proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Hieronymus]

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.

When claiming something did NOT happen, i'm making an affirmative statement?
Now who's trying to avoid the burden of proof?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How anyone can disagree that is proof positive is beyond me, Sarah. I'm trying to take you all as seriously as possible but some are making it very hard when even the most basic of things are treated as such.

-_- what do you intend to accomplish by cutting out most of my post that explains the difference between the common use of the term "proof" and what proof is from an academic perspective?

There are other possibilities for how your hand got burned, or how you ended up mistaking it for burned. As long as there are other possibilities, no matter how unlikely they are, you haven't "proven" that it was the stove that burned your hand. Again, this is why asking for "proof" is asking for a standard impossible for science to meet, no matter how good the evidence is. To obtain proof is to not only support a particular conclusion, but it is also to exclude all other possibilities... including ones you aren't personally aware of.

It's as if some are saying, we aren't going to allow certain things here and you attempt to block them. Another would be, "science doesn't provide proof", meaning "We can claim evolution is fact, but don't have to prove it" Bizarre.

It isn't that we don't have to "prove" evolution. It is that "proof" isn't what you are acting as if it is. You can't even prove to me that you exist, and I am talking to you right now. Additionally, you may have confusion as to what the difference between the theory of evolution and the phenomenon it attempts to explain. Evolution the theory isn't literally that populations of organisms change over time and generations. Evolution the theory is an explanation of HOW and WHY populations of organisms change over time and generations.

As for the process itself, there are plenty of opportunities to observe it if you want. Just Google search "evolution experiment".

I guess it goes without saying, that was the point of the scientific experiment that undoubtedly proved a fact...science *does* prove, and that's what I'm asking for here.

Actually, you have it backwards. Science doesn't determine what a "fact" is, facts determine the course of science. Facts are gleaned through observation. For example, we can factually determine that your hand was damaged by it not being in a healthy state. The scientific theory relevant to you burning your hand would be the most evidenced explanation as to how and why it happened, but no scientific theory could guarantee that it is a fully correct explanation. Could get 99.99% certain, but never 100% certain. After all, someone could have cast an evil spell to burn your hand, because magic hasn't been disproven. A ridiculous conclusion? Sure, given the lack of evidence supporting it, but as it hasn't been disproven, it is a possibility nevertheless and has to be recognized. Proof narrows down possibilities to just 1, which is why it only applies to math.

As for the common use of the term "proof", I have no idea what your personal standard of evidence is, so trying to cater to it would be silly. But, I'll provide some evidence for evolution any time you like, as long as that's actually what you are requesting. If you insist on "proof", I'll take it as an unwillingness to learn.

I do have to hand it to you all though, I haven't seen "science doesn't prove" brought up at all here at all, unless I missed it.

You must have missed it, because it is brought up from time to time, and I am not the only person that brings it up.

 

[Hieronymus]

Creationism makes no predictions about genetics that I can find.

How about hereditary diseases and extinction?

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

We will agree to disagree, then. Your intransigence to learning about the real world leads one to suspect you enjoy living in your "Truman Show" bubble. The fact that you even try to persuade those of us who understand science, is annoying at best, and pathological at worst. I truly hope you at some point in your journey realize why it is millions of biologists the world over, unequivocally accept ToE as fact. That you do not understand why, after all your time here, is on you, not us. You can lead a horse to water...

Take care.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, it is.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.

Not really, unless I misunderstood your description, which reminded me of the tired old creationist strawman about creatures dragging around useless half-formed appendages waiting for the right random mutation to come along and finish them.

 

[sfs]

How about hereditary diseases and extinction?

How about them?

 

[Hieronymus]

Not really, unless I misunderstood your description, which reminded me of the tired old creationist strawman about creatures dragging around useless half-formed appendages waiting for the right random mutation to come along and finish them.

Are you suggesting organs just mutated into existence in one go, fully functional and thus potentially beneficial?

 

[Hieronymus]

How about them?

Have you forgotten what you wrote?

