What would convince you of evolution?

[LogicChristian]

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.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Silent Bob]

""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."

Emphasis mine. He doesn't talk about mammals he talks about their diversity and early evolutionary history. We thought it was less complex, it isn't. We were wrong, this is how science works.

I am amazed nobody mentioned the fact that a scientific theory never becomes a fact. In science theories are what we use to explain the facts, facts by themselves are pretty useless.

 

[TheInstant]

Professor Thomas Martin 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,

This mammal wasn't supposed to have been around yet...until that discovery, it was considered far too complex to have been around.

Okay, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought when you said it wasn't "supposed to have been around yet" you were implying that the discovery went against evolutionary theory. If all you were saying is that it was more complex than the other discovered mammal fossils of that time period, then I don't disagree. I am curious, however, as to why you brought it up if it wasn't an argument against evolution? The fact that we haven't found fossils of all the organisms that existed and probably never will does not invalidate the fossils we have found.

 

[miss_liz]

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

Well, as far as I know, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and have very similar DNA. I know it has something to do with family, kingdom, phyla, class, order...can't think of the rest now. I think species is on the bottom...

 

[miss_liz]

Okay, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought when you said it wasn't "supposed to have been around yet" you were implying that the discovery went against evolutionary theory. If all you were saying is that it was more complex than the other discovered mammal fossils of that time period, then I don't disagree. I am curious, however, as to why you brought it up if it wasn't an argument against evolution? The fact that we haven't found fossils of all the organisms that existed and probably never will does not invalidate the fossils we have found.

Maybe it doesn't necessarily invalidate the fossils we have already found. But it will continue to 'shed light' on the problems with evolution. We, obviously, have not found all of the fossils. What happens if we continually find fossils too complex for their time? Then evolution of species (according to scientists) continually has to change in order to accomodate these new fossils.

Emphasis mine. He doesn't talk about mammals he talks about their diversity and early evolutionary history. We thought it was less complex, it isn't. We were wrong, this is how science works.

I am amazed nobody mentioned the fact that a scientific theory never becomes a fact. In science theories are what we use to explain the facts, facts by themselves are pretty useless.

Ok, this is sorta off topic, but....what is the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Teachers don't bother making a distinction.
That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.

 

[TheInstant]

Maybe it doesn't necessarily invalidate the fossils we have already found. But it will continue to 'shed light' on the problems with evolution. We, obviously, have not found all of the fossils. What happens if we continually find fossils too complex for their time? Then evolution of species (according to scientists) continually has to change in order to accomodate these new fossils.

Hmmm....maybe I didn't misunderstand what you said earlier.

The quote you provided is saying that this species of mammal is more complex than what was initially thought. It is not saying that it is "too complex" for its time period. I don't see how the discovery of this fossil is a problem for evolution

Ok, this is sorta off topic, but....what is the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Teachers don't bother making a distinction.

Here's a quick summary: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Are you sure your science teachers have never explained the basics of science? You must have had some pretty inept teachers.

That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.

Then it seems that you have a problem not with evolution but with science itself.

A scientific theory is not absolute. If new evidence arises the theory can change. If evidence arises that disproves the theory, it will be discarded. It is beyond me how anyone can consider this to be anything but a good thing.

 

[Nightson]

Well, as far as I know, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and have very similar DNA. I know it has something to do with family, kingdom, phyla, class, order...can't think of the rest now. I think species is on the bottom...

Yes it is. Here's some info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification

 

[Hydra009]

That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.

This is hardly a sign of weakness - that's exactly how science is supposed to work: new data is taken into account and scientific theories are constantly being refined to a greater and greater degree of accuracy and level of detail.

Gravity is hardly suspect from Einstein's addition to Newton's work.

Neither is Darwinian evolution suspect from Mendelev's contributions - in fact, that's made it a much stronger scientific theory.

On the other hand, what's reeeaaally suspicious is when a notion about nature doesn't change due to new data but is instead held dogmatically, despite the evidence. *ahemyecahem*

 

[Nightson]

Ok, this is sorta off topic, but....what is the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Teachers don't bother making a distinction.

Not off-topic at all. Let your questions roam.

