Where Faith Comes From in the "moderate" Christian religions

how is evolution established if not by experimentation?

By comparison of predictions with observations, just like everything else.

The only established fact that I see from this example is that there was an animal which use to live which apparently is hard to find living now."Some animals are extinct. Therefore Evolution took place" has always seemed to me a shaky assumption.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Of course, that assumption would be completely unfounded. Are you under the impression that anyone was making such an assumption?

I think he's got it down wrong- if anything it's the opposite- we have animals now that didn't exist then. Of course, thus isn't the entire ToE, just an observationIf anything, you are talking about natural selection, only one part of the ToE.Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

Which supports the proposition that they are extinct.My point is that there is no conceivable experiment that would bear on this proposition, only observation. And, moreover, not one that anyone has ever made.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I find it hard to believe that one can accept that the TOE is established based purely on observationsounds more like a wild stretch of the imagination rather then solid scientific investigationOne question i have with regard to that...if evolution is accepted so easily, why is it so objectionable to accept a creator?If neither can be proved with scientific investigation, why is one theory accepted and the other not?

Peg writes:

quote:

---

if evolution is accepted so easily, why is it so objectionable to accept a creator?

---

What on earth makes you think it is "objectionable" to evolution that there is a god?The official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have for the diversification of life we have. Are you saying that Pope doesn't believe in god?Note: I'm not saying you need to accept Catholic doctrine. I am simply asking if you think the Pope doesn't believe in god simply because he also advocates for evolution.

quote:

---

If neither can be proved with scientific investigation

---

Huh? What do you mean "neither"? Evolution has been shown. Directly. You can do it yourself in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost a lot, doesn't take a lot of time, and is simple enough that a high school student can do it.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.We have seen evolutionary change from the smallest shifts to new species, genera, even orders and families, all right in front of our eyes.Why are you demanding that we lie about this?Simple question: What would it take for you to say that evolution has been shown? What experiment would have to be run and what outcome would it have to have in order for you to conclude that it was evolution?Be specific.And then tell us why you think what you are demanding hasn't been done. Note: Just because you are unaware of the experiment having been done doesn't mean it hasn't. When was the last time you were in a science library reading the literature to look for this information? If you aren't looking for the answers to your questions, is anybody surprised that you haven't found it?When are you going to do your homework?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Whereas scientists do not share your difficulty.This is because they know about science and you don't. No, that is not what it sounds like. Observation is the opposite of imagination. Because not only can evolution be proved, but fiat creationism can be disproved. By reference to the same evidence.Your question is like asking: "If the proposition that two plus two is four is accepted so easily, why is it so objectionable to accept that two plus two equals five?"Because the two propositions are mutually exclusive, that's why. You have a false premise there. Evolution has been proven by scientific investigation.And that is why it is accepted by scientists who have tossed fiat creationism into the trash basket of failed ideas.

he might believe in God, but if he believes that evolution caused the great variety of life on earth, then can it be said that he believes the bible?
Did he miss Genesis Chpt 1 in theology school? the bacteria may behave that way, but it does not explain all life on earth. It simply shows how flexible these germs are and surely explains why they survive where nothing else can. I would need to see one species produce a completely different species. I would need to see life spring from the ground with not intervention required.

you can't observe evolution happening...apparently it happens over hundreds of thousands if not, millions of years. So, apart from Rrhains bacteria, how are you 'observing' evolution? so are you saying that evolution disproves a creator? (because many here have said evolution in no way attempts to do such a thing) but not all scientists have ditched creation...many here claim to believe in God. And science does not always need direct observation (evolution) to believe something exists. Aastronomers have detected a number of planets orbiting distant stars. They havnt seen them, but they see how their gravity perturbs the motion of parent stars, hence they know they must exist...black holes being another example.If related evidence and not direct observation is an adequate basis for scientists to accept what is invisible, why is that consideration not given to those who believe in a Creator. Afterall, they use a similar basis for accepting what they cannotsee.

quote:

---

you can't observe evolution happening...apparently it happens over hundreds of thousands if not, millions of years. So, apart from Rrhains bacteria, how are you 'observing' evolution?

---

Since you know that indirect observation is used in science what makes you think that direct observation isn't used ?

quote:

---

so are you saying that evolution disproves a creator?

---

No, he's saying that the evidence that supports evolution is evidence against fiat creation.

quote:

---

If related evidence and not direct observation is an adequate basis for scientists to accept what is invisible, why is that consideration not given to those who believe in a Creator. Afterall, they use a similar basis for accepting what they cannot see.

---

It would be - if they could live up to that standard. But they can't.

Thus proving that Christianity and biblolatry are two different things. It is more likely that in theology school they taught him how to reconcile Genesis with reality.Hey look, we briefly got back on topic!--- No-one claimed that the behavior of bacteria explains all life on earth. To see it personally? Or would you settle for observations made by others? We call 'em plants. Green things, you must have noticed them.

I've asked what direct observations are used and the only answer so far is from Rrhain who says that because bacteria has the ability to change and adapt, it proves evolutionwell, we are not bacteria are we?Or am i to believe bacteria is our common ancestor???

I didn't say we did. I said we observed evidence for evolution. Just as, for example, forensic scientists can prove that a man died from being shot without observing him being shot. No, of course not. Creationism can be judged on the same evidential standards as evolutionary biology. Indeed, it can be judged by reference to the same evidence. The difference is that the evidence is against creationism. That's how we know its rubbish.By analogy, your question is like a guilty man complaining that he did not get the "same consideration" as a man found innocent by the same court. But they were both judged by the same standards --- the difference is that the guilty man was actually guilty. This is, of course, not even remotely true.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.