What is an evolutionist strongest argument?

[=Joel=]

I was just kind of curious(trying to stay up to date) with what evolutionists are using as there ”proof” for evolution now days. If you/they were debating a creationist, what is the best argument you/they would use against the creationist?



I believe in creation btw

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The strongest evidences to my mind, in terms of fairly simple things that can be easily explained, would be:

1) Human chromosome 2 -http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
2) Retro-viral insertions - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

 

[Crusadar]

That seems to be the evolutionist's tactic - unable to defend their own nonsense, therefore bombard them to death with someone else's nonsense in hopes that they will debate the references rather than them - how elementary. Discuss karl, don't just link. If your reference has merits lets discuss them using sound science (repeatable, experimentable evidence) and the word of God.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Crusadar,

your post is disingenuous.

Joel asked for what are the current strong arguments for evolution. Karl responded with two and links for their explanation. Then you chide him for not defending 'his own nonsense'.

He never had a post with his own material so why accuse him of this.

This is false of you. It's really a disgrace.

Especially coming from someone who has shown a complete lack of scientific knowledge on other threads. For instance not knowing what the laws of thermodynamics say.

 

[Crusadar]

Nice of you to point that out chi, now point to where it is my lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics shows - so that I will know what it is I have no understanding of. And observable, experimentable proof, no wishful thinking or speculations please.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Crusadar,

Are you really a science teacher?

Really?

 

[=Joel=]

thank you sir. i'll read the articles

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

That seems to be the evolutionist's tactic - unable to defend their own nonsense, therefore bombard them to death with someone else's nonsense in hopes that they will debate the references rather than them - how elementary. Discuss karl, don't just link. If your reference has merits lets discuss them using sound science (repeatable, experimentable evidence) and the word of God.

Joel asked. I answered.

Tell you what. I claim that the centromere remnants in human chromosome 2 are strong evidence for its derivation from the two corresponding chromosomes still found in the great apes. I therefore claim it as evidence of common descent. You tell me why it isn't.

I also claim that shared retro-viral insertions are evidence of common descent, because the alternative explanation is that hundreds of independent viruses infected the germ cells of hundreds of different species in a manner, in the same place in the genome, in a manner that almost exactly matches that expected on a prediction that the animals form a nested hierarchy which is also indicated by DNA and phylogenetic analyses.

Is that enough to start the discussion for you?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Okay

Time to address this question in a serious manner.

Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas within the biological sciences. In fact, evolution ties together and "unifies" many separate areas of biology. Evolution gives biological sciences a common theme.

Evidence from evolution comes from:

1. Developmental biology. By studying the growth and devolpment of embryos we can see how tiny changes in the sequence of genes can result in large changes in the fully devoloped organism. Also, we can see evolutionary relationships among different organisms based on embryological development.

2. Genetics (and DNA) give not only a mechanism for inheritance of characteristics but also a mechanism for changing those characteristics (mutation). Darwin's orginal theory predicted the existance of such mechanisms long before DNA was discovered. By studying DNA, we can also see the degree of evolutionary relationships among various groups.
DNA can also be used to demonstrate how new organs systems or tissues arose. Ofr example analsysis of the genes used in blood clotting show that they are derived from digestive genes.

3. Biogeography is the study of what organisms live where. Perhaps one of the strongest supporting bodies of evidence for evolution. Before humans came to Australia there were no placental mammals except for a few bats. There were only marsupials, However, the marsupials had evolved into forms remarkably like those found among placentals in the rest of the world. There are (or were) marsupial equivalents to moles, mice, dogs, lions, deer, monkeys, large ungulates. Yet none of these marsupials (except for possums) were found outside of Australia.

4. Fossil evidence. Although not the strongest body of evidence in of itself, the fossil record does provide a history of evolution complete with transitional forms showing how lineages are related. The fossil record also matches what would be expected from modern biogeography and supports what is shown by DNA analysis of related groups (i.e. whales are more closely related to hippos then to manatees).

