proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Kenny'sID]

sigh... you really should take a moment and educate yourself. You come across as a rube full of arrogant hubris based on the fact you find Hovind to be a credible source of anything. It's embarrassing.

sigh...educate myself by readying a conversation on Ted.com? A conversation by cop outs much like we find with others of the same goals? Somehow I get the idea I might not get the truth. lol You really should have known better.

So, just answer the question and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[TBDude65]

No one wants to take me up on my offer to disprove evolution?

 

[Hieronymus]

The tree itself is an assumption based upon some similarities that are found. We find similarities in life therefore these similarities are supposed to be evidence.

But it IS evidence.
But it's not proof.
You can interpret the evidence both ways though.
But you can help build a case for evolution by pointing at what seems to be common descent.

That is an assumption. That is speculation. I say similarities are evidence of common design, the building blocks of life as it were that God used to create all things after it's own kind.

I agree.
But it makes me wonder to what extent sub species could have descended from an early main species.
I think it ends where specific organs or architecture come in to view.
You can't (well i can't) expect this to form by itself by accidentally writing pieces of the correct genes, that accidentally become complete and functioning, through random mutation upon random mutation, which were not corrected, supposedly dominated the gene pools while having no benefit yet...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again you are incorrect. I work in a field where we work with evidence all the time. I'm not seeing any real evidence in evolution. I see speculation and I see a lot of assumptions but I don't see any real evidence. Why? Because it can't be observed tested or reproduced. Therefore it is guesswork. A belief.

What field is that? So far you have merely shown utter ignorance about the subject. And you fear discussing the topic. Your fear tells me that you have no clue.

And once again you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. You are making statements about others that you cannot support. When you accuse others of "speculation" that is making a charge against your neighbor and if you can't support your accusations they are the same as being false.


And what makes you think that the theory of evolution cannot be tested? You misstated the scientific method in your post too.

So let's take a break from discussing evolution and discuss the three items that you clearly do not understand. You clearly do not understand what is and what is not evidence. You do not understand the scientific method. You do not understand what observation is. Let's go over those first, then we can discuss the theory of evolution if you wish.

 

[Hieronymus]

No one wants to take me up on my offer to disprove evolution?

You can not disprove that only i exist and you're all just part of my imagination.

 

[TBDude65]

You can not disprove that only i exist and you're all just part of my imagination.

I can and will dismiss red herrings though.

I am attempting to offer precisely what has been asked for within this thread: unequivocal proof against the theory of evolution. No one who wants this proof, appear to want to actually engage with the scientific literature that is presented as evidence of evolution, so I offer an alternative. Which is to do an experiment on your own and I will even help guide you through the work. This will provide the person performing the experiment with intimate first-hand knowledge of what is done in science to test hypotheses related to evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No one wants to take me up on my offer to disprove evolution?

Can you disprove God created it?

 

[TBDude65]

Can you disprove God created it?

I am trying to give you (you specifically) exactly what you have asked for, proof for evolution. Do you actually want this, or do you intend to keep shifting the goalposts?


edit to add: god(s) are irrelevant with respect to the question at hand. I am not here to prove or disprove a god(s) to you or anyone

 

[Speedwell]

Can you disprove God created it?

Disprove that God created evolution? I don't think anyone here wants to.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am trying to give you (you specifically) exactly what you have asked for, proof for evolution. Do you actually want this, or do you intend to keep shifting the goalposts?

How can one disprove something that hasn't been proven? lol

Now get your goalposts back in order and prove evolution.

edit to add: god(s) are irrelevant with respect to the question at hand.

First it's not all about you, and what you think relevant, there are others that share the planet. Secondly, imagine that, someone thinking god is relevant on a Christian website.

 

[Hieronymus]

I can and will dismiss red herrings though.

Incredulence!

 

[Speedwell]

You can't (well i can't) expect this to form by itself by accidentally writing pieces of the correct genes, that accidentally become complete and functioning, through random mutation upon random mutation, which were not corrected, supposedly dominated the gene pools while having no benefit yet...

