What's enough evidence?

[Matthew777]

Creationists, what would you consider enough evidence for you to accept evolution? Basically, tell us what you think would convince you. What one or multiple pieces of evidence it would take?

I would accept universal common ancestry if a case were presented that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, one should also prove that Genesis was not written to be treated as a historical account of the Creation.

 

[TrueCreation]

I do believe that the scientific theory for the origins, does indeed relate to science. Would you mind clarifing your point?

The question "what evidence or multiple pieces of evidence would convince you that evolution happened" is a question that deals with reasons for belief or acceptance as true. It is not the business of scientists as scientists to believe hypotheses. Scientists only establish plausibility of extant hypotheses based on extant data. Your question could be better phrased as:

What evidence or multiple pieces of evidence would convince you that evolution is currently the best scientific explanation?

-Chris Grose

 

[lttben]

If you can prove to me that an irreducibly complex system such as the clotting of blood, the cell, the cilium, or the flagellum can be reduced, then I would consider evolution as something to think about more deeply. until then, I can never believe that everything in existence came from simple, random processes and mutations / mistakes over long periods of time.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you can prove to me that an irreducibly complex system such as the clotting of blood, the cell, the cilium, or the flagellum can be reduced, then I would consider evolution as something to think about more deeply. until then, I can never believe that everything in existence came from simple, random processes and mutations / mistakes over long periods of time.

Your first problem is that everything came from a simple selection process that is not random. Evolution includes both random mutations AND natural selection. For instance, when you break a large rock with a sledgehammer the size of the pebbles is random. If you then sift those pebbles through a sieve is it a miracle that the small pebbles end up on the ground and the large pebbles stay on top of the sieve? No. For the same reason, mutations that increase complexity will be selected for if complexity adds to the fitness of the species. This continual process will result in complex organisms.

Secondly, the flagellum can be reduced. Parts of the flagellum are used in the type III secretory system. Also, no one has ever been able to show that the flagellum has always been irreducible. It is a simple matter of removing redundant systems to make a system irreducible. Evolution is capable of doing this. Therefore, before you state that evolution is incapable of producing an IC system you must show that the system has always been IC.

 

[lttben]

Your first problem is that everything came from a simple selection process that is not random.

I don't understand your point. please rephrase this so I can better understand. what is a simple selection process? what does that mean? if it is not an intelligent selection process, then doesn't that by default make it random?

Evolution includes both random mutations AND natural selection. For instance, when you break a large rock with a sledgehammer the size of the pebbles is random. If you then sift those pebbles through a sieve is it a miracle that the small pebbles end up on the ground and the large pebbles stay on top of the sieve? No. For the same reason, mutations that increase complexity will be selected for if complexity adds to the fitness of the species. This continual process will result in complex organisms.

I understand what you are trying to say, but it doesn't help you in any way as far as I can see..... of course it is no miracle if you implement an intelligent system which consists of multiple parts: me hitting the rock with a sledgehammer, using a screen with precisely placed wires in the form of a net to sift through pre-determined sizes of pebbles (based on the size of each hole in the screen). In evolution, where do these additional, unbelieveably complex systems (me, the sledgehammer, the screen, the sizes of the holes, etc) come into play so that this entire thing is even possible? your illustration does not support your theory.... maybe i'm wrong, but I think you should use a different illustration because it doesn't line up with your point.

(I mean no offense in my comments. I am quite sure you are not an ignorant person. I just want to make sure that our points are logical.)

Secondly, the flagellum can be reduced.

I'm not sure what you mean here... I know that flagellum can be reduced, but can it be reduced and still be able to function as something that gives a cell mobility? (that was my point in the previous post) The answer is no. Every "mechanical" part of the flagellum is necessary for it to produce movement. Not only are the components necessary, but the strength, size, and material they consist of are all in a delicate balance. Here is an illustration to prove my point:

A mouse trap has been invented to do just that... trap mice. it is made up of essentially 6 parts: the platform (usually wood), the hammer, the spring (to animate the hammer), the catch, and the holding bar (to keep the hammer from prematurely closing), and some staples to keep it all fastened in such a way for this contraption to operate correctly and effectively.

