Six lines of evidence, one common conclusion - evolution ain't going away

[Arik Soong]

Hi, I'm new to this forum, I wish I could've been in this forum earlier, I'm studying my second year of Bio Engineer and have access to a lot of nice Biology, Microbiology and Biochemistry books full of proof of evolution in context with a lot of other scientifical topics. It's ridiculous how many little pieces of puzzle there are to be found in life that fit into the grand theme of the evolution theory, and it's even more ridiculous how many people are anti-evolutionist. If there's anything this thread has proven is that, the main reasons so many people do not accept the evolution theory is because : A) They do not understand it, B) They do not have enough knowledge on it C) They refuse to believe it, even if they know the evidence is irrefutable ( because they are not willing to give up their hopes of an afterlife paradise and a nice god who can work miracles, for the truth ).

What I'd like to see is an intelligence test + a test of basic scientific knowledge done by a large number of evolutionists and non-evolutionists, and then seeing the average of each groups score. That would explain enough...

No, you are wrong by saying the evidence of evolution is irrefutable. Since evolution is vulnerable to falsification, it is precisely one aspect of the theory which renders it an extremely robust theory. For example, predictions of evolutionary biology are being fulfilled (like Mike Gene's prophecies), like the genetic homology between Homo sapiens and other primates. Also discontinuity in the fossil record would weaken evolution (e.g. Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbit.) So in a paradoxially way, evolution is irrefutable because it could be refuted.

However, I agree that ID has an unfair advantage, but this is simply because the evidence is in it's favor, for example, we don't rely on "unknown steps" or "future theories" as evidence for our theory. We rely on the data.

 

[mikeynov]

So uh...any discussion of the OP?

 

[MQTA]

Hi, I'm new to this forum, I wish I could've been in this forum earlier, I'm studying my second year of Bio Engineer and have access to a lot of nice Biology, Microbiology and Biochemistry books full of proof of evolution in context with a lot of other scientifical topics. It's ridiculous how many little pieces of puzzle there are to be found in life that fit into the grand theme of the evolution theory, and it's even more ridiculous how many people are anti-evolutionist. If there's anything this thread has proven is that, the main reasons so many people do not accept the evolution theory is because : A) They do not understand it, B) They do not have enough knowledge on it C) They refuse to believe it, even if they know the evidence is irrefutable ( because they are not willing to give up their hopes of an afterlife paradise and a nice god who can work miracles, for the truth ).

What I'd like to see is an intelligence test + a test of basic scientific knowledge done by a large number of evolutionists and non-evolutionists, and then seeing the average of each groups score. That would explain enough...

wow! awesome post. Thanks! I just printed out your message and am going to give it to someone.

 

[MQTA]

jaws too short for wisdom teeth and so forth.

WHAT? You mean this is a common issue? I thought it was just me!



One thing I never really thought about until someone brought it up here... circumcision... what was wrong with the original design?

 

[Opethian]

No, you are wrong by saying the evidence of evolution is irrefutable. Since evolution is vulnerable to falsification, it is precisely one aspect of the theory which renders it an extremely robust theory. For example, predictions of evolutionary biology are being fulfilled (like Mike Gene's prophecies), like the genetic homology between Homo sapiens and other primates. Also discontinuity in the fossil record would weaken evolution (e.g. Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbit.) So in a paradoxially way, evolution is irrefutable because it could be refuted.

However, I agree that ID has an unfair advantage, but this is simply because the evidence is in it's favor, for example, we don't rely on "unknown steps" or "future theories" as evidence for our theory. We rely on the data.

I think it's safe to say the evidence of evolution IS irrefutable. Just the vast amount of both small and large pieces of evidence from the entire spectrum of science from the DNA in our mitochondria to the amount of each element in the earth supporting a theory this radical should be enough to tell you evolution is on the best trail to the truth. Even if some links would be found to be false, the foundation of the theory is too solid now to be ever broken down. And as to why ID has an unfair advantage? ID has an unfair advantage because the majority of the world population hasn't got a clue about science...

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you are wrong by saying the evidence of evolution is irrefutable.