5. Comparitive anatomy and phisiology give us examples of how some shared characteristics are not immediatly apparant, yet are strong indicators of common ancestry.

 

[Vance]

In addition, one of the strongest points for me is that, despite 150 years, no one has been able to falsify it, despite countless attempts. A single falsification (showing that something has occured which can NOT have occured if evolution was correct, for example) would do it, but we have not seen one yet.

The person who can falsify evolution wins the Nobel Prize, but no one has been able to do it.

 

[Ark Guy]

Okay



3. Biogeography is the study of what organisms live where. Perhaps one of the strongest supporting bodies of evidence for evolution. Before humans came to Australia there were no placental mammals except for a few bats. There were only marsupials, However, the marsupials had evolved into forms remarkably like those found among placentals in the rest of the world. There are (or were) marsupial equivalents to moles, mice, dogs, lions, deer, monkeys, large ungulates. Yet none of these marsupials (except for possums) were found outside of Australia.

How did the marsupials develope their pouch?

 

[Vance]

The same way any other feature would develop. Do we need to develop a primer of how evolutionary development occurs? Are you saying that there is a particular aspect of a pouch that makes it less likely to develop by evolutionary processes than other features?

Or are you just contesting that features can develop by evolutionary processes, in which case I get back to the "primer" question. Evolutionary development is explained in a large number of sources in any library, including "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. I do not see why (or how) we can explain how features develop by evolutionary processes in a forum like this. Better that anyone wanting to come to the table to debate such issues educate themselves on the basic points first, then come explaining why the teaching of the other side is wrong.

 

[Les Grands Pieds]

Yeah, the arguement that something came from nothing! It's never actaully happened in our lifetime, but that is "how the world was formed". Yeah, right. Where else in the universe has that ever happened! If that's true, I would need a BUNCH of faith to believe it. I believe there is a big peice of this puzzle which we are missing! We must accept the fact that we can't understand why God has done all which he has done. Why is not of importance, it's about how made all this stuff, and that, to me, is obviously God!


Dieu est partout!

 

[notto]

Yeah, the arguement that something came from nothing! It's never actaully happened in our lifetime, but that is "how the world was formed". Yeah, right. Where else in the universe has that ever happened! If that's true, I would need a BUNCH of faith to believe it. I believe there is a big peice of this puzzle which we are missing! We must accept the fact that we can't understand why God has done all which he has done. Why is not of importance, it's about how made all this stuff, and that, to me, is obviously God!


Dieu est partout!

Who in this thread has mentioned something coming from nothing or has stated that that is how the world was formed?

 

[Buck72]

In addition, one of the strongest points for me is that, despite 150 years, no one has been able to falsify it, despite countless attempts. A single falsification (showing that something has occured which can NOT have occured if evolution was correct, for example) would do it, but we have not seen one yet.

The person who can falsify evolution wins the Nobel Prize, but no one has been able to do it.

I'm going to read Karl's articles with an open mind...more later.

Vance, I have to reply here, once again that the burden of proof is not in disproving an unproven...that is not even legally possible. Much like the watermelon analogy (that watermelon's are blue on the inside until you cut the rind...prove me wrong) ~ you could keep a person busy the rest of their lives with those kind of "proofs". Ouch!

The person who can PROVE evolution wins the Nobel Prize, but no one has been able to do it.

 

[notto]

I'm going to read Karl's articles with an open mind...more later.

Vance, I have to reply here, once again that the burden of proof is not in disproving an unproven...that is not even legally possible. Much like the watermelon analogy (that watermelon's are blue on the inside until you cut the rind...prove me wrong) ~ you could keep a person busy the rest of their lives with those kind of "proofs". Ouch!

The person who can PROVE evolution wins the Nobel Prize, but no one has been able to do it.

Scientific theories and their changes are driven by falsification of ideas, not proof. Scientific theories are supported by the lack of evidence that falsifies them. Theories can never be proven but they can be falsified. This is how 19th century geologist falsified a young earth. There is evidence that can not be explained if
the earth is young.