[As a side note, we all know that this is not the only way to catch mice, so you cannot say that the mouse trap described here evolved from a peice of paper with glue on it (something also very effective that traps mice)]

consider what makes a system irreducibly complex: we must ask ourselves if all the components in the system are required for the function. Here, we must say "yes". if the wooden base was gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. if the hammer was gone, the mouse could jump all over the platform without being pinned to it. if there wasn't a spring, the hammer and the platform would jangle loosely and pose as no threat to the mouse. if there wasn't a catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it.

now let's go a step further. what if the base was made of flimsy, 20lb copy-paper? or the hammer was bigger than the platform? or the spring was made from wire as thin as hair? or the catch or metal holding bar was too thick? The contraption would collapse, the hammer wouldn't fit, the spring would be too weak to animate the hammer, and the catch or holding bar would be too strong in order for the mouse's slight movements to activate the trap... which brings us back to the function of the trap... to trap the mouse. ultimately the system is irreducibly complex based on these things... you can't take anything away, and you can't change the strength, size, or type of material.

Parts of the flagellum are used in the type III secretory system.

I guess I could say that "the same type of wire used in car stereos is also used in MRI machines" it really doesn't prove your point.

Individual parts of flagella (the different moving and interacting parts that are working together to make it functional) surely can be used elsewhere, but it definitely does not prove that these individual parts by themselves could do the job that an assembled flagellum can: which is, to spin and thereby create movement for a cell. (again, take into account that each individual part has to be in it's correct place, and also have a certain amount of strength, size, and be a certain type of material in order to function effectively, otherwise, by natural selection, it would be tossed aside and viewed as something un-useful)

Also, no one has ever been able to show that the flagellum has always been irreducible.

again, you aren't very clear in your statement, so let me go by what I assume you are trying to say:

I think you are suggesting that today's microbiologists are unable to prove that the flagellum is irreducible.... am I right? if so, I guess what you are saying is that they don't really know what it is made up of... what makes it work.... (still talking about the flagellum that propells a cell by spinning ) etc. We all know this is not true. find any science book and it will describe in detail how the flagellum functions. this assumes that they have observed and re-observed how it works before they would authoritatively publish it in a science book.

It is a simple matter of removing redundant systems to make a system irreducible. Evolution is capable of doing this.

hmmm... I didn't realize that the flagellum was a simple system... there are no parts of it's system that can be removed. there are no redundant parts to a flagellum I am referring to. you can remove parts of it and it will cease to function correctly... again like I said... the flagellum, like any other system with a specific function, must have a certain amount of strength, size, and be a certain type of material in order to carry out that process effectively, otherwise, by your process of natural selection, it would be tossed aside and viewed as something un-useful.

Therefore, before you state that evolution is incapable of producing an IC system you must show that the system has always been IC.

i guess I have already proven that evolution cannot produce an irreducibly complex system.. in fact, just like the functioning flagellum, I have yet to find a machine even as simple as a mouse trap that simultaneously and miraculously came together as a fully functional system without some outside influence or well-planned thought behind the manufacturing of it.

science has advanced to the point where evolutionists should be able to say exactly how a complex system has evolved from a less complex system(which, by the way, goes against the second law of thermodynamics).

I know this isn't all that evolutionists believe, but if they can't prove half of their theory, will adding another facet to the theory somehow make it plausible as a whole?

 

[MartinM]

which, by the way, goes against the second law of thermodynamics

Nonsense. If you wish to discuss physics, learn something about it first.

 

[f U z ! o N]

This is a hypothetical that will never come about. God told us in the Bible that He created the universe and mankind directly, without evolution. This is why evolution will never be "proven" and will always remain mere theory.

how many times do we have to keep telling you and your closed mind that it's not stated in the bible that He directly created us. you are assuming that.

 

[notto]

i guess I have already proven that evolution cannot produce an irreducibly complex system..

Evolution of irreducible complexity in corals.

http://www.nmsr.org/coral_ic.htm

 

[Calminian]

This question has nothing to do with science.

-Chris Grose

Hi Chris. I'm not sure where you stand in this debate but I think I agree with you. I'm not a scientist but I've recently come to understand this as primarily a philosophical/theological debate about presuppositions. This doesn't mean I'm not interested in proof, I just don't think scientific investigation is going to bring much light. Once you start factoring in miracles into the origins equation it kind of becomes like a multi-combination shot in pool. You miscalculate one little angle and the shot misses by a mile. If fact the final few balls don't even get hit. I suppose you'd have to be pool player to understand that analogy.

 

[random_guy]

science has advanced to the point where evolutionists should be able to say exactly how a complex system has evolved from a less complex system(which, by the way, goes against the second law of thermodynamics).

http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=346

PS: How in the world do humans come from a single cell? It goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That's why Storkism is the only true theory of human birth.
PSS: Why do we call it the Law of Gravity when it incorrectly models Mercury's orbit?

 

[corvus_corax]

I would accept universal common ancestry if a case were presented that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, one should also prove that Genesis was not written to be treated as a historical account of the Creation.

