What convinced you of Evolution?

I liked your post, but was wondering if the experiment you outlined has been documented somewhere (esp online)? Without that it is just an outline for an experiment and a hypothesis of what outcomes one would find.Since most people I talk to are unlikely to have the time, patience, or lab to conduct such an experiment, I'd love to have a source I can point them to to show it has been run... and if they continued to doubt, they could then run the test.In other words, I'd like to steal your argument for later use.------------------
holmes

I am convinced of the PROCESS of evolution, due to:1) The fact that changes occur through the act of reproduction. This is well known and utilized in animal breeding.2) There is no evidence that life within the fossil record did not use reproduction as a means to generate offspring, in fact there is evidence for their having used reproduction.3) There is no evidence that reproduction has been disrupted/replaced in the past by some other process, and so it is logical that small changes (as seen in breeding) could have resulted in much larger changes over a larger period of time and so explain the changes in forms we see in the fossil record. In short, it provides a model for what we see in the fossil record using the processes we see today.4) There is current evidence of speciation in plants and bacteria through reproduction, so it is not unrealistic to assume evolution will continue to happen.5) The assumption of evolution, and some of its mechanisms, have proven invaluable as tools to understand, track, and deal with changes in the biological world such as disease, hereditary infirmities, and new species that begin to threaten ecosystems.6) Other scientific disciplines, working independently of biology, provide supporting evidence for the evolutionary model.The MECHANISMS of evolution are not completely understood and I will not go into the arguments for/against each one here. I will only point out that unlike religion, tenets of the theory of evolution are allowed to change, and expected to as more data comes in from the world around us. In other words, as a general practice, evidence rules the theory, the theory does not rule the evidence.As a theory, evolution deals only with explanations for observed biological changes. It makes no statements outside of this realm. God or Gods may exist, or not.Because of how evolution treats evidence and its limitations of scope, I am hesitant to believe it is a religion.But since you believe it is, or that Xianity as a religion is on par with scientific theory, I am interested in knowing what evidence there is that:1) Xianity is a scientific discipline (spec. regarding observations of biological change)2) as a discipline it explains current changes observed during reproduction3) the model it has developed to explain the fossil record and any discontinuities between current organisms and ancient organisms (esp. with regard to reproduction)4) the evidence it has accumulated to support any discontinuities5) proposed mechanisms for change that are not related to properties within the reproductive organisms themselves6) evidence for such "supernatural" or "external" mechanismsand finally,7) what invaluable tools Xianity (as an ongoing scientific discipline) has provided us for understanding, tracking, and treating biological events such as disease, hereditary (?) infirmities, and invasive new species which threaten ecosystems.Also, if you have some other types of evidence that are important in choosing a scientific theory/religion regarding biological change, I am open to suggestion.Hope to hear back from you soon.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Are you saying you have actually seen an animal evolve???

---

Just an aside... have you witnessed any species being created separately from all the others, or a giant flood after which only two of every animal had to repopulate the entire planet?We are all working with the same evidence DaVxOr.He simply suggested that it is by looking around at the world and making connections between what we find there, that evolution becomes the best model.In case you didn't answer my original reply because it didn't mention my religious background (and how I turned "evo")...I was born into a Xian house (not fundie), but it never really made much sense to me emotionally. In fact, other posts in this thread regarding the emotional fulfillment generated by nature and the universe are the only things I have experienced myself.In school I learned evo and geology and the evidence made a lot of sense, and explained things that Xianity could not. In fact for the most part I assumed science and religion were completely separate (which you can see outlined in my original reply to you).It was only as fundies began to insist that religion and science are the same that I have felt any real motive to say, okay then Xianity is wrong. It is certainly bad science.Why people feel compelled to make them compete, or mix them up, is beyond me.In this case it seems better to keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter.------------------
holmes

Your "very simple example", was terribly flawed, though perhaps due to the necessities of its simplification. Unfortunately your analogy to the blind men was equally flawed (and for no apparent reason) in that it wholly missed the point that science would record the observations of each man and attempt to build a model from their experiences... not have each man argue his case.Essentially I think your argument is founded on a belief you stated in this later post I am replying to. You appear to be arguing that evo and creationist theories are basically equal, and must be before the cases are made. In other words, science is basically like a trial between theories where each side presents its evidence to make "the best case".I believe this is wholly incorrect and (since the admin has pointed out this is topic drift) opened a new thread in "Is it Science?" called "Evo on trial: is Science like a Court of Law?". You can find my "case" there, or at the link below:
http://EvC Forum: Evo on trial: is Science really like a Court of Law? -->EvC Forum: Evo on trial: is Science really like a Court of Law?------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 12-05-2003]