 

[xianghua]

So how does whichever model you pick say that the great majority of genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are the result of mutation? So far you haven't even specified a model. In other words, you've said nothing at all about creationism and the data.

first: evolution doesnt predict it either. remember that darwin were not even know about DNA and genes. actually even in those days evolution doesnt predict that the majority of mutations should be neutral (see adaptationism for instance). so it's not even a prediction of evolution theory. secondly: even if it was true: creation fit to this model very well, since we are dealing with neutral mutations it can only indicate time.

Yes, I know they're supposed to be ERVs. I want to know what the position of the lines means. Where's the sequence that's being compared? If they're not in the same positions, then they're not orthologous.

but their position in the genome looks almost identical (far from a random position). so how they cant be orthologous?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you suggesting organs just mutated into existence in one go, fully functional and thus potentially beneficial?

-_- no, more like a mutation caused certain portions of tissue to be better at removing and neutralizing toxins, and over time mutations added to that extremely basic function until that mass of cells began to commit to that function almost exclusively (referring to the liver).

 

[sfs]

Have you forgotten what you wrote?

No, I haven't forgotten what I wrote. Are you trying to get to some point here?

 

[sfs]

first: evolution doesnt predict it either. remember that darwin were not even know about DNA and genes. actually even in those days evolution doesnt predict that the majority of mutations should be neutral (see adaptationism for instance). so it's not even a prediction of evolution theory.

Given what we currently know about mutations -- not neutral mutations, which you keep bringing up for unknown reasons -- common descent makes a prediction. I know, because I used common descent to make that prediction before the data were available. So yes, common descnet does indeed permit predictions.

secondly: even if it was true: creation fit to this model very well, since we are dealing with neutral mutations it can only indicate time.

So you keep saying. I don't believe you. I don't believe you have a creationist model, and I don't believe you can predict anything real about genetics. Show that I'm wrong: state the model and derive the precise prediction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How about hereditary diseases and extinction?

Oh, you mean the biblical explanation of:
hereditary diseases: curses by demons or punishments by a god on a sinful family.
extinction: no reference to the possibility of extinction in the bible aside from, loosely, the mention that everything on this planet will die in Revelations.

-_- the first thing is demonstrably not how hereditary diseases generally work, and implies they are unavoidable (which, they aren't)

 

[Subduction Zone]

When claiming something did NOT happen, i'm making an affirmative statement?
Now who's trying to avoid the burden of proof?

You are the one trying to avoid the burden of proof. When you claim that something did not happen you are making an affirmative claim.

What Is an Affirmative Statement?

Now that you understand your error I hope that you don't repeat it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you suggesting organs just mutated into existence in one go, fully functional and thus potentially beneficial?

That is the creationist view. I already gave you one example of how new organs arise, here is a more detailed one:

Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures

Please note that the ear evolved from previously existing structures.

 

[HitchSlap]

How about hereditary diseases and extinction?

Yes, ToE makes predictions about hereditary diseases and extinction. In most cases, geneticists have even hammered out when some hereditary diseases first show up in the human genome.

 

[Speedwell]

Are you suggesting organs just mutated into existence in one go, fully functional and thus potentially beneficial?

No, I am suggesting that each step in the development of the organ was useful to the creature in some way. Each step in the process must be useful for something, even if it is not the thing which the "finished" organ does. And, of course, the "finished" organ may just be a step on the way to something else.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The evidence has always been based on faith. God is not a 'thing' bound to the laws of the universe He created or a 'thing' in the natural universe.

For instance. A brick layer building a house and then bricking Himself in.

The proof for God is faith, love and hope. Would you follow the formula to acheive the evidence?

I wouldn't, Faith is the worst way to come about the truth of something. I can take anything on faith.

the chromosomal fusion is evidence for a common descent?

Yes.

Cheers for reply.

Then this is a question of faith. Lets look at the validity of faith.

Have you not experienced faith being rewarded in your life in some form?

For instance. Trust and hope in someone - love?

