What would convince you of evolution?

[t_w]

If this is derailing the thread let me know and I will delete.

A slight derail perhaps but an excellent rebuttal
(IOW, don't delete)

 

[chaoschristian]

a)I am wondering what it would take for some of the more 'anti-evolution' creationists here to be convinced of evolution. Conversely, if some entity which would appear to fit the description of your God came down to earth and created a few animals on the spot, I would be convinced of creationism. So what scientific evidence would convince you that evolution is a fact?

In my experience of asking this question to creationists the answer is generally "If God personally revealed to me that without a doubt the universe is billions of years old and the diversity of life on Earth, especially the origins of mankind, was the result of evolutionary processes, then I would loose my faith"

This type of response is especially prevalant among YECs. This is because, based on my observations, YECs submit to the following premises:

1. The Bible is the literal/indicative Word of God. It cannot be wrong. It cannot be anything other than literal/indicative.

2. Therefore the Bible is an accurate source of both history and science, but escpecially of history.

3. Since Jesus specifically refers to geneologies that trace back to Adam, and because Jesus specifically refers to the story of creation then both the geneologies are correct (and an accurate measure of time) and the story of creation is true as written in Genesis.

4. If the geneologies are incorrect and the story of creation is not true, then Jesus Christ is a liar.

5. If Jesus is a liar then the entire basis of faith, the substance of the Bible, is called into doubt. Without a reliable Bible there can be no faith.

If God appeared to a YEC and made several different types of animals on the spot, all it would to is reinforce the YEC belief in the 'creation of kinds.' It would do nothing to sway an acceptance towards evolutionary theory.

If one desires to 'convert' a YEC over to evolutionary theory, then the starting point is not moutains of evidence regarding the theory itself, but the slow process of convincing the YEC that faith can be maintained without a literal/indicative interpretive POV on the Bible. If a YEC can see that the truth of the Bible is as truthful whether its allegorical, metaphorical or indicative, then there is hope.

Now I know that to the atheists and other non-Christians that last bit might bring a chuckle. But if you keep it in perspective than I think the theory works.

 

[t_w]

In my experience of asking this question to creationists the answer is generally "If God personally revealed to me that without a doubt the universe is billions of years old and the diversity of life on Earth, especially the origins of mankind, was the result of evolutionary processes, then I would loose my faith"

Well, I asked what 'scientific evidence' would convince you of evolution, not , 'what supernatural occurence would cause you to accept evolution' - an oxymoron, I think.

If God appeared to a YEC and made several different types of animals on the spot, all it would to is reinforce the YEC belief in the 'creation of kinds.' It would do nothing to sway an acceptance towards evolutionary theory.

You have misunderstood. The above was exactly my point - if the above happened that would convince me of creationism - I only added this example to give creationists an idea of what I am asking here. II really don't know how you misinterpreted my post so grossly as to think i was saying 'god coming down and creating a few animals' would cause a creationist to believe in evolution.

If one desires to 'convert' a YEC over to evolutionary theory, then the starting point is not moutains of evidence regarding the theory itself, but the slow process of convincing the YEC that faith can be maintained without a literal/indicative interpretive POV on the Bible. If a YEC can see that the truth of the Bible is as truthful whether its allegorical, metaphorical or indicative, then there is hope.

This is demonstrably untrue. If Adam and Eve are allegorical, then Jesus Christ, who died for the sin brought into the world by Adam and Eve, died for an allegorical myth that never took place. Surely Jesus's actions require the Adam and Eve stroy to be true if they are to be so greatly acclaimed.

 

[Hydra009]

Now I know that to the atheists and other non-Christians that last bit might bring a chuckle. But if you keep it in perspective than I think the theory works.

True, this seems to be an accurate representation of YEC presuppositions. But I never got that last part personally, as even the staunchest literalists take at least part of the Bible non-literally.

And one of the great ironies I've been noticing to be more and more prevalent is one's "plain reading" of the Bible take an increasingly creative interpretation of the Bible - more so than other Christians.

(for example)

 

[miss_liz]

Hi there. This is my first post, and as a strong atheist and firm believer of evolution(although I dislike evolution being used as an object of belief), I have two questions.

a)I am wondering what it would take for some of the more 'anti-evolution' creationists here to be convinced of evolution. Conversely, if some entity which would appear to fit the description of your God came down to earth and created a few animals on the spot, I would be convinced of creationism. So what scientific evidence would convince you that evolution is a fact?

Hmmm...I would need undeniable evidence of macroevolution. Sorry...I know that probably doesn't help much.

b) If you wish the notion that God created earth to be considered a scientific theory, which i am sure many of you do, how would it be falsified? In order to be a scientific theory of any kind, there must be some imaginable event which would falsify it(prove it wrong). For example, a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era would falsify evolution. What event would falsify your hypothesis that God created earth?