Evidence and theory are two different things. Evidence is factual, and therefore irrefutable. For instance, the presence and placement of retroviral genes in humans and other apes is irrefutable. It is irrefutable that A. aferensis has human and ape characteristics. It is irrefutable that rocks have specific ratios of radioisotopes. These are used as evidence to support the theory of evolution, a theory that is refutable.

So in a paradoxially way, evolution is irrefutable because it could be refuted.

Evolution is refutable because it is falsifiable. The height of the Emprire State building is irrefutable, for instance. Facts are irrefutable, otherwise they wouldn't be facts. Theores are refutable because they are testable and considered to be tentative.

However, I agree that ID has an unfair advantage, but this is simply because the evidence is in it's favor, for example, we don't rely on "unknown steps" or "future theories" as evidence for our theory. We rely on the data.

ID is a negative argument and is not supported by positive, objective evidence. The sole support for ID is that some people believe evolution is insufficient to produce the observed complexity in living organisms. This belief is based on incredulity, not evidence.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evidence and theory are two different things. Evidence is factual, and therefore irrefutable. For instance, the presence and placement of retroviral genes in humans and other apes is irrefutable. It is irrefutable that A. aferensis has human and ape characteristics. It is irrefutable that rocks have specific ratios of radioisotopes. These are used as evidence to support the theory of evolution, a theory that is refutable.



Evolution is refutable because it is falsifiable. The height of the Emprire State building is irrefutable, for instance. Facts are irrefutable, otherwise they wouldn't be facts. Theores are refutable because they are testable and considered to be tentative.



ID is a negative argument and is not supported by positive, objective evidence. The sole support for ID is that some people believe evolution is insufficient to produce the observed complexity in living organisms. This belief is based on incredulity, not evidence.

What is refutable is just what this data ACTUALLY means. As long as there are atheists, there is no reason to believe that evolution will go away. They support it far too much.... Creationists are not stupid only ridiculed and discouraged by those who believe they UNDERSTAND it all.

 

[Opethian]

Maybe they're ridiculed because most of them don't know the slightest thing about science and are radically against a theory which they don't even have the knowledge/intelligence for to understand. Maybe they're ridiculed because every time a pro-evolutionist offers solid evidence for the evolution theory on forums like these, there are no decent rebuttals from the creationists, and if there are, they are easily disproven? Maybe they're ridiculed because they always jump around the issue, and end up going into sarcastic mode and starting with insults and threats?


[irony]
[sarcasm]
I don't know, maybe I'm being too narrow-minded...
[/sarcasm]
[/irony]

 

[notto]

What is refutable is just what this data ACTUALLY means. As long as there are atheists, there is no reason to believe that evolution will go away. They support it far too much.... Creationists are not stupid only ridiculed and discouraged by those who believe they UNDERSTAND it all.

Why is evolution taught in prestigious Christian Universities? Do the atheists dictate curriculum to them?

 

[JGL53]

What is refutable is just what this data ACTUALLY means. As long as there are atheists, there is no reason to believe that evolution will go away. They support it far too much.... Creationists are not stupid only ridiculed and discouraged by those who believe they UNDERSTAND it all.

Evolution will not "go away" for the same reason that the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease or geological plate tectonics theory will not go away. They constitute the best scientific theories (the best explanations) for observed phenomena.



Creationism isn't even a scientific theory. It is the belief in invisible immaterial persons who conjure complex material objects, including life, into being ex nilio. Science = a super person waving a magic wand and pulling a rabbit out of a hat? - seems rather absurd to me.



And, yes, stupidity (low I.Q.) is not the main problem of creationists. Rather, it is ignorance of science (ill-education in science) that is their specific problem. I.e., when you learn your science in a Sunday school class, you're going to wind up missing the boat by several light years.

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

One of the most erroneous arguments I've heard from creationists or IDists (from Evolution Fairytale forums) is that if ID cannot be a science because it is not falsifiable, then evolution is not falsifiable because if evolution were disproven, then ID must be true. In other words, they are suggesting that ID must automatically be true once evolution is disproven. This is the "one or the other fallacy". If you still don't get it, they believe that ID is the only other option if evolution is disproven. I've tried explaining it many times, and they still don't get it.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is refutable is just what this data ACTUALLY means.