"beyond a reasonable doubt"
Interesting turn of phrase
1 of 3 possibilities jumps to mind
1- You have never sat on a jury
2- You have sat on a jury but voted your gut instinct
or
3- You dont trust peer review
I have sat on 6 juries.

In every single one, the defendant was "clearly" guilty.
Every single time I initially voted Not Guilty.
It was like 12 Angry Men, except nobody was angry (except the one smoker who wanted to get out for a cigarette), and it wasnt just men, and they werent murder trials, and the ending was different

I voted Not Guilty because (and this is important, so read carefully) I realized that gut reactions are not "peer review" and gut reactions are not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In two cases, I pulled aside every jury member individually to have them quote to me the specific piece of evidence that was in question.
Individually.
Just me and them, with no one to influence them or color their memories of the trial.
Only after the majority of them recited the piece of evidence in question to my satisfaction did I vote Guilty (this went on for three days at one point regarding a burglary charge).

Yes, I wanted out. I wanted to go home. But I was NOT going to send a man (or woman) to jail based on my gut reactions or my personal memories (as fallible as memories can be) of the trial.

I wanted.....I NEEDED peer review to vote Guilty.

Now, Im sure that some people (those who didnt sit on the jury), felt that some of these defendants were Not Guilty, and ranted and raved about the "injustice" of the system. Im sure they talked about how "wrong" we were, about how we didnt know what we were talking about.

Much like Creationists.

To these types of people, Peer Review is not needed. They have a foregone conclusion and they STICK TO IT. They may demand "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt, but they dont want to look at the evidence, they dont want to review the evidence among a council of peers, they dont want to examine what the evidence ACTUALLY says, and they sure as heck dont want to stand out and say "Hey, all you guys (creationists) may be wrong...let's examine this a bit better"

Now dont get me wrong. Im not saying the systems (jury peer review or scientific peer review) are perfect and infallible.
I AM saying that, approached with the correct attitude, they can lead us to the correct conclusions based on the evidence.

Now, the difference between creationists and "evolutionists", regarding peer review and "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the following-
Creationists pat each other on the back for the most part. "Goddidit" rocks. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" isnt even a consideration when it comes to the actual evidence.
"Evolutionists" (as many scientists are referred to) on the other hand would just LOVE to be able to tear an accepted theory apart and empirically demonstrate it to be wrong. Nobel prizes await such maverics.

Creationists cling to "goddidit", while "evolutionsists" try to find ANY scientific theory that will upset the current pardigm.

That they have yet to find a more satisfactory answer than evolution should speak volumes.

Matthew777, "Beyond a reasonable doubt" has already been established.

So I guess you are now ready to accept evolutionary theory, yes?


Of course, I dont expect such intellectual honesty from most people, so I guess you'll just cling to your 'goddidit' theory, not peer reviewed, and not established "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Thus you find yourself caught within the net of your own argument


Have fun with that

 

[lttben]

Nonsense. If you wish to discuss physics, learn something about it first.

sharp comments like this could be rephrased so as not to insult people. if you want to say something, please support what you say with evidence. I don't claim to know everything about science and it's various areas of specific study... although it's interesting that you did not attempt to say anything about the rest of my comments in my previous post. It was quite long, so there is much to be mentioned about it.

If you don't mind, please elaborate on the second law of thermodynamics and how it is a part of physics... since it appears you know considerably more than I do about it... (which is probably true!)

 

[notto]

If you don't mind, please elaborate on the second law of thermodynamics and how it is a part of physics... since it appears you know considerably more than I do about it... (which is probably true!)

The second law of thermodynamics is not a philosophy or an abstract idea. It is a relationship between heat/energy/matter that can be mathematically modeled. It has nothing to do with 'complexity' of 'systems' but physical mechanisms themselves.

In order to say that evolution violates this law, a physical mechanism that is used within the theory of evolution would need to be shown that violates this law. Since all of the physical mechanisms that the theory of evolution uses in its explanation of the diversity of life can be observed directly (namely mutation), stating that the theory itself violates the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect. Please don't repeat the falsehood (and correct whoever tells you this the next time they do).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

 

[lttben]

PS: How in the world do humans come from a single cell? It goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

my response is going to be simple, so therefore it may not be an adequate answer to your question.... but here goes....

first of all, I don't think it goes against it. the information and the complexity is already in the cell of a human (it's actually a sperm and an egg uniting... not just any old cell in a human. you can't make a baby with the cell of a fingernail! haha!) therefore, it is a process of something with initial complexity, with design and planning (because it's all programmed into the cell what to do through DNA) becoming what was designed and planned.

