Is there any evidence for evolution?

[Gregory Mallett]

Why do you call Mike Snavely a biologist? Does he hold a professorship in biology? Does he have a lab position doing research in biology? Does he have a PhD in biology? Has he had papers published in peer reviewed biology journals?

You should stop making claims about what the math shows if you can't actually provide the math.

Buddy, even if I can't provide the math on a dime, and even if he didn't have a PhD in biology (which I'm pretty sure he does), he still raises a good argument.

 

[46AND2]

Buddy, even if I can't provide the math on a dime, and even if he didn't have a PhD in biology (which I'm pretty sure he does), he still raises a good argument.

He does not have a Ph.D. in anything, let alone biology.

What good argument would that be?

 

[Gregory Mallett]

He does not have a Ph.D. in anything, let alone biology.

What good argument would that be?

I might be mistaken, but it doesn't matter.

The argument is this:

For example, every species that died within the 2 billion years that earth was supposedly evolving had a chance, albeit a very small chance, that their remains would fossilise. Do the math and you'll find out that all of the remains of the species that did fossilise over the two billion years should literally be covering every inch of the face of the earth. Like, think about it.

 

[46AND2]

I might be mistaken, but it doesn't matter.

The argument is this:

For argument's sake, we'll assume that his math is correct (I'm sure it's not, but whatever).

1. On the majority of this earth, if you were to dig down, you would find fossils. They are deeper in some places than others.
2. Some areas are susceptible to subduction which would destroy the fossils.
3. In other areas, fossils would be destroyed by lava/magma.
4. Fossils can be destroyed by erosion.
5. Some areas may never have had conditions necessary for fossils to occur.

All in all, I don't see how it is a strong argument.

 

[Gregory Mallett]

For argument's sake, we'll assume that his math is correct (I'm sure it's not, but whatever).

1. On the majority of this earth, if you were to dig down, you would find fossils. They are deeper in some places than others.
2. Some areas are susceptible to subduction which would destroy the fossils.
3. In other areas, fossils would be destroyed by lava/magma.
4. Fossils can be destroyed by erosion.
5. Some areas may never have had conditions necessary for fossils to occur.

All in all, I don't see how it is a strong argument.

Well, he actually corrected for some of those factors already. Even still, if every one of those factors applied, it still wouldn't put a damper on the number he calculated, I mean it was huge.

 

[46AND2]

Well, he actually corrected for some of those factors already. Even still, if every one of those factors applied, it still wouldn't put a damper on the number he calculated, I mean it was huge.

So post his study...a paper? a youtube video? Anything. What you have given us so far is bare assertions that someone else may or may not have said. That isn't a strong argument.

 

[AdamSK]

Buddy, even if I can't provide the math on a dime, and even if he didn't have a PhD in biology (which I'm pretty sure he does), he still raises a good argument.

He doesn't have any credentials in biology.

And if you can't provide the math, you don't have a good argument. You have an empty claim.

 

[Gregory Mallett]

So post his study...a paper? a youtube video? Anything. What you have given us so far is bare assertions that someone else may or may not have said. That isn't a strong argument.

Okay, that's fair to say, but it's not like I'm making this up from nothing, man. I said earlier to watch his DVD series for more info, which is called Mission Imperative.

 

[AdamSK]

Well, he actually corrected for some of those factors already. Even still, if every one of those factors applied, it still wouldn't put a damper on the number he calculated, I mean it was huge.

Albert Einstein looked over his numbers and showed how he has added everything up wrong. He did the math correctly and determined that the amount of fossils we would expect to find is exactly as predicted.

See? I can make unsupported claims too.

 

[Gregory Mallett]

He doesn't have any credentials in biology.

And if you can't provide the math, you don't have a good argument. You have an empty claim.

Alright, I'll agree that that's fair. You can watch his DVD series, Mission Imperative, for more info.

 

[46AND2]

Okay, that's fair to say, but it's not like I'm making this up from nothing, man. I said earlier to watch his DVD series for more info, which is called Mission Imperative.

I didn't mean to accuse you of inventing things, but it is hard to respond to a person's argument, when we don't actually have his argument to look at; just the little tidbits with few details which you offer.

I'd be happy to look at his work, but I'm not going to go buy a DVD to do so. There are too many creationist apologists like Hovind who are complete con-artists, and it's bad enough he makes money off of the people he fools, without me supporting him as well. Not saying that your guy is a conman, but I don't buy creationist literature, period.

