proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Well please let me know when you can test and reproduce evolution from a common ancestor will you? I will swallow my pride and say well I guess they were right all along. So far all they have is supposition based on assumption. We have yet to show a plant can become an animal.

If you were genuinely interested in the evidence for common ancestry, you wouldn't be here. You'd be off doing research, pouring through textbooks and scientific literature, heck maybe even taking an undergrad course or two. Issuing such 'challenges', especially ones that appear to be constructed from obvious strawmen is just silly and makes me doubt your sincerity.

And as I said, whether or not you personally accept evolution as valid science is completely irrelevant. Science isn't a popularity contest; valid science is not contingent on public support. It doesn't change that evolution is a significant part of modern biology and will continue to be taught and utilized as such.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If constantly pretending a lack of understanding is all you have then so be it, but as I've said, it's not going to cut it as a defense. You need to prove evolution is a fact and stop wasting our time with sleight of hand/confusing the issue with untrue accusations.

Until you do, as much as I tried, I honestly cannot take you seriously any longer.

Nope, no pretending on my part. You are merely projecting your sins upon others again. And it is clearly not a defense. Both you and I know that. If that is all that I had you would take me up on my offer. Your obvious fear shows that not to be the case.

I am willing to help you understand the fairly simple concept of evidence. You are afraid to learn. That is obvious to all.

 

[Velaut]

[...] One type of creature can adapt and change due to it's environment in order to survive. [...]

A type of creature? Please define what you mean by that. Please also define the words 'adapt' and 'change', specifically to this context. If you want to be specific.

 

[Larniavc]

And that proves evolution is more than a theory?

I think there are two things here. It is a fact that things evolve.

But how that happens is the Theory of Evolution. There are bits of the theory that may change as we learn more so what we currently define as ToE will most likely change.

But it is an undeniable fact that over time populations evolve.

 

[xianghua]

Sure, just as there are physicists who reject Special Relativity. One can find crackpots in all fields. What does that have to do with the claim that evolution is a controversial theory within biology?

in science you only need one scientist with one counter evidence. and we indeed have such evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

in science you only need one scientist with one counter evidence. and we indeed have such evidence.

Really? I have never heard such evidence. Since almost every creationist here does not understand what is and what is not evidence I find your claim highly dubious.

 

[rjs330]

Well, by definition, ToE is fact.

Evolution from.a common ancestor is not a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. Common ancestor evolution isn't and can't be proven.

 

[rjs330]

If you were genuinely interested in the evidence for common ancestry, you wouldn't be here. You'd be off doing research, pouring through textbooks and scientific literature, heck maybe even taking an undergrad course or two. Issuing such 'challenges', especially ones that appear to be constructed from obvious strawmen is just silly and makes me doubt your sincerity.

And as I said, whether or not you personally accept evolution as valid science is completely irrelevant. Science isn't a popularity contest; valid science is not contingent on public support. It doesn't change that evolution is a significant part of modern biology and will continue to be taught and utilized as such.

I've seen and read much of the so called evidence from links you and others have posted. It's all assumption and supposition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution from.a common ancestor is not a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. Common ancestor evolution isn't and can't be proven.

You keep using terms that are inappropriate or that you do not seem to understand.

But you just made an affirmative claim. What is your evidence that supports your claim?

 

[xianghua]

They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

we can say the same about creation.

 

[xianghua]

So you're just assuming this?

Oh dear. I shall assume the percentage is .000037.

actually the majority of biologists believe in some kind of designer. at least a ccording to survey that i have seen. i also know that about 5% of scientists are creationists (at least in us).

 

[sfs]

Evolution from.a common ancestor is not a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. Common ancestor evolution isn't and can't be proven.

Are you under the impression that repeating things makes them true?

 

[Larniavc]

actually the majority of biologists believe in some kind of designer. at least a ccording to survey that i have seen. i also know that about 5% of scientists are creationists (at least in us).

A survey? Be still my beating Cochrane report.

 

[xianghua]

No, not really.

We can provide reams of data supporting the hypothesis of common descent.

Here is a simple tutorial on just molecular data.

Here is an expansive website with lots of evidence for common ancestry at multiple levels. Tons of citations and references in support of their conclusions.

Your turn.


But please keep in mind that anecdotes or bible verses are not evidence or data.

Thanks.

can you choose one of them?

 

[xianghua]

No, it's proof(*) because that's how evidence works. You test your theory -- "prove" means "test" -- with data. If common descent is true, we should see certain things in genetic data. We see those things. If creationism is true, we should see other things. We don't see those things. This means that evolution is very probably true and that creationism is very probably false.

This situation is repeated over and over and over again with different kinds of data. Common descent keeps working, and creationism fails. Creationism fails every single time.

are you sure? if common descent is false, what we should find?

 

[xianghua]

We also look for alternative explanations for the same data. That's why I asked what the creationist explanation is. You don't have one.

are you referring to the molecular clock, or just for a similar mutations rate?

 

[sfs]

are you sure? if common descent is false, what we should find?

I have no idea. No one has ever offered an alternative model that predicts anything. I see no reason to expect special creation to look like common descent.

 

[sfs]

are you referring to the molecular clock?

No.

 

[xianghua]

That friend, if scientifically educated will list some of these:

• The finding of Tiktaallik in the environment and layer it was predicted

actually the tiktaalik found in in the wrong layer:

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

• the Urey-Miller experiment

in this experiment they even dont get proteins. just several kinds of amino acid. but even if you have the entire 20 amino acids you will need a specific sequence of them to produce a functional protein.

 

[sfs]

are you referring to the molecular clock, or just for a similar mutations rate?

No, I'm referring to the kind of thing I described in post #265 of this thread.