Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Chesterton]

All those separate lines of evidence are consistent with Evolution being the explanation.

They all work on using very different mechanisms to observe the same pattern, that life falls into a branching tree structure which is consistent with gradual diversification and not specifically consistent with simultaneous design by a common designer.

I see those things as separate, independent observations. I see no reason to consider them "lines of evidence". The only way you could see them as lines of evidence is if you have a motivation to support a particular theory.

Why don't you try to look at specifics and attempt to isolate why you don't accept it?

If you accept adaption for micro scale variation in living species, try to isolate your problems with a larger and longer scale of the same mechanisms. You might find, on reflection, that your concerns and disagreements are separate to that specific scientific discussion and so you should focus your attention on your actual motivation.

I don't accept it for the same reasons Darwin second-guessed himself. I give the man credit for being honest. But ultimately he "went with it" and ultimately I believe he was wrong.

 

[Chesterton]

Except that, logically speaking, since the theory of evolution is taught as basic scientific fact in schools not just in America but across the world, then surely by that simple fact alone, the facts to prove the theory of evolution are sound enough to warrant it being taught as fact.

Any argument against evolution is massively and majorly led by people who come at it from a religious point of view, not a scientific one.

What a weird argument. So I guess when geocentrism was widely taught, that meant it was true? Islam is taught in madrasas around the world, so that means it's true?

 

[Chesterton]

Great -- so you agree that this represents evidence for evolution, just not large-scale evolution. This means that you agree that there is evidence that evolution can produce new species(*) and can produce considerable morphological change (the birds' beaks differ a lot) that is adaptive (the different beaks are well suited to different specific diets). I trust you will object when creationists here claim that evolution can't do any of these things.

Now, where do you think microevolution stops? That is, what exactly are we supposed to be producing evidence for? Could all birds be the product of microevolution from a single ancestral species? If not, why not? What about primates -- they're no more diverse than birds, so are they the product of microevolution?

(*) Which, incidentally, is the realm of 'macroevolution' in the terminology of evolutionary biologists.

The title of this thread is "facts to prove the TOE". Instead of asking me where microevolution stops, I'll ask you where macroevolution begins. When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?

 

[Astrid]

I see those things as separate, independent observations. I see no reason to consider them "lines of evidence". The only way you could see them as lines of evidence is if you have a motivation to support a particular theory.

I don't accept it for the same reasons Darwin second-guessed himself. I give the man credit for being honest. But ultimately he "went with it" and ultimately I believe he was wrong.

But you only have ill informed opinions.
Not one fact to show the theory is wrong.

Does that not suggest a problem with
the honesty of your (emotional) stance?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What a weird argument. So I guess when geocentrism was widely taught, that meant it was true? Islam is taught in madrasas around the world, so that means it's true?

Argument from reductio ad absurdum. Geocentrism was taught because that was what the people at the time had the facts about, and it has been superseded by heliocentricism when the facts show it to be wrong. To a Muslim, Islam is true, and that's all I'll say on that one.

You've been shown repeatedly and ad nauseam evidence of evolution, but you just flat out refuse to accept them as facts. So really, this thread is kind of worthless for you since you're never going to accept anything.

 

[BCP1928]

What a weird argument. So I guess when geocentrism was widely taught, that meant it was true?

No, it meant that there was nothing against it at the time. That's how science works: "this is the best explanation we have given the available evidence to date". And that was the point of the post.

Islam is taught in madrasas around the world, so that means it's true?

In the sense that any religion is true, but religions rest on an entirely different congnitive basis than science, so strictly speaking they are not comparable to it. Even if creationists were right about the age of the Earth and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In the sense that any religion is true, but religions rest on an entirely different congnitive basis than science, so strictly speaking they are not comparable to it. Even if creationists were right about the age of the Earth and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.

If anything, I think this proves my point that any commentary against evolution largely comes from a religious, not a scientific perspective. To say a religion is right or wrong, as chesterton obliquely did, is a religious perspective.

