proving evolution as just a "theory"

rjs330 said:

Yes the evidence is all around you, but you don't see it because you are blinded by unbelief. It IS a matter of faith.

Click to expand...

Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

rjs330 said:

What interesting the manipulation of evidence here. Man manipulates the evidence while true evolution is accidental. Suddenly we have "evidence". Once again prediction is based upon assumption and in many cases manipulation. What we have is a common design where God used certain methods and creative processes to make life. Genes are part of that. Again you don't know what is going to happen in a few billion years based upon the evolutionary process which is random and accidental. Taking a wild guess at what happened in the past is just that. It's assumptive.

Click to expand...

Wow! Amazingly wrong and amazing breaking of the Ninth Commandment by a Christian.

Hieronymus said:

Then you must have an answer to this question:
Why would a theist (a supernaturalist) subscribe to naturalistic (atheistic) ideas?

Click to expand...

My goodness, are naturalistic ideas atheistic? And therefor forbidden for theists?
Do you realize that all science -- all the sciences! are naturalistic by there very nature?
Open any textbook of college level, any! and you will find no reference to any deity.

So for the deist: no chemistry, physics, crystallography, geology, geophysics, astronomy, histology, toxicology and so on?

_-iconoclast-_ said:

Hello sorry for the lateness of the reply.



Please excuse me my dear. I mean no offense



It would seem that you are certain here and uncertain there.

This is good. You are honest. Some things are not certain and sometimes you just have to have complete trust or confidence in someone or something - the theory of evolution.

This is good. It shows conviction.

Back to the giraffe. We cannot know things which atm are unknowable but we can investigate things which are known.

"When the animal lowers its head the blood rushes down fairly unopposed and a rete mirabile in the upper neck, with its large cross sectional area, prevents excess blood flow to the brain.

When it raises again, the blood vessels constrict and direct blood into the brain so the animal does not faint."

This lowering and raising seems to have a safety mechanism. This seems like a solution to a problem.

How do you account for this 'reasoning' if we consider evolution as an unguided process?

Click to expand...

No offence taken, I found it curious that you asked a question but didn't comment on my response.

I keep telling you that I am ignorant about giraffe evolution so I don't know why you keep asking me about it. I'm sure that there are plenty of online resources on the topic if you wish to learn, unless this is leading to a "gotcha" question, in which case you might as well cut to the chase.

I'm also curious as to why you're focusing on my uncertainty about very specific aspects of evolution, it in no way demonstrates that I have any doubts about common descent. Despite the enormous gaps in my knowledge I have enough understanding to realise why evidence from the fossil record, geographical distribution of species and most importantly genetics confirm this to be a fact.

Allandavid said:

Indeed. Now all you have to do is to provide the "strong evidence" for creationism....easy, right?

Click to expand...

Fairly easy, yes.
It's quite obvious actually, just take a look at the creation we are a part of.

pitabread said:

Evolution is a belief in the same manner that heliocentrism is a belief.

Click to expand...

No, of course not. Don't be daft.
Evolution is based on historical evidence at best, since it takes a LOOOONG time.
What we can observe is that mytations occur and natural selection too.
Ascribing creational power to it is another story though, that takes either a giant leap of faith or thorough brainwashing.

Hieronymus said:

Fairly easy, yes.
It's quite obvious actually, just take a look at the creation we are a part of.

Click to expand...

Once again, not evidence. You are simply trying to use an argument from ignorance there.

Wakalix said:

"We have evidence!"
"What evidence?"
"We have loads of it! Evidence coming out the wazoo! Evidence spilling out our doors!"
"Yes, but what evidence?"
"You just don't see it because you don't want to see it."
What evidence? It's not enough to say that you have evidence; you have to actually present the evidence.

Click to expand...

It's probably you who ignores or dismisses it.
Otherwise you wouldn't be an atheist.

Hieronymus said:

No, of course not. Don't be daft.
Evolution is based on historical evidence at best, since it takes a LOOOONG time.
What we can observe is that mytations occur and natural selection too.
Ascribing creational power to it is another story though, that takes either a giant leap of faith or thorough brainwashing.

Click to expand...

"Historical science" is a bogus term invented by Ken Ham. If you want to work for Ken Ham as a scientist you actually have to promise not to use the scientific method.

And you have a very limited and incorrect version of observation.

Hieronymus said:

It's probably you who ignores or dismisses it.
Otherwise you wouldn't be an atheist.

Click to expand...

No, we understand the nature of evidence. All creationists that I have run into so far are afraid of the concept.

Subduction Zone said:

Once again, not evidence. You are simply trying to use an argument from ignorance there.

Click to expand...

That's just your incredulence and / or denial speaking again.