I, personally, don't want it to be considered a scientific theory...I want it considered fact. So...no prob with evidence to falsify creationism.

 

[michabo]

Hmmm...I would need undeniable evidence of macroevolution. Sorry...I know that probably doesn't help much.

Creationists have shown that they can deny everything, so can you you be more specific about what this evidence would look like?

I, personally, don't want it to be considered a scientific theory...I want it considered fact. So...no prob with evidence to falsify creationism.

Huh? Without the ability to falsify it, how can it possibly be considered a fact?

 

[TheInstant]

Hmmm...I would need undeniable evidence of macroevolution. Sorry...I know that probably doesn't help much.

What would you consider "undeniable evidence"? How do you define "macroevolution"?

I, personally, don't want it to be considered a scientific theory...I want it considered fact. So...no prob with evidence to falsify creationism.

Yeah, if it was a scientific theory, all of that evidence against it might get in the way. It's much better just to call it a fact and not question it. Science is for atheists, anyway.

 

[miss_liz]

Creationists have shown that they can deny everything, so can you you be more specific about what this evidence would look like?

Well, I think evolutionists do this same thing. I would need to be able to see speciation. Undeniable speciation, not a guess that it was possibly speciation. Fact that it was. Recent speciation. I'm tired of the line that no transition species exist, because all species are transitional species.

Huh? Without the ability to falsify it, how can it possibly be considered a fact?

Something that is fact doesn't need anything to falsify it...because nothing can falsify it.

 

[t_w]

Hmmm...I would need undeniable evidence of macroevolution. Sorry...I know that probably doesn't help much.

What sort of evidence?

I, personally, don't want it to be considered a scientific theory...I want it considered fact. So...no prob with evidence to falsify creationism.

First of all, any hypothesis about the origin of life or the universe, if it deserves any credibility at all, must by definition be a scientific theory. Otherwise it would just be a wild assetion unsupported by evidence. If you want it to be a fact you want it to be a scientific theory. You can't have it both ways.
Also, if it is not science, creationism should never, ever be taught in science classes. Do you agree?
So, now we've cleared that, how would you falsify creationism? Are you suggesting it cannot be falsified?

 

[miss_liz]

What would you consider "undeniable evidence"? How do you define "macroevolution"?

Ok, I might be wrong on this def. but here goes: macroevolution is the species evolution. Like, hmmm...how to explain what I mean...,where one species changes into another.

Yeah, if it was a scientific theory, all of that evidence against it might get in the way. It's much better just to call it a fact and not question it. Science is for atheists, anyway.

Hey! I want to be a scientist someday...I think science is for atheists and Christians alike.

 

[t_w]

Well, I think evolutionists do this same thing. I would need to be able to see speciation. Undeniable speciation, not a guess that it was possibly speciation. Fact that it was. Recent speciation. I'm tired of the line that no transition species exist, because all species are transitional species.

A great example of a transitional species is a frog. Not so great in water, not so great on land. A transition between a water-based and land-based animal.

Something that is fact doesn't need anything to falsify it...because nothing can falsify it.

Unfortunately you really don't understand the philosophy of science. A scientific fact must be falsifiable. Forget whatever your intuition is telling you. Gravity is a fact, but could easily be falsified. Same goes for everything else we call a fact. If something cannot be proved wrong, not necessarily in this universe, but in any imaginable way, then it is not a fact and certainly not scientific

 

[michabo]

Recent speciation. I'm tired of the line that no transition species exist, because all species are transitional species.

We have observed speciation already. Have you seen the evidence? What exactly would convince you?

Something that is fact doesn't need anything to falsify it...because nothing can falsify it.

Difference between something which has been falsified and which can be falsified. If no conceivable observation could ever falsify something, then how could it be a fact?

 

[TheInstant]

Ok, I might be wrong on this def. but here goes: macroevolution is the species evolution. Like, hmmm...how to explain what I mean...,where one species changes into another.

Speciation has been observed.

Hey! I want to be a scientist someday...I think science is for atheists and Christians alike.

I was being sarcastic. You said that you wanted something to be considered a "fact" but it shouldn't adhere to scientific principles. That's not the way it works.

That's great that you want to be a scientist. Of course Christians can be scientists, most of them in this country are. Including the ones who accept the theory of evolution.

EDIT: By "this country", I mean the U.S. I just noticed that I don't have one of those flag dealies up there by my name.

 

[miss_liz]

A great example of a transitional species is a frog. Not so great in water, not so great on land. A transition between a water-based and land-based animal.

Well, this is the usual evidence I get. We don't really know for sure that a frog is a transitional speices. It's an 'educated' guess. And we'll never know for certain. Evolution has been taking place for millions of years, supposedly. So there isn't any hardcore evidence for speciation. The evidence for speciation isn't found until millions of years after a transitional organism lived. That's the problem I have with evolution. We don't know for sure what the world was like millions of years ago. We are making guesses based on fossils (at least from my understanding). Did that make any sense?

