Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-25-2017 12:39 AM
367 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 822,964 Year: 27,570/21,208 Month: 1,483/1,714 Week: 326/365 Day: 3/50 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Engineer
Member (Idle past 3110 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 46 of 106 (498981)
02-15-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
02-15-2009 7:54 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
quote:
So what do you think is the best evidence FOR evolution?

speciation. It possibly resolves some of the dilemmas of the ark. So I ask how the new world apes got to the ark from south america, but the theory of evolution is challenged with the same problem.

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 7:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 8:51 PM Engineer has not yet responded
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 9:21 PM Engineer has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 10:48 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 47 of 106 (498982)
02-15-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Engineer
02-15-2009 8:18 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
speciation.

Yes, speciation is a key element for the formation of nested hierarchies, which then become the tree of life. All branches, even of major phyla, are initially just speciation events, with the diversity of life now seen being due to continued\continuous evolution within populations. After speciation there is no restriction for daughter species to remain similar, and thus we see increased difference over generations after speciation as daughter populations continue to evolve to suit their ecologies.

Speciation is also an observed phenomena, a documented fact, in modern life. All one needs to do is google

. observed speciation events . . . .

to see many examples documented. AiG even agrees that speciation has been observed, the evidence that this is an observed fact is so overwhelming that even paid\hired deniers cannot deny it.

It possibly resolves some of the dilemmas of the ark.

Curiously this topic is not about creationism or what various interpretations of the bible involve, but purely about the evidence FOR evolution.

... but the theory of evolution is challenged with the same problem.

Nor is this a thread for discussion of the evidence, or of perceived challenges to the theory. Perhaps you would like to start a topic on this.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : format


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 8:18 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 48 of 106 (498986)
02-15-2009 9:00 PM


Better Site for Problems with Evolution Discussion
See Too Many Flaws with Evolution


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 49 of 106 (498990)
02-15-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Engineer
02-15-2009 8:18 PM


more answer here
... but the theory of evolution is challenged with the same problem.

See Message 67 to discuss.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 8:18 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 50 of 106 (498999)
02-15-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Engineer
02-15-2009 8:18 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
So I ask how the new world apes got to the ark from south america, but the theory of evolution is challenged with the same problem.

The evolutionist answer would be that monkeys didn't get to the Ark from South America.

Yes, OK, I know what you mean. There seem to be two possibilities, and as yet insufficient fossil evidence to tell which is the better. Small primates don't fossilize much, alas.

---

This thread is going all over the place, isn't it? Let's get back on topic. Someone mentioned human chromosome 2. You can read about it here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 8:18 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 51 of 106 (499604)
02-19-2009 11:48 AM


one evidence
It has been said already that ONE single evidence can not sum evolution all up and constitute a powerful, undisputable and ultimate "proof" of the validity of the theory of evolution, "proof" that is repeatedly demanded by creationists who threat not to keep the viewpoints trade going if their demand is not fully and quickly satisfied at once... By the way, i have understood there is no such thing as "proof" in science.

But one very interesting evidence is the nylon eating bacteria.

Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:07 PM olivortex has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 02-19-2009 1:46 PM olivortex has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 52 of 106 (499624)
02-19-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by olivortex
02-19-2009 11:48 AM


Re: one evidence
By the way, i have understood there is no such thing as "proof" in science.

People do say that, but it's a piece of philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

In plain non-philosophical language, there's plenty of proof in science. In the idiotic language of philosophers, I can't "prove" that I have two legs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by olivortex, posted 02-19-2009 11:48 AM olivortex has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2009 1:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 53 of 106 (499625)
02-19-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2009 1:07 PM


Re: one evidence
By the way, i have understood there is no such thing as "proof" in science.

People do say that, but it's a piece of philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

In plain non-philosophical language, there's plenty of proof in science. In the idiotic language of philosophers, I can't "prove" that I have two legs.


There is a difference in science between "proving" a theory and confirming an observation.

That you have two legs is an observation, not a theory.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 PM Coyote has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 54 of 106 (499629)
02-19-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Coyote
02-19-2009 1:14 PM


Re: one evidence
There is a difference in science between "proving" a theory and confirming an observation.

That you have two legs is an observation, not a theory.

In the first place it is a theory, and in the second place the philosophical quibble applies. How can I "prove" that I am not some eight-legged lobsterlike creature plugged into a Matrix-type simulator that fools me into thinking that I have two legs? I can't. All I can say is that every observation I make is consistent with the theory that I have two legs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2009 1:14 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2009 1:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 55 of 106 (499632)
02-19-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by olivortex
02-19-2009 11:48 AM


Re: one evidence
By the way, i have understood there is no such thing as "proof" in science.

When people say that, they are referring to precise, logical proofs as in mathematics. In that case, since science is an inductive enterprise, there cannot be any of the precise logical proofs found in mathematics. But, then, those proofs only work when the premises are assumed to be true. Since there is always some doubt about the premises, then I guess nothing is actually every really proved in mathematics, logic, or philosophy, either.

