Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Shemjaza]

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?

They aren't thought experiments they are detailed analysis of different aspects of the physical world.

The most powerful "proof of evolution" is the pattern of genetic similarity in coding and non coding DNA, and that could absolutely falsified the Theory of Evolution formed from the study of fossils and extant animal morphology.

However it didn't falsify evolution.

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.

The vast majority of the evidence didn't exist when Darwin was writing his books.

Why do you believe he was wrong, specifically. Why do you also think all the newer evidence is wrong?

 

[Astrophile]

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

Geocentrism was true in the sense that it taught that the planets were in motion about a central object. It was false in that it identified the Earth rather than the Sun as the central object.

 

[Shemjaza]

Geocentrism was true in the sense that it taught that the planets were in motion about a central object. It was false in that it identified the Earth rather than the Sun as the central object.

If you study the two most obvious celestial objects: the Sun and the Moon, then a geo centrist conclusion is not unreasonable... it's when you add the data from the planets and other more subtle signs that helio centric conclusions become more consistent.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you study the two most obvious celestial objects: the Sun and the Moon, then a geo centrist conclusion is not unreasonable... it's when you add the data from the planets and other more subtle signs that helio centric conclusions become more consistent.

Didn't they account for that at first with epicycles?

 

[Shemjaza]

Didn't they account for that at first with epicycles?

Yes, but it gets more and more ridiculous as you discover more objects, further out. Where Solar orbits create a much more consistent and coherent model.

 

[sfs]

QV please:

Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan.

Your definition of 'microevolution' included speciation. What you've just quoted explicitly excludes it, thus pointing out one reason that your definition is wrong. The other way that it's wrong is not obvious from this paper, which is concerned solely with adaptive evolution. Microevolution is in fact very much not concerned solely with adaptive evolution but includes nonadaptive evolution as well. See, for example,
here.

 

[sfs]

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.

Macroevolution begins with speciation (the splitting of one species into two) -- that's the conventional boundary within evolutionary biology. As you've acknowledged already, the Hawaiian honeycreepers are evidence for speciation and therefore for macroevolution. But you clearly don't think that they're evidence for evolution writ large, so I'm trying to find out what level you don't think has evidence.

When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?

As has been pointed out, that's not how evolution works. At what point did speakers of Latin give birth to a speaker of French? Whether it's language or biology, you could make up an arbitrary cutoff but the actual transition is gradual.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm curious. What do you mean by the phrase "the theory is right"?

I simply mean true, correct.

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?

It depends on the theory. Certainly there are many, many theories which are appropriately considered tentative. I suppose these would tend to be ones where there's not much emotional involvement. Although, many years ago I read an interesting article about historical disputes between individual scientists who disagreed with each other on certain ideas and oh man, could they ever be mean and nasty as they insist that they are right and their opponent is wrong. But that's just the human nature of some individuals, I'm not judging them for that.

But for theories in general, you're asking me if "scientists" think in terms of them being right. Obviously, for any given theory, some may think it true, some may think it false, and some may think "I'll wait for more evidence before I decide".

 

[Chesterton]

Why?

They aren't thought experiments they are detailed analysis of different aspects of the physical world.

The most powerful "proof of evolution" is the pattern of genetic similarity in coding and non coding DNA, and that could absolutely falsified the Theory of Evolution formed from the study of fossils and extant animal morphology.

However it didn't falsify evolution.

If a God or an alien race intelligently designed life, you could just as likely expect to see the same similarities. It's not proof of anything Darwinian.

The vast majority of the evidence didn't exist when Darwin was writing his books.

Why do you believe he was wrong, specifically. Why do you also think all the newer evidence is wrong?

Instead of going into the usual talking points that get discussed in this forum, I'll just say this - I read On the Origin of Species and the most striking thing about it is that Darwin says nothing about the origin of species, except for the chapter where he doubts that his idea is possible. The title of the book is basically clickbait, although one of the most influential instances of clickbait in the modern world.

If you want more detail why I don't believe it you can listen to this:

 

[Astrid]

I simply mean true, correct.

It depends on the theory. Certainly there are many, many theories which are appropriately considered tentative. I suppose these would tend to be ones where there's not much emotional involvement. Although, many years ago I read an interesting article about historical disputes between individual scientists who disagreed with each other on certain ideas and oh man, could they ever be mean and nasty as they insist that they are right and their opponent is wrong. But that's just the human nature of some individuals, I'm not judging them for that.

But for theories in general, you're asking me if "scientists" think in terms of them being right. Obviously, for any given theory, some may think it true, some may think it false, and some may think "I'll wait for more evidence before I decide".

Many many.

How about three off top of your head.
Alphabetical order optional.

 

[Chesterton]

Many many.

How about three off top of your head.
Alphabetical order optional.

I don't know. I'm not a scientist. Are you saying there are no theories which are tentative?

 

[BCP1928]

I don't know. I'm not a scientist. Are you saying there are no theories which are tentative?

They are generally called hypotheses. To be called a theory it has to be reasonably well established.

 

[Astrid]

I don't know. I'm not a scientist. Are you saying there are no theories which are tentative?

Don't try to switch it back to me just because
you just say things and cannot stand behind them.

 

[Chesterton]

They are generally called hypotheses. To be called a theory it has to be reasonably well established.

Semantics really bore me.

 

[BCP1928]

Semantics really bore me.

Then you shouldn't try arguing about science.

 

[Astrid]

If a God or an alien race intelligently designed life, you could just as likely expect to see the same similarities. It's not proof of anything Darwinian.

Instead of going into the usual talking points that get discussed in this forum, I'll just say this - I read On the Origin of Species and the most striking thing about it is that Darwin says nothing about the origin of species, except for the chapter where he doubts that his idea is possible. The title of the book is basically clickbait, although one of the most influential instances of clickbait in the modern world.

If you want more detail why I don't believe it you can listen to this:

Darwin is click at and yountrot out " berlinski demolishes".

IF he could do that he'd have the Nobel of all time.

If he is the actual reason you reject TOE, that's embarrasing.

David Berlinski makes a pompous fool of himself again about science and evolution

I'm not sure how David Berlinski manages to make a living, but he does live in Paris, which ain't cheap. Although he's a Senior Fellow with the ID Creationist Discovery Institute, that can't pay much,

whyevolutionistrue.com

But then he's not really the reason.

 

[Astrid]

Semantics really bore me.

Uh, no. I thinks it's reality you can't hsndle.

That isn't even semantics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Semantics really bore me.

It's not semantics. Whether you opt to subscribe to evolution or not, people need to realize that a "scientific theory" is not the same as a casual, street-level speculative theory. A scientific theory is one that explains and draws together diverse fields of evidence, and it has been tested many times. Modifications can slowly be made to it as enough solid new evidences come about.

 

[Larniavc]

if there were any facts to prove the TOE they would be front page news

You've been told time and again that science does not deal in proof but you keep repeating it. Why?

 

[Astrid]

You've been told time and again that science does not deal in proof but you keep repeating it. Why?

That refusal on the part of creationists- did you ever see one learn it?- explains so much about them.