I know I'm botching this because I don't know the technical terms and so forth... but please try to understand my point and ignore my ignorance of terms. I don't personally know anything about conception and re-production, but I know that the entire process from start to finish can be observed as it happens: the cells splitting, changing, etc and ultimately becoming a baby person. I saw it in a health video one time! amazing!! I would say that the timing for the splits, transformations, etc, which are extremely complex to start with, are all built into the initial cell's DNA like I mentioned above... it is critical that each step in this process is perfectly timed and perfectly done or else you will end of with problems in the child.

I guess I want to know where the cell came from... and how is it so complex that it would be able to do this "miraculous" thing, and do it consistently well!?

also, the law of entropy states that things within a closed system always go from a state of order to disorder. that's how I remember learning it in school... these crazy school systems! teaching us crazy things!

That's why Storkism is the only true theory of human birth.

I thought that was pretty funny! haha

PSS: Why do we call it the Law of Gravity when it incorrectly models Mercury's orbit?

within a certain closed system (such as the earth), gravity is a law! we can calculate how fast an object will accellerate as it drops to the earth... it's funny cause the accelleration occurs at the same rate every single time... given, of course, that the temperature, wind-speed, altitude from which you are dropping it, etc are all the same. gravity, once we find out what the rate of accelleration is, is something calculable (sp?) on any planet, as far as I know and have learned in school... does anybody remember the formula? haha. i was trying to remember... i'm gonna go look it up on Google
-------
one more thing... I want to let everyone know that I agree that evolution occurs... but not Darwinian Evolution. there are certain things built into plants, animals, humans, etc that allow them to adapt to their surroundings. we can inter-breed dogs, cats, etc and get totally new types of dogs and cats.. this is an example of evolution that I agree with. Or that there are less and less people with red hair... or so i'm told! but this again is an example of evolution that I agree with.

My problem with Darwinian Evolution is that it seems quite improbable, (and currently not proven possible to the full extent described by darwinian evolutionists) that everything living would have come about in a haphazard (sp?) and random way. If you respond and say "It wasn't random" then what you are suggesting is that there must have been a plan or some set guidelines through which evolution has happened up until this point... which also suggests that there was some intelligent orchestrator, which, apart from the theistic evolutionists, darwinian evolutionists don't readily believe to be true...

I also understand and agree with natural selection: seen happening when weak or diseased animals within a herd are pushed away and left to die. or when people try to bring out a certain feature in an animal by cross-breeding them within their own species. (felines with felines or canines with canines etc). or when the environment changes and causes certain species of animals or plants to die because they cannot live there...

Lastly, I understand that certain amazing things can happen in "non-living" substances such as minerals forming into beautiful, multi-faceted, sometimes symmetrical crystals... and snowflakes forming into amazing, symmetrical masterpeices around a peice of dust before they hit the ground. etc. but these things do not prove Darwinian Evolution to be true. these things are both scientifically reproducible, or should I say, you can observe them and every time, the same basic things happen. by the way, I know that every snowflake is different and the same goes for crystals, but what i'm trying to say is that you never find a snowflake that suddenly becomes an apple or starts to take on the properties of one! :]

i'm sure this post is going to be picked apart thoroughly, so i'm gonna stop there to see what happens! please be gentle! haha

 

[notto]

I don't personally know anything about conception and re-production, but I know that the entire process from start to finish can be observed as it happens: the cells splitting, changing, etc and ultimately becoming a baby person.

All of the physical mechanisms involved with the theory of evolution can be observed as they happen as well. You can only apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics to physical mechanisms. If we can observe these physical mechanisms, we can conclude that they don't violate the second law.

 

[random_guy]

also, the law of entropy states that things within a closed system always go from a state of order to disorder. that's how I remember learning it in school... these crazy school systems! teaching us crazy things!

This is why evolution doesn't violate the 2nd LoTD. The Earth is not a closed system. The Earth receives energy from the Sun.

Take an example of a cell. If we cut a cell off of all energy sources, it will eventually degrade. However, since the cell is supplied glucose and other stuff from the blood, it can continue to maintain order. Entropy increases in the system, but the cell maintains the order.

The 2nd LoTD contains a lot of comples math stuff. Anyone who tells you Evolution violates the 2nd LoTD is ignorant or is lying to you. Next time someone tells you that, ask them to show the formulas explaining why that's true. If they can't reply, chances are they can't back it up.

within a certain closed system (such as the earth), gravity is a law! we can calculate how fast an object will accellerate as it drops to the earth... it's funny cause the accelleration occurs at the same rate every single time... given, of course, that the temperature, wind-speed, altitude from which you are dropping it, etc are all the same. gravity, once we find out what the rate of accelleration is, is something calculable (sp?) on any planet, as far as I know and have learned in school... does anybody remember the formula? haha. i was trying to remember... i'm gonna go look it up on Google

Not just a closed system, but the LoG should work in any case. However, if it can correctly model the Earth's orbit, why shouldn't also correctly model Mercury's orbit? What's going on here? I'm not lying to you, but I wanted to point out that Laws in science are just math formulas to describe what we see. They are not 100% correct. There is no such thing as a Law being bettter than a Theory, nor do Theories get promoted to Laws.

