sometimes get ostracized just for critically analyzing it?