On the other hand, when people talk about "proof" in science, they mean, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." In that case, very few scientific theories have been "proven" as thoroughly as the theory of evolution.

-

It has been said already that ONE single evidence can not sum evolution all up and constitute a powerful, undisputable and ultimate "proof" of the validity of the theory of evolution....

I dunno. I think that the single nested hierarchy of the species not only sums up evolution pretty well, but it, alone, is one of the most powerful single pieces of evidence for it, in my opinion anyway. In fact, much of the other evidence for evolution is really evidence when it is compared to the standard phylogenic tree.

-

But one very interesting evidence is the nylon eating bacteria.

That certainly is good evidence for one piece of the theory. The phylogenic tree is good evidence for common descent; the nylon eating bacteria is good evidence for new, beneficial traits arising from random mutations, and the peppered moth observations are good evidence for natural selection.

-

Remind me again what is so hard to grasp about the theory?


An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by olivortex, posted 02-19-2009 11:48 AM olivortex has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 56 of 106 (499634)
02-19-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2009 1:36 PM


Re: one evidence
In the first place it is a theory, and in the second place the philosophical quibble applies. How can I "prove" that I am not some eight-legged lobsterlike creature plugged into a Matrix-type simulator that fools me into thinking that I have two legs? I can't. All I can say is that every observation I make is consistent with the theory that I have two legs.

If you are going to confuse an observation (data) with a theory (an explanation for data) then we really have no common ground for communication.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 7:13 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 57 of 106 (499639)
02-19-2009 2:54 PM


words!
I'm glad to see that i have provoked some reactions. It seems language is both a mean and an obstacle to communication. It is an obstacle mostly when we decided not to agree on terms at the very start. cf my favourite F.Zappa quote.

There is a difference in science between "proving" a theory and confirming an observation.
That you have two legs is an observation, not a theory.

If you are going to confuse an observation (data) with a theory (an explanation for data) then we really have no common ground for communication.

I agree with Coyote, of course. I'm not one who likes to make some blur just for the fun of blurrying tracks, when we need to clear up the road, and even less when it comes to the evolution topic. Mumbo-jumbo is not my thing (to tell the truth, i hade never heard or read this expression before ;)). Pretending to get philosophical on this topic would make me look even more lost in front of some questions about life. Because i can feel like it sometimes. These questions, when discussed, imply honesty and respect of receivable arguments.

On other forums I have tried to be as conceding and honest as I could, in order to understand why i couldn't see the same way as creationists do. My fellows from "the other side" (to me there is no side, really) deliberately behaved as if they had forgotten some of the satisfying answers i had given them, as i was asked to give straight answers, that had to constitute...proofs. It's true that it's hard to avoid the rethorical aspect sometimes, but it's part of the discussion not only to show figures, to get conclusive all the way. I myself am not good at figures and science in general so i'll take any instructive info from anybody, no matter they're ID or ET supporters :)

Well thank you for the feedback. I hope i can keep on browsing the pages of this forum more often.

Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.


    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 58 of 106 (499685)
02-19-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
02-19-2009 1:59 PM


Re: one evidence
If you are going to confuse an observation (data) with a theory (an explanation for data) then we really have no common ground for communication.

Thank you for your pointless reply.

It remains true, however, that everything that you would call a fact is also a theory, except for the fact that you are currently experiencing the qualia that you are currently experiencing.

Please feel free to suggest a counter-example.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2009 1:59 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ichatfilipina 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3092 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-09-2009


Message 59 of 106 (502001)
03-09-2009 9:58 AM


started the combination of chromosomes. Then time to time it will develop and become a baby. It is genetics.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.


iChatFilipina
    
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 60 of 106 (502107)
03-09-2009 5:22 PM


Best evidence
For me, the best evidence for evolution is, as others have said, 'consilience' - a number of independent threads of evidence, without any attempt to force them to fit, do fit together. Genetics, palaeontology, biogeography, evo devo etc - all of it backed up by published research - wherever I look into something in my amateurish way I find the detail is there to back it up. Strength in depth.

examples I like :-

- the circulatory systems in human embryos go through a series of configurations, which are very similar to the embryonic circulatory systems of fish / amphibian / reptiles and then mammals - in that order!
- the cross checking of the dating of Devonian corals by measuring the number of daily growth lines per year and comparing to the predicted number of days in a year back then using the current number of days in the year and the observed rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing.

I also am amazed by some of the recent findings from genetics, any of which could have contradicted evolution, and none of which do. For example - the existence of pseudogenes, the fact that LINES and SINES generate an evolutionary tree that fits with trees generated based on other methods (I have been reading Sean Carroll's 'The Making of the Fittest which is an excellent book and introduced me to these concepts).

Finally, I'm also convinced by the fact that intermediate species seem to be being discovered almost monthly, in just the sediments they are expected to be in. Bats, athropods, birds, whales, fishapods etc. In a way, fossils are the most foundational evidence of all.

If God created all creatures, he / she did it in such a way that everything looks like the theory of evolution is true....


    
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017