If you want to learn more about why the LoG fails, check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Problems_with_Newton.27s_theory. It's really neat.

This is why I have trust in scientists. They constantly fight each other, trying to prove each other wrong so they have the new theory on the block. Evolution hasn't been falsified after 100 years, and it's currently the best theory there is explaining the origins of life.

 

[lttben]

Since all of the physical mechanisms that the theory of evolution uses in its explanation of the diversity of life can be observed directly (namely mutation), stating that the theory itself violates the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect.

isn't a mutation just a re-arrangement or removal of certain information found in DNA? just curious... if i'm wrong, tell me (as I'm sure someone will, but not necessarily with good reason)

just as a reminder though, back up your replies with logic... something from nothing just doesn't make sense logically when an intelligent designer or orchestrator is taken out of the picture like it is in darwinian evolution.

also remember that we're talking on the level of microbiology where now we can see everything in detail and know how all of it works in a limited sense. So simply put: in your response, don't try to brush over the gorey details for our sakes... if the details exist, why not use them? if explained properly, we should be able to comprehend them.

 

[notto]

isn't a mutation just a re-arrangement or removal of certain information found in DNA? just curious... if i'm wrong, tell me (as I'm sure someone will, but not necessarily with good reason)

Mutations can take the form of insertions, deletions, substitutions, and shifts. They are not limited to re-arrangement or removal.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC3aTypes.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#types

These are all observed and this mechanism does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

This has nothing to do with 'something from nothing' as evolution never proposes such an idea. Evolution explains the diversity and change of life on this planet. Nothing more, nothing less. It does this through explaining the evidence we find (life in the past was much different than life today and there are genetic and physical relationships within this life that can be seen in DNA and the fossil record) by applying observable and testable mechanisms (natural selection and mutation).

 

[lttben]

Mutations can take the form of insertions, deletions, substitutions, and shifts. They are not limited to re-arrangement or removal.

I went to the websites that you posted previously and did some reading. "Insertions and Substitutions" were the two things that I forgot about in my original post when I commented on the Darwinian Evolutionary process. I agree with "evolution" in the sense that existing components are able to to be shifted / inserted / delete / substituted thereby changing DNA slightly.... this is just science. But it wasn't my point to discuss testable, logical things such this.



My point was that without intelligence behind the mutations, you can never start with something simple and inadequate, and end up with something completely different and more adequate... this is what Darwinian Evolution suggests.



Actually, your website described mutations as generally un-useful. It's descriptions of frame shifts, and substitutions openly said that these were harmful or detrimental to the cell or DNA being mutated. The descriptions for Insertions and deletions didn't mention any negative effects of the change, although I can't imagine how deletions can be good for a cell or a DNA molecule since they would cause the unit to have less information contained within it.

This has nothing to do with 'something from nothing' as evolution never proposes such an idea.

I guess my point is that if you hold true to Darwinian Evolution, you must believe that everything here in existence came from nothing.. (going against the 1st law of thermodynamics) and that almost nothing (the protazoa) could become everything we see now. If this happened through mutation, I am just saying that you can only mutate cells by adding something from an outside source (which takes a scientist and a lab and perfect conditions for it to be successful), taking the existing components of the cell and re-arranging them, it seems quite unlikely that this could have happened without the aforementioned environment.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess my point is that if you hold true to Darwinian Evolution, you must believe that everything here in existence came from nothing.. (going against the 1st law of thermodynamics) and that almost nothing (the protazoa) could become everything we see now. If this happened through mutation, I am just saying that you can only mutate cells by adding something from an outside source (which takes a scientist and a lab and perfect conditions for it to be successful), taking the existing components of the cell and re-arranging them, it seems quite unlikely that this could have happened without the aforementioned environment.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe nor the origin of life. You will notice that Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species", not "On the Origin of the Universe." Evolution starts with the first life and explains how that first life diversified into the species we see today.

Abiogenesis describes how life arose from simple chemicals that were already in existence. This does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe started out as a small singularity that contained all of the energy present in the Universe today. This energy condensed into the matter we see today.

Just as a question, how did you go from being one cell to a large, multicellular mammal? Did this require things "from the outside"?

So your point is really inconsequential to the whole conversation.