Evolution remains unfalsified because no evidence has been presented that shows that it is false. This is how all scientific theories, from gravity to relativity, are tested. People try to show that they are false through contradictory evidence. No matter how much evidence supports a theory, it can never technically be taken as 'true', only tenatively accepted as true until evidence is found that falsifies it.

If someone said that they could 'prove' evolution, the Nobel's would laugh at their misunderstanding of how scientific theories are developed and supported. If someone said they could falsify evolution and presented evidence, the Nobel's would take interest. This has not been done.

 

[Vance]

What Notto said. Buck, science works through falsification, not proof. No one EVER tries to prove a theory since a theory is not something that can be proved. You have facts, data, evidence. You develop a theory to explain all of these. Then you immediately try to prove it false. Why? Because you can ALWAYS find evidence to support any theory, not matter how far-fetched (YEC's prove this over and over!), but an invalid theory will be quickly falsified by the data. A single instance of "hey, look at this piece of hard, cold data! This could not be if the theory was true!" Such a single falsification, and the theory goes "poof'!

So, accepted theories of why things happen have evidence to support it and the LACK of any faslification (so far). Never proof.

The holders to the theory simply point to the evidence which supports it, the logic and soundness of its conclusions, the areas in which the theory has been used as the basis for tests and those tests have had the predicted results, etc. These are either sufficient for the hearer to accept or they are not. There is not proof involved.

On the other hand, the only way to successfully establish that a theory is not correct is to produce a falsification. An event, a piece of data, etc, which establishes that the theory can not be correct. This is NOT your watermelon analogy in the least. Theories are proven false all the time by contradictory data.

So far, the opponents of the theory (almost ALL based on religious foundations, not objective reviews of the evidence) have failed to produce a single falsification.

This whole line of argument that "evolution is not proven" is simply a non-starter in science, and is only persuasive to the layman who wants to hear it.

 

[Buck72]

This is how 19th century geologist falsified a young earth. There is evidence that can not be explained if the earth is young.

Let's talk about this guy! Is this Charles Lyell? I'd REALLY like to discuss this geologist a bit more.

Okay, MY science degree dealt with the physical realm. I did not have the 'benefit' of reverse proof for theories to be unbuilt without ever having been contructed. In physics classes we applied demonstrative process to material through various degrees of subjection to force and heat, with predictable, quantifiable resultants, legitimizing the equations we learned in class.

This new style of science may be en vogue to evolution, but it does not match up with the black/white science I've grown up with.

The dangers of dragging these same methods into a Biblical sense are sadly evident.

*It's late here on the East coast...good night fellas.

 

[Vance]

This shows you don't understand scientific theories, which is not surprising since most people don't. Theories ARE constructed by supporting evidence, they aren't proven. The ONLY way to succesfully attack a theory is to falsify it. This is because you can ALWAYS find evidence to support a pet theory if you look long enough (again, I point to YEC flood theories as an example). Any good scientist, immediately after coming up with a theory which he believes explains the data, will begin to attempt to falsify it. This is how it is tested. Is there any evidence out there which, by its very existence, shows that my theory can not be correct? After he puts it through the wringer and can't find a way to falsify it, he puts it out for peer review. He explains how the evidence supports the theory and how the theory explains the data in a reasonable and sensible way, then the reviewing peers see whether they can come up with evidence which falsifies the theory. If they do, then it is done, finished, kaput. Some may try to hang on to it for a while, disputing the falsifying evidence, but the scientific community is fairly ruthless about this and if the theory has no merit, it is abandoned and eventually forgotten.

Sometimes, there are competing theories, neither of which can be immediately falsified, and the scientists then battle over which has the best supporting evidence, arguments and is most likely true. If one eventually gains acceptance over the other, it is usually because additional evidence is found that shows it is the more likely.

The point is that theories are accepted if they have significant supporting evidence and have not been falsified. The degree of the supporting evidence determines the strength and stability of the theory, but even the most well-founded theories are never, ever "proven".

 

[Vance]

Buck, here is a quote which should help:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.


Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


​