Subduction Zone said:

"Historical science" is a bogus term invented by Ken Ham.

Click to expand...

How relevant is that? It's not.

If you want to work for Ken Ham as a scientist you actually have to promise not to use the scientific method.

Click to expand...

I don; t care about Ken Ham as much as you do.

And you have a very limited and incorrect version of observation.

Click to expand...

Right, that must be it....

Hieronymus said:

Fairly easy, yes.
It's quite obvious actually, just take a look at the creation we are a part of.

Click to expand...

Quite obvious actually, just look at what Krishna has made...

Quite obvious actually, just look at what Nature's Pixies have made...

Quite obvious actually, just look at what visiting aliens have made...

See how easy it is to make empty claims when you provide zero evidence to support them...?

Hieronymus said:

How relevant is that? It's not.I don; t care about Ken Ham as much as you do.Right, that must be it....

Click to expand...

Then why do you use the term that he invented? There is no such thing as "historical science" in the sense that you are using the phrase.

And the fact is that you are rather ignorant about what observation is just as you are ignorant and afraid to discuss what is and what is not evidence.

Hieronymus said:

That's just your incredulence and / or speaking again.

Click to expand...

Now you are openly breaking the Ninth Commandment. I know what is and what is not evidence much better than you do, you don't and are afraid to discuss the subject. If you were not afraid and ignorant you would discuss the topic with me.

Kenny'sID said:

I understand the claim.

Here's what I'm not understanding, in another post you said you were not trying to prove evolution to me...then what exactly are you doing?

Click to expand...

I'm merely pointing out your errors, your expectation of some sort of simplistic example which "proves" such a complex theory is unrealistic, especially as you refuse to accept more technical genetic evidence such as SFS mentioned . When viewed as a whole the evidence we have observed in the natural world paints an inescapable picture. Here are a few examples for you to think about, I'm not trying to prove evolution to you, just demonstrate why I accept it.

1.

We have evidence from the fossil record......

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.

Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

Maybe you've got a more "logical" hypothesis as to why we see thousand of fossils that represent a gradual change from a little dog-like little creature to the horses we see today?

..................................................................


2. We can observe speciation in action.

I know you creationists don't like the fact that we can observe speciation in the lab (bacterias are still bacterias! etc) so here's an example of natural selection in action.....

Speciation in real time

The Central European blackcap spends its summers in Germany and Austria and, until the 1960s, had spent its winters in balmy Spain. About 50 years ago, however, backyard bird feeding became popular in Britain. With a ready supply of food waiting for them in Britain, blackcaps that happened to carry genes that caused them to migrate northwest, instead of southwest to Spain, were able to survive and return to their summer breeding grounds in central Europe. Over time, the proportion of the population carrying northwest-migrating genes has increased. Today, about 10% of the population winters in Britain instead of Spain.

This change in migration pattern has led to a shift in mate availability. The northwest route is shorter than the southwest route, so the northwest-migrating birds get back to Germany sooner each summer. Since blackcaps choose a mate for the season when they arrive at the breeding grounds, the birds tend to mate with others that follow the same migration route.

In December of 2009, researchers from Germany and Canada confirmed that these migration and mating shifts have led to subtle differences between the two parts of the population. The splinter group has evolved rounder wings and narrower, longer beaks than their southward-flying brethren. The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection. Pointier wings are favored in birds that must travel longer distances, and rounder wings, which increase maneuverability, are favored when distance is less of an issue — as it is for the northwest migrators. Changes in beak size may be related to the food available to each sub-population: fruit for birds wintering in Spain and seeds and suet from garden feeders for birds wintering in Britain. The northwest migrators' narrower, longer beaks may allow them to better take advantage of all the different sorts of foods they wind up eating in the course of a year. These differences have evolved in just 30 generations and could signify the beginning of a speciation event.

.........................................................

3. Biogeographic Distribution - Modern biogeographic research combines information and ideas from many fields, from the physiological and ecological constraints on organismal dispersal to geological and climatological phenomena operating at global spatial scales and evolutionary time frames. (link)

An example....

The history of marsupials also provides an example of how the theories of evolution and continental drift can be combined to make predictions about what will be found in the fossil record. The earliest marsupial fossils are about 80 million years old and found in North America; by 40 million years ago fossils show that they could be found throughout South America, but there is no evidence of them in Australia, where they now predominate, until about 30 million years ago. The theory of evolution predicts that the Australian marsupials must be descended from the older ones found in the Americas. The theory of continental drift says that between 30 and 40 million years ago South America and Australia were still part of the Southern hemisphere super continent of Gondwana and that they were connected by land that is now part of Antarctica. Therefore combining the two theories scientists predicted that marsupials migrated from what is now South America across what is now Antarctica to what is now Australia between 40 and 30 million years ago. This hypothesis led paleontologists to Antarctica to look for marsupial fossils of the appropriate age. After years of searching they found, starting in 1982, fossils on Seymour Island off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula of more than a dozen marsupial species that lived 35–40 million years ago.

link
............................................................

