|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5909 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What piece of evidence have you been successful with in debating creationists? Perhaps you have an 'old faithful' example, maybe a transitional or a homologous structure, that always does the trick. I don't believe an iconoclastic dogmatic creationist can be convinced of anything that doesn't meet their narrow view of the universe. There are people that believe in a flat earth at the center of the universe, and nothing will disabuse them of this delusion.
You probably know what sort of things they ignore, what things they won't understand, and what things they don't want to know. As in anything and everything that contradicts their narrow dogmatic iconoclastic view of the universe?
Also, I used to think that structural homology was better evidence, but I came across a creationists who said that "A modern Corolla and a Camry share the same design, As do Hondas, Mazdas, Mercedes, Volkswagens, Chevrolets, etcetera, because of cross-fertilization of design ideas within designed and manufactured objects. You can even run a cladogram on designed elements to see where certain things crop up in the process, with several design elements being common to certain manufacturers and others being common across the board. The result will not be a cladogram such as you find for life. Look at rear-window wipers for instance. One year volvo came out with one. The next year nearly everyone had one. That is how design works: good ideas are used wherever they would benefit.
... what is your personal opinion regarding the evidence for evolution? What piece of evidence ... What's the best example of evidence for evolution? Life. Not one element within that sample set contradicts the theory of evolution. The amount of evidence that supports evolution is every single living thing we know of on earth and every single ancestral record we can find. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ahh, the common designer reply to the structural homogony argument. The reply to this argument is two-fold: (1) This designer must either have designed every single piece of life to look exactly as it would have evolved naturally, down to the inclusion of things that don't make sense from a design standpoint -- using the argument of reusing common parts (which is the basis of the argument). Thus we have octopus with retinas facing the light source and all mammals with the retina facing away from the light source. There is no example of "common design" to match that of the design of rear-window wipers on autos, only examples that follow from the much more restrictive theory of common descent. As long as the concept of a designer doesn't add information or predictive purpose to the evaluation of biology it is not useful to the scientific understanding of life. AND without any evidence of a common design element that cannot be due to common descent this is nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. OR (2) This designer must have designed the start of life (or designed the universe to start life somewhere) and used evolution to proceed from that point. The only question then is when this start of life occurred: evolution is de facto a part of creation.
One of the problems with that reasoning is that the presumed designer is omniscient,omnipotent,and omnipresent...He would not be (limited) to the kind of design we see in nature.(I.e. descent with modification) Or it depends on the PURPOSE of the design ... Enjoy and welcome to the fray. Edited by RAZD, : not i compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Once you've got some piece of evidence, how do you make it more convincing to a creationist? So, how should the evidence be presented to appeal to a creationist? Start with some point of agreement: most (not all) will agree that microevolution occurs. You may not be able to get them to agree on a definition of microevolution (eg my great debate thread) but this issue you can agree on is that all modern species have evolved from recent ancestors. Whether this is microevolution within kinds or standard evolution is not that critical at this point. What this shows then is that the issue is NOT evolution per se but the concept of common ancestor and how far back we go. Then the issue becomes age of the earth. And the ability of life to adapt over that time. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The people I'm dealing with are usually science students, who of course are religiously motivated in part, but who should be able to be convinced with facts. I have also dealt with a poster on another board who ostensibly earned a degree in biology, but who make absurd and illogical arguments, and then insults anyone who contradicts him. He is a fanatic of a different kind, and an embarassment to science. I'd love to post a sample but it has been so long since he said anything remotely useful that it would be a hard dig to find (and that site has no real search feature). This is a different kind of ignorance that needs to be addressed: the inability to construct a valid argument. I would say that evolutionists should not use any argument that is not logically valid, but hey: that's my opinion . Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'd start off by explaining what the theory of evolution is. 'Cos most of 'em wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground. Chances are, even starting with a basic definition of evolution will meet with blank disbelief and denial ... compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
nit-pick: we have about the same follicles per sq in as other apes, it is not the density but the length and diameter of the hairs that is different. Look at some close-ups of chimps and you can see the skin through the hair.
But I agree that goosebumps are a vestigal action that fluffs the hairs up, either to increase apparent size or for thermal regulation, and is useless behavior now. Edited by RAZD, : to finish comments ... compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
heck, try it with S1WC and his off the cuff excuses he thinks refute your points.
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Three observations:
(1) More offspring are produced every year than are needed to replace the existing population. (2) More genetic variability exists in any species than is needed to change a feature over time if selection were to continually select for such change. (3) All life is continually changing. :: Evolution occurs. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Evolution, namely the chronological emergence of different life form species, was inroduced in Genesis; this agreement of species is not pursuent to Darwin. Mircoevolution is not the issue - the conclusion made of it, is the issue, and this debate is inclined with genesis being correct. Yes, the issue is not really evolution per se but common descent -- and the agreement of evidence with the numbers of common ancestors as you go back through the evidence. The main problem for the "genesis model" is the disappearance of human then ape then primate then mammal etc etc as you go back in time. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech. I don't see dolphins or elephant noses being the right TICK-OFF what sets humans apart from all other life forms. Communication is what speech accomplishes - this is just a difference of degree and not of kind, and your personal incredulity and denial have nothing to do with it. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras. Zebras already talk - just because you can't understand them doesn't mean they don't tell a story. The story they tell is evolution -- the kind of evolution this thread is about, and the evidence they are for it. They are on topic. The story that creationists tell on the other hand (with comments like this), is that in spite of supposed human speech and communication ability, they do not understand evolution at all ... or forum guidelines. You are not on topic. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The most convincing evidence that creationism is wrong is that there is no usable definition of "biblical kind" -- and the reason that this is evidence for evolution is that this is what makes such a definition impossible.
Most attempts at definitions depend more on example than on criteria (a dog is a dog, all descendants of dogs will be dogs), and those that do try to draw some kind of criteria use evolution language. Note that AiG specifically statesMissing Link | Answers in Genesis quote: LOL Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't agree that creationism's difficulties defining kind comprise evidence for evolution, This is not an argument that NOT(creationism) = evolution, but that the evidence for evolution has such depth that any definition of kind immediately runs into problems with that evidence or with the separation of animals into distinct kinds.
...note one thing about this AIG proposal for a definition of kind: So kind would rely upon determinations of genetic relatedness through genetic analysis, which would lead to the conclusion from data already in our possession that all of life is just one kind. Case in point. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : not compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024