Scientific theory:
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

Examples: Theory of Evolution, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Germ Diesease

Scienitifc law:
A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. However, there are no strict guidelines as to how or when a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific law.

Examples: General law of gravitation - Gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.

Coulomb's law - Force between any two charges is equal to the absolute value of the multiple of the charges divided by 4 pi times the vacuum permittivity times the distance squared between the two charges

That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.

That's the way science works, when new evidence comes to light, it changes. That's its strength, it insures it's always in line with the evidence. Now there's things that if found would be contrary to the Theory of Evolution (like a modern rabbit in the precabrian), but nothing which falsifies the Theory of Evolution has ever been found. If you want I can list some things that would falsify the ToE.

 

[vossler]

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"

I don't which YECs you asked that of, but none of the ones I know would respond like that. If God personally revealed the ToE to me as His chosen way of bringing about life as we know it, well what kind of faith would I have if I told the Creator of the universe that I didn't like His answer?

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.

False. The Bible isn't always literal; Genesis however is.

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

True.

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.

True.

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

True.

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.

True.

If one desires to 'convert' a YEC over to evolutionary theory, then the starting point is not moutains of evidence regarding the theory itself...

True.

 

[chaoschristian]

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

Holy Blurry Vision Batman! You are correct. I misread your post. My apologies.

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.

Wow! You sound just like a YEC! Like I said, to understand the point I was making you had to keep it in perspective - a Christian perspective.

My experience has taught me that very rarely does overwhelming evidence convert the YEC. That's because it's first a theological issue and then a scientific issue.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

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.

No, the above is demonstrably untrue. There is nothing in the idea of Jesus' dying for sinful mankind that requires a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[chaoschristian]

I don't which YECs you asked that of, but none of the ones I know would respond like that. If God personally revealed the ToE to me as His chosen way of bringing about life as we know it, well what kind of faith would I have if I told the Creator of the universe that I didn't like His answer?

Vossler, you are one of the rare exceptions that I've encountered thus far.

 

[vossler]

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 story to be true if they are to be so greatly acclaimed.

I meant to comment on this earlier. You hit the nail right on the head with this observation.

My experience has taught me that very rarely does overwhelming evidence convert the YEC. That's because it's first a theological issue and then a scientific issue.

Very true!

Vossler, you are one of the rare exceptions that I've encountered thus far.

I'm not nearly as rare as you make me out to be.

 

[Mocca]

Jesus was punished for Adam and Eve's sins? Doesn't Mosaic law state that children are not to be punished for the sins of their fathers?

 

[Nightson]

Literal interpetation: Jesus died for the actual sin comitted by Adam, begging the question of why the heck we're being punished for Adam's actions.

Metaphorical interpetation: Adam, which means man, is simply a representative of the whole human race, not an actual person. As such his sin, is not a actual action, but a way of communicating that humans by their very nature are fallen beings.

 

[Lilandra]

cookies!? Everybody loves cookies.

Ahhhmmm...num..num...!!!


cookie monster in rehab.​

a)I am wondering what it would take for some of the more 'anti-evolution' creationists here to be convinced of evolution.

 

[Mocca]

COOKEYS!

(yes, they're spelled like that.)

 

[t_w]

That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.

This is not true at all. The fossils you have mentioned don't contradict the ToE, nor have any genuine fossils that have been found. The principle, or law, of natural selection working on random mutations could still have produced that beaver/otter you mentioned. Besides, the fact that any different fossils being found may cause the ToE to be changed and improved is a great thing, the cornerstone of all science. I don't think you understand how science works - scientists try very, very hard to falsify evolution. By failing, they make the theory stronger. By failing for 150 years, they make the theory undeniable fact - or a notion as befitting of a fact that we can conceive of, on a parallel with gravity, or 'the earth is round'.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Hey now! Some of us know know that the belief/faith card is more crucial to this debate with hard core YECs than the evidence card - if only for the reason that far too often, the YECs ignore any evidence presented them.

I see how hard the TEs have to work in the OT forum on that part of the issue, I can imagine how much more important it is here in the open forum where YECs can feel as if they're faith is being attacked by non-Christians.