4. ERV evidence

I know this can get a little technical but I remembered you asked for it to be explained in terms a five year old could understand. Essentialsaltes did that for you but I don't think you commented....

When mommies and daddies love each other very much, they make a recipe for a baby. They mix a copy of half of daddy’s recipe with a copy of half of mommy’s recipe to make a baby recipe. The recipe is so long that it takes nine months to make a baby!

And by looking at your recipe later, you can see that you are related to your mommy and daddy because you can see bits of their recipes in you! (Or you’re adopted, but your mommy and daddy still love you!)

And this can go back through the generations. If half of grandpa’s recipe goes into your mom, and half of mom’s recipe goes in you, then one quarter of your recipe comes from grandpa!

Now, if you have first cousins, that means one of your parents was the brother or sister of one of theirs. And those siblings had the same parents… your grandparents. By comparing your recipe to the recipe of your first cousin, you can see that you share a common grandparent. This is called common ancestry. Since recipes get shared in an unbroken chain from ancestor to descendant (that means a baby!), if you have enough information, you can determine whether two recipes have a common ancestor. Fortunately, those recipes are really long, so there is a lot of information.

But sometimes little accidents happen to the recipes. This is really important, but we’ll save that for when you are six. But one particular kind of accident is when you get sick. Sometimes a germ will leave its cooties in your recipe. Ew!

Before, maybe your grandpa had a recipe with a line that said:

Step 146734 Make five itty-bitty toes on the end of each foot.

And afterwards, it might read

Step 146734 Make five itty-bitty toeGERM COOTIESs on the end of each foot.


And now that might be part of your recipe! Because he is your ancestor.

Your friend on the playground might have this in her recipe:

Step 146734 Make five itGERM COOTIESty-bitty toes on the end of each foot.

Do you have a common ancestor with her?

Did you say no? Because the cooties are in the wrong place? Haha, the joke’s on you. The answer is actually yes. All human beings are related. But looking at this one tiny piece of the recipe, we don’t have any evidence that your friend descended from your grandpa. (Don’t ask him about it in front of your grandmother.)

Since grandpa got the cooties in his lifetime, it can only show up in that exact spot in his descendants, or in someone else who coincidentally got the cooties in the same exact place in the recipe. But the recipe is so long this is very unlikely.

But if we look at the whole recipe, you and your friend actually have a lot of recipe cooties in common. Ew! I know. But it’s pretty harmless. Everyone has them. Thousands of them. And because a lot of them are in the same place, we know you share common ancestors. But since a few of them are different (like the one from your grandpa) we know that your common ancestor was further back in generations than your grandpa.

So by comparing the number of shared cooties to the number of unshared cooties, you can see how closely related you are.

And when we compare your cooties to those of a chimpanzee, we find a lot of cooties in different places, but a lot of cooties in the same place! We also have common ancestors, but it wasn’t in your grandpappy’s day or your great great great grandmammy’s day. It was 5 million years ago.

In fact, orthologous cooties fall into a nested hierarchy among primates.



..........................................................


Now, these are just a couple of trivial lines of evidence, not so much the tip of the iceberg, more like a pebble on Everest. Taken individually I'm sure you can handwave them away or find excuses not to accept them, for anyone with an open mind the conclusion to be drawn from all these disparate observations is inescapable. Let's be honest, the only reason to deny that conclusion is because you've hung your faith on a particular interpretation of the bible, that's up to you of course, but it's not a view shared by most christians.

xianghua said:

not necessarily. the difference can be the result of neutral mutations+ functional difference as the result of design. it's means that some differences are neutral and some are not.

Click to expand...

That's still common descent. If humans and chimpanzees were originally part of the same species and turned into two distinct species, that's common descent -- even if some of the changes were miraculous. This is a possibility that creationists consistently argue against.

USincognito said:

The fusion occurred in the human lineage after speciation.

Click to expand...

true. so this is evidence for a common descent with human. not chimp.

xianghua said:

true. so this is evidence for a commond escent with human. not chimp.

Click to expand...

Quoting out of context is quite often a tool that liars use. Try again and quote the entire post.

pitabread said:

Evolution is a belief in the same manner that heliocentrism is a belief.

Click to expand...

no. because we have evidences for heliocentrism. but we dont have evidence for evolution.