 

[Chesterton]

But you only have ill informed opinions.
Not one fact to show the theory is wrong.

Does that not suggest a problem with
the honesty of your (emotional) stance?

You don't have one fact to show the theory is right, which is the topic of this thread. And I have to say, you come across as a bit more emotional than I do.

 

[Astrid]

The title of this thread is "facts to prove the TOE". Instead of asking me where microevolution stops, I'll ask you where macroevolution begins. When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?

The question there is as noted, ill informed.
The answer, though, is, " never". Impossible.

Note though that offspring are never duplicates
of parents.

How else does one get to poodle from wolf
other than selecting among the non- deplicates?

 

[BCP1928]

You don't have one fact to show the theory is right, which is the topic of this thread. And I have to say, you come across as a bit more emotional than I do.

Speciation occurs. If speciation can occur, then there is no reason that it cannot occur repeatedly, and that is macro-evolution.

 

[Astrid]

You don't have one fact to show the theory is right, which is the topic of this thread. And I have to say, you come across as a bit more emotional than I do.

So you have a basis for rejection other than
emotion?
As for facts to show the theory correct,
you are technically correct. I do t have "one".

There's countless thoueands.

FYI A theory is an explanation of facts.
Data.
No facts, no theory.

You figure no scientist on earth would of said like
" Wait a minute. This ain't no stinkin' theory,
it's got no factual basis!"

 

[Ophiolite]

You don't have one fact to show the theory is right, which is the topic of this thread. And I have to say, you come across as a bit more emotional than I do.

I'm curious. What do you mean by the phrase "the theory is right"? Do you think scientists think in terms of theories being right? If so, what do you think they mean by right? If not, how do you think they think of a theory?

I ask these questions not to try to somehow trip you up, but because I suspect their may be a semantic issue at the heart of some of these differences of opinion and if we can eliminate those we can get closer to the heart of the issue. So, I would genuinely appreciate it if you would give these questions some thought and attempt to answer them. When you have done so I shall happily share my thoughts on them.

 

[NxNW]

Instead of asking me where microevolution stops, I'll ask you where macroevolution begins. When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?

Evolution states that every organism is the same species as its parents and its offspring. Why would you expect something other than a human in your example?

 

[BCP1928]

The title of this thread is "facts to prove the TOE". Instead of asking me where microevolution stops, I'll ask you where macroevolution begins. When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?

There is no "hard line" where an individual, or even a population, becomes a different species. Instead, there is a gradual diversion as one population of a species becomes different from another. Over time, the differences become great enough such that an observer would regard them as different species. Traditionally, the marker has been loss of interfertility, but in reality there is a long period of gradually declining interfertility, so there is no "hard line" there, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

If anything, I think this proves my point that any commentary against evolution largely comes from a religious, not a scientific perspective. To say a religion is right or wrong, as chesterton obliquely did, is a religious perspective.

Religion isn't afraid to tell others they are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Speciation occurs. If speciation can occur, then there is no reason that it cannot occur repeatedly, and that is macro-evolution.

Macroevolution plays loose with the decimal point.

Only God can build Rome in a day.

 

[AV1611VET]

No facts, no theory.

Good point.

Solid facts / solid theory.

Trumped up facts / trumped up theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Religion isn't afraid to tell others they are wrong.

Telling others they're wrong is one thing. SHOWING is something else entirely, and it's something you Creationists are not very good at doing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Telling others they're wrong is one thing. SHOWING is something else entirely, and it's something you Creationists are not very good at doing.

Biblical creationists are liaison between omniscience and the myopic.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The "showing" can't be done by us.

I can't take you back in time and show you creatio ex nihilo in progress.

And all you can show me in real time is microevolution in progress.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The "showing" can't be done by us.

Honestly, this is all you needed to say and you could have just left it at that.