Of course, that is not how evolution is claimed to work. Each mutation is tested by natural selection and does not become a permanent part of the gene pool unless it confers some survival benefit, or is at least neutral.

 

[Hieronymus]

I can and will dismiss red herrings though.

I am attempting to offer precisely what has been asked for within this thread: unequivocal proof against the theory of evolution.

My point was, you want people to disprove a negative.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Disprove that God created evolution? I don't think anyone here wants to.

I think you missed the point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it IS evidence.
But it's not proof.

Correct. But that is only because there is no "proof" in science. Most scientists are also mathematicians to a degree and understand what a proof is. But if you go by the legal definition of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then it is "proof".

You can interpret the evidence both ways though.

Nope, you can't. And again now you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of what is and what is not evidence. Proper evidence only supports one side of an argument. If it supports more than one side it is by definition not evidence.

But you can help build a case for evolution by pointing at what seems to be common descent.I agree.
But it makes me wonder to what extent sub species could have descended from an early main species.
I think it ends where specific organs or architecture come in to view.

Nope, we know how new organs arise.

You can't (well i can't) expect this to form by itself by accidentally writing pieces of the correct genes, that accidentally become complete and functioning, through random mutation upon random mutation, which were not corrected, supposedly dominated the gene pools while having no benefit yet...

Now you are back to an argument from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy. Your inability to understand does not make for a refutation.

Here is roughly how new organs arise. Existing structure are repurposed. Most organs arise from what are often called "vestigial organs". Another concept that creationists get wrong. Vestigial organs are not useless. Though they are often quite useless at their original job. Take your lungs for example. Your very very distant fish ancestors had a swim bladder. That bladder helped keep the fish neutrally buoyant in the water. And it is also a secondary source of oxygen for fish besides the gills. In fact some fish have developed their swim bladder so well that it is now their main source of oxygen. Take the various lungfish for example:

Lungfish - Wikipedia

Some are almost entirely dependent upon their lungs that the gills no longer do their original job and are vestigial:

"Of extant lungfish, only the Australian lungfish can respire through its gills. In other species, the gills are too atrophied to allow for adequate gas exchange. "

Instead of assuming that evolution is impossible, perhaps instead you should learn how it happened.

 

[TBDude65]

So what I am hearing so far is the that the answer is "no." Instead of actually making good on the desire to argue that evolution isn't true, no one wants to: 1) engage with the scientific literature or 2) do the research necessary to prove their ideas correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point was, you want people to disprove a negative.

Um, no. Those on your side have made an affirmative statement. The "disprove a negative" nonsense is a line usually used by those that are trying to avoid the burden of proof. If you state that something could not have happened then you are making an affirmative statement. The burden of proof is upon you. And if you state that you can't understand how evolution could work and it is therefore wrong you have made the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.

 

[Hieronymus]

Of course, that is not how evolution is claimed to work.

Actually, it is.

Each mutation is tested by natural selection and does not become a permanent part of the gene pool unless it confers some survival benefit, or is at least neutral.

That's what i said, more or less.
But there is no such thing as a permanent part of a gene pool in evolution.
Everything is continuously 'shapeshifting', only very very very sloooowly....
I didn't say permanent, i said dominated.
Maybe i should have said 'part of the gene pool', but not permanent.

 

[sfs]

But who really cares if *you* consider it better, and on something that may not amount to a hill of beans to begin with, so maybe there is a reason they don't care.

Well, I'm one of the scientists creationists are constantly attacking, so it would seem that they do indeed care. What they don't seem to care about is data.

When I get more time I'll do a search on debunking what you *say*.

That's what you *say*.

 

[sfs]

Common descent doesn't make better predictions. Creationism makes predictions too. We predict that life on Earth changes in order to survive. God made it that way. Life adapts to changing conditions of the planet. Those things that cannot adapt die out. It's part of the natural process. It doesn't mean we all came from a common ancestor.

Creationism makes no predictions about genetics that I can find. Common descent does. Lots and lots of correct predictions. Almost like it was correct or something.