 

[Gregory Mallett]

Not saying that your guy is a conman, but I don't buy creationist literature, period.

Yeah, I see what you mean. But if you want to be more objective regarding things like these, it's good to know both sides of the argument. I don't see the merit in refusing to invest time knowing the other side of the argument. I'll read atheist literature any day, not that I'll agree with it, but because I want to see what they have to say.

 

[AdamSK]

Alright, I'll agree that that's fair. You can watch his DVD series, Mission Imperative, for more info.

If you have a copy, could you share his math when you have time?

 

[46AND2]

Yeah, I see what you mean. But if you want to be more objective regarding things like these, it's good to know both sides of the argument. I don't see the merit in refusing to invest time knowing the other side of the argument. I'll read atheist literature any day, not that I'll agree with it, but because I want to see what they have to say.

I never said I don't look at both sides. I've read A LOT of YEC literature (heck, I used to be one). I just won't support it monetarily.

 

[AdamSK]

Yeah, I see what you mean. But if you want to be more objective regarding things like these, it's good to know both sides of the argument. I don't see the merit in refusing to invest time knowing the other side of the argument. I'll read atheist literature any day, not that I'll agree with it, but because I want to see what they have to say.

Have you read the Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins? It is what changed my mind.

 

[USincognito]

All previous "evidence" for evolution is slowly being disregarded discarded.The actual theory as a whole is quietly being abandoned within the scientific community, though this fact is not know to many.

Probably because it's not a fact.

There are too many holes in the theory of evolution that it would be wrong to call it fact.

Most of the supposed holes are PRATTs.

For example, every species that died within the 2 billion years that earth was supposedly evolving had a chance, albeit a very small chance, that their remains would fossilise. Do the math and you'll find out that all of the remains of the species that did fossilise over the two billion years should literally be covering every inch of the face of the earth. Like, think about it.

Life has been on earth for 3.5 billion years and we find all sorts of fossils from then until now. Stromatolites and limestones are the preserved remains of marine microorganisms. Larger plants and animals started appearing the the Edicaran. Most beings remained marine until the Devonian. Fossilization is a tremendously rare process. Take a look at the now extinct Passenger Pigeon, American bison and the African great migration. Massive assemblages of animals, and yet we don't have a bunch of corpses lying around waiting to be fossilized. Certain environments, like forests and jungles have acidic soil that dissolve rather than preserve bones.

If you follow the writings of various creationists and/or evolutionists, you find that those on the left wing...

As soon as you inject politics into the discussion, you have stopped talking science.

I am Catholic, yes, and consequently a creationist, but I can say without any bias whatsoever that I would accept evolution if only science could prove it 200% true. Not 80% or 99.9%. 200%. Because that what science is. Scientific facts are those that have been proven over and over and over and over again through a period of many many years and remains constant.

Nothing in science is ever proven. Do you know anything about this subject?

As biologist Mike Snavely pointed out, Scientific facts are those that are observable, demonstrable, and repeatable. Evolution cannot meet any of these criteria.

1. Mike Snavely is an evangelist who attended Bible college, not a biologist.
2. Evolution meets all the criteria for the scientific method.

 

[Gregory Mallett]

If you have a copy, could you share his math when you have time?

Actually no I won't be able to. I would gladly watch his argument over again and share that info with you, but I'm kind of in a complicated situation right now that I don't need to get into detail over.

 

[USincognito]

Couldn't closer genetics just simply mean more closely created like each other? Why does it have to prove a common ancestor, instead of common blueprints?

"Common design" is an ad hoc and unfalsifiable proposition and thus is unscientific.

 

[USincognito]

I have eyes. Every creature on earth has eyes, so that must mean we're all related evolutionary instead of just having a common creator.

Actually all life is related through common ancestry and this is demonstrated via genetics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity

I have two legs. Monkeys have two legs. Dogs have 4 legs. Cats have four legs.
So just as a dog is obviously related to a cat, I'm clearly obviously related to a monkey and/or apes. I mean, we're still built the same and all.

All terrestrial tetrapods, even those that have lost limbs like cetaceans, caecilians and snakes, are descended from a common ancestral tetrapod population.

 

[AdamSK]

Couldn't closer genetics just simply mean more closely created like each other? Why does it have to prove a common ancestor, instead of common blueprints?

We share mistakes too. Like endogenous retroviruses and broken genes.

My favorite example is the GULO pseudogene.