Exactly. In order to interpret the data you need a theory that make predictions of what the data should look like. Evolution predicts that the pattern of shared ERV's should fit into a nested hierarchy due to the mechanisms of speciation and Mendellian genetics. The shared ERV's do fit into a nested hierarchy, the same nested hierarchy produced by studying fossils.

What pattern does ID/creationism predict? What are the mechanisms involved? If you can't answer these questions then you are not allowed to say that ID "interprets the data differently". Without predictions, and the reasons for those predictions, then it is simply ad hockery.

[qutoe]As long as there are atheists, there is no reason to believe that evolution will go away.[/quote]

Here, let me fix that sentence for you.

"As long as there is mountains of positive evidence for evolution, there is no reason to believe that evolution will go away."

I like this version better:

"As long as there are honest christian biologists such as Kenneth Miller, there is no reason to believe that evolution will go away."

Creationists are not stupid only ridiculed and discouraged by those who believe they UNDERSTAND it all.

I chalk it up to Morton's Demon. It is the same thing that caused the Roman Catholic Church to depend on the Pope's description of the heavenly bodies instead of science's description. I don't see creationists being put under house arrest for the rest of their lives, or burned at the stake, so I wouldn't complain too much.

 

[LittleNipper]

Maybe they're ridiculed because most of them don't know the slightest thing about science and are radically against a theory which they don't even have the knowledge/intelligence for to understand. Maybe they're ridiculed because every time a pro-evolutionist offers solid evidence for the evolution theory on forums like these, there are no decent rebuttals from the creationists, and if there are, they are easily disproven? Maybe they're ridiculed because they always jump around the issue, and end up going into sarcastic mode and starting with insults and threats?


[irony]
[sarcasm]
I don't know, maybe I'm being too narrow-minded...
[/sarcasm]
[/irony]

I believe that Creationists are ridiculed in general because evolutionists know far less about the Scriptures than Creationists know about science....

 

[LittleNipper]

Why is evolution taught in prestigious Christian Universities? Do the atheists dictate curriculum to them?

Did you ever think that those pretigious "Christian" Universities might just care more for THEIR prestige then their Christian witness?

 

[Opethian]

I believe that Creationists are ridiculed in general because evolutionists know far less about the Scriptures than Creationists know about science....

I wouldn't claim that if I were you, you just might be heavily mistaken...
As they say, a smart man knows his enemy. I don't think I'm making an overstatement when I say more than 90% of all (anti-evolutionist) creationists does not have enough knowledge/intelligence to even simply UNDERSTAND evolution correctly.
And even if it were true, I would be happy if I were you, since creationists would be ridiculed even more if atheists knew more about the scriptures...

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe that Creationists are ridiculed in general because evolutionists know far less about the Scriptures than Creationists know about science....

I guarantee I have read more scripture than you have read science. I was a christian for the first 22 years of my life. This is the case with many agnostics/atheists. We chose not to believe, not because we had never heard the Word but because we didn't believe what it said.

 

[mikeynov]

If this keeps up I'm going to have to ask Dreamiter to split this crap into a new thread again :\

This thread is allegedly about the OP, and I'm still waiting for creationists to challenge those points.

 

[Opethian]

They can't! That's the problem . Maybe one of us should go undercover and make an account as a theist, and make up some good counterarguments. That could be fun!

 

[And-U-Say]

I guarantee I have read more scripture than you have read science. I was a christian for the first 22 years of my life. This is the case with many agnostics/atheists. We chose not to believe, not because we had never heard the Word but because we didn't believe what it said.

Exactly! I was a die-hard christian for the first 40 years of my life.

 

[notto]

Did you ever think that those pretigious "Christian" Universities might just care more for THEIR prestige then their Christian witness?

Nope. The are well respected Christian Universities with high academic achievement records. That is why they are prestigious. Your lack of hesitance to bear false witness against these Universities is noted.

You didn't answer my question. Why would these Christian Universities teach evolution. Are their curriculums contolled by atheists?