 

[Edx]

Well, this is the usual evidence I get. We don't really know for sure that a frog is a transitional speices. It's an 'educated' guess. And we'll never know for certain. Evolution has been taking place for millions of years, supposedly. So there isn't any hardcore evidence for speciation. The evidence for speciation isn't found until millions of years after a transitional organism lived. That's the problem I have with evolution. We don't know for sure what the world was like millions of years ago. We are making guesses based on fossils (at least from my understanding). Did that make any sense?

How do you own personal definition of species, because clearly its not the way actual biologists define it.

 

[t_w]

Well, this is the usual evidence I get. We don't really know for sure that a frog is a transitional speices. It's an 'educated' guess. And we'll never know for certain. Evolution has been taking place for millions of years, supposedly. So there isn't any hardcore evidence for speciation. The evidence for speciation isn't found until millions of years after a transitional organism lived. That's the problem I have with evolution. We don't know for sure what the world was like millions of years ago. We are making guesses based on fossils (at least from my understanding). Did that make any sense?

When you have a series of fossils, the oldest being a dinosaur, and the most recent being a bird, and all the intermediates progressively more like a bird, in the exact order that evolution would predict, you have serious evidence in favour of what you call macro-evolution.
Add to that falsification. of the millions of fossils found, not one has been contrary to anything in evolution. A little too much of a coincidence, don't you think?
As well as that, evolution proposes a mechanism by which species could change. Random mutations selected by a non-random force, natural selection(so don't let anyone tell you evolution is random!) is a mechanism which perfectly explains the radical alteration of species.
Add to this the existence of imperfections in organisms, the existence of vestigal organs(hips in whales, tailbones in humans), and the fact that every organism contains the same self-replicating molecule(DNA) suggesting a common ancestor, and you have undeniable evidence of evolution, or, as you call it, macro-evolution.

 

[miss_liz]

When you have a series of fossils, the oldest being a dinosaur, and the most recent being a bird, and all the intermediates progressively more like a bird, in the exact order that evolution would predict, you have serious evidence in favour of what you call macro-evolution.
Add to that falsification. of the millions of fossils found, not one has been contrary to anything in evolution. A little too much of a coincidence, don't you think?
As well as that, evolution proposes a mechanism by which species could change. Random mutations selected by a non-random force, natural selection(so don't let anyone tell you evolution is random!) is a mechanism which perfectly explains the radical alteration of species.
Add to this the existence of imperfections in organisms, the existence of vestigal organs(hips in whales, tailbones in humans), and the fact that every organism contains the same self-replicating molecule(DNA) suggesting a common ancestor, and you have undeniable evidence of evolution, or, as you call it, macro-evolution.

What about the beaver/otter-like fossil they just found? According to several newspapers (you can find them on Google), parts of the evolutionary tree (I don't know the correct term for that) have to be re-done. This mammal wasn't supposed to have been around yet...until that discovery, it was considered far too complex to have been around. I disagree that DNA points to a common ancestor. To me, that would be an inference, not a fact that can ever be proven.

 

[TheInstant]

What about the beaver/otter-like fossil they just found? According to several newspapers (you can find them on Google), parts of the evolutionary tree (I don't know the correct term for that) have to be re-done. This mammal wasn't supposed to have been around yet...until that discovery, it was considered far too complex to have been around. I disagree that DNA points to a common ancestor. To me, that would be an inference, not a fact that can ever be proven.

What newspapers have you been reading that claim that the mammal was not supposed to be around yet, or that mammals are "too complex" to have been around during that time? Castorocauda lutrasimilis is different from other mammals of that time period for a couple of reasons (such as being bigger and semi-aquatic), but it is not the only fossil evidence for mammals in that time period.

 

[miss_liz]

What newspapers have you been reading that claim that the mammal was not supposed to be around yet, or that mammals are "too complex" to have been around during that time? Castorocauda lutrasimilis is different from other mammals of that time period for a couple of reasons (such as being bigger and semi-aquatic), but it is not the only fossil evidence for mammals in that time period.

The newspapers made the claim because a professor made the claim. Professor Thomas Martin wrote ""This exciting fossil is a further jigsaw-puzzle piece in a series of recent discoveries, demonstrating that the diversity and early evolutionary history of mammals were much more complex than perceived less than a decade ago," he writes in a commentary." (from www.abc.net.au) And then another person (Matthew Carrano) on dailytimes.com says the same basic thing. You can also try national geographic, newscientist.com, and several other sites. No, it is not the only evidence of mammals of that time period. But it is about the most complex. Prior to this one, evidently, scientists only found evidence of small, shrew-like mammals.

 

[LogicChristian]

How do you own personal definition of species, because clearly its not the way actual biologists define it.

I'd like to second that. What is your definition of species missliz?