What form of evidence would make you believe there is a God?

Trust is NOT Faith. I have trust in quite a many things, because of previous evidence in support of it. I love and trust my partner, and I have evidence of her love for me. Faith - even by the Bible - is a belief without evidence. As for what form of evidence would make me believe there is a God? Not sure, but I'm sure if there is a God as described by Christians, then God would know exactly what would make me believe.... and hasn't done so.

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

because of the Evidence that supports it.

Nice try. I'm human. Lizards aren't and neither are spiders. We didn't all come from the same thing.

Sure we did, that's what the evidence indicates...

Yes by definition. The definition is an assumption. We believe we came from the ancestor. We define we came from the ancestor. We predict we came from the ancestors. And guess what we happen to find supposedly? Exactly what we expect. We assume and we find what we assumed we would find. And yet we still can't go back and find out if it's true. We can't experiment to see if it's true. We cannot offer any experiment to show we came from a common ancestor because we've never seen or found one. We have no idea what the common ancestor looked like or what it's genetic make up was UNLESS we assume so because we believe we had one.

Rubbish. If we were independently created, then surely we could predict our genomes wouldn't share hundreds of thousands of ERVs (each of which would almost invariably have to be found at different loci if we contracted it separately) with other organisms on this planet, right? We at least, would have unique DNA when compared to other animals allegedly divinely and uniquely created - our genome when compared to other forms of life ought to be at least as unique as the genomes of a hedgehog, echidna and porcupine. Given the incredible and diverse nature of DNA, the fact that all life looks exactly like we're all related in a branching fashion would mean either an alleged Intelligent Designer wanted to fool us into thinking all life is related and evolved naturally in a branching pattern, or that we did in fact evolved naturally into the diversity of life we see today.

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.

I'll have to go out on a limb here and say that you have a skewed idea on what scientific evidence is, or that you don't work in a field that actually uses evidence in the strict sense that science uses it. I'd be interested to know what line of work though...

You have to know if someone tells you they cannot prove something because it's to complex, that many of us are going to have out doubts.

How bout this... God is too complex, I don't understand much of how he does anything/who he is, but he exists because it make perfect sense he does. It makes perfect since he created the universe because creation is the only way we have ever seen something come to be

Should I expect that to convince you creation is simply an act of God? Should you just believe it as you expect me to believe your end of this?

One might claim "your explanation is just to simple" and basically it is, but in reality, it's so complex, I don't even pretend to know how it was done.
God at least explains a beginning to life, where those that tout evolution have no clue...they even use the trick, "It doesn't matter" in order to try to weasel out of a very important part of any process...the beginning. A process is a beginning, an end and everything in between, yet still y'all will argue with that.

Just like the bizarre argument on the burning hand as scientific evidence/proof, in trying to hold on to the desperate perception that science proves nothing, something that is completely ludicrous. Point being, what tricks are they using to conclude what they do, they sure have a bag full around here.

So, in the end I would be foolish just to take anyone's word for it... I need proof.

You too can do a hand-wave at all I just said, call it an excuse, but it's not, it's reality, and fair reasoning.

But I think I've even seen them try to disallow fair reasoning/logic here as an argument too so, what can I say.

Show anything, anywhere where Science has proven something. Science actually works on disproving things, which in turn helps us narrow in on the truth,

Before I get into the embarrassment aspect, answer me this, does science prove anything?

No, Science never proves anything, it only ever disproves.

 

[Wakalix]

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

Are we, in fact, part of a creation? This seems to beg the question.

 

[Wakalix]

No, of course not. Don't be daft.
Evolution is based on historical evidence at best, since it takes a LOOOONG time.

This distinction between observational and historical science is utterly unfounded and has no connection to real science.

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.

Do you think that a mutation is capable of producing a more complex organism than the parent? How about one that is more well-suited for its environment?

 

[Wakalix]

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

Yes, of course. The only reason anybody could ever disagree with you is that they are bad or stupid. How observant of you.