What i can't understand about evolution....

quote:

---

i was under the belief that there is really not that much evidence at all.

---

The vast majority, probably in excess of 90%, of scientists agree that evolution is scientifically valid and supported by virtually all of the scientific evidence. If your belief is accurate, one of the following must be true:1. Most scientists are incompetent and don't know what they're talking about.2. Most scientists are lying about how much evidence there is supporting evolution.3. Some agency is deceiving most scientists about how much evidence there is supporting evolution.Which of these three possibilities do you think is accurate? Or, instead, could you consider the possibility that most scientists know more about it than you do, and you are wrong?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The topic of this thread is evolution. Off topic material hidden.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

I asked for biological evidence that something the size of a virus evolved into what we have today (i.e. an elephant, a whale, etc.)

​

Crossing the boundary of "kinds" is just one small step in that entire process. If biology can demonstrate that a bacterium can evolve into an elephant, you should certainly have no trouble demonstrating evolution beyond "kinds", whether I define it at genus, family, or even higher.

​

If you cannot show this, than just admit to the OP that biology can only demonstrate tiny changes.

---

You're presenting a false dilemma. While I doubt that science will ever be able to present a detailed history of the exact sequence from bacterium to elephant, that doesn't mean all that it can show is "tiny changes." Of course, whether science can ever show more than "tiny changes" depends entirely on what you mean by that.While you seem to be objecting that the definition of "kind" isn't at issue, at bottom your objection is much the same as the argument over evolution beyond "kinds." There are many, many posts in this forum discussing the evidence of evolution beyond species, so presumably you would consider such changes "tiny." The question you need to answer before we can respond to your challenge is what you mean by "tiny changes." If you would accept nothing less than a clear, step by step showing of the evolutionary path from bacterium to elephant, I think most here would concede that no such showing is possible now, nor likely at any time in the future. But then, you would be demonstrating to us quite clearly that you are rejecting all of science. Reliable conclusions from every field of science are based on evidence considerably less compelling than what you are asking evolution to provide.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Is what i'm asking for clear yet?

---

No. If anything, you've made things less clear.My point was that you haven't defined what you mean by "tiny" changes. Your response said absolutely nothing about that issue.What you appear to try to address is the evidence of evolution that is found in the fossil record. You seem to be trying to draw a circle around that evidence and exclude it from the field of biology. Since it gives us a vast amount of information about the biology of organisms that exist in the past, you'll have to explain why that information isn't "biology" evidence. That, of course, would be in addition to explaining what you mean by "tiny" changes.BTW, I'm not saying for a moment that fossil evidence is the only evidence that supports the ToE. Some additional evidence would include geographic distribution of organisms, the nested hierarchy classification of all organisms, comparative anatomy, all of which are squarely within the field of biology. There is some discussion of this at Wiki, and a much more thorough discussion at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.Good luck.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Let me provide a simplistic example.

---

You example says infinitely more about your misunderstanding of biology and the evidence for the ToE than it does about the ToE itself.

quote:

---

Assume I find a turtle in my back yard. I point him toward Beijing (I live in Orlando, FL) and let him go.

​

I walk behind him and observe him covering 2 miles of the distance (roughly 0.025% of the way) and he doesn't change course.

​

Can I walk back home and assume he went the whole way? Can I even assume he is CAPABLE of going the whole way, just because he can walk and he can swim?

---

Let me amend your example, just a bit, to bring it closer to the state of scientific evidence for the ToE. Suppose that before letting your turtle loose for its journey, you attached a miniature global positioning device to its back and took a small sample of its DNA. You periodically checked the position of the turtle, let's say every ten miles or so. When the turtle reached the end of its journey, you retrieved it and took another sample of its DNA to verify that it was the same turtle. After plotting the various readings you got from the GPS, you found an erratic, but clear, path from Florida, across the country, then across the Pacific, ending at the location where you retrieved him.Now, this would not amount to proof positive that he in fact made the journey, there are innumerable other possible explanations for the pattern of evidence. However, surely you would conclude, in the absence of evidence for any other explanation, that the turtle did in fact make the journey. My example is considerably closer to the level of evidence in support of the ToE than is yours. (Before you object that I haven't provided the evidence, look upthread at my previous post where I gave some of the evidence, as well as several others that have done so.)

quote:

---

Yes,I understand that evolutionists say because of OTHER evidence (i.e. fossil record, geology, etc), you can then ASSUME it happened.

---

Oh FFS! If you can find one eviloooshunist who ever says that we "ASSUME" it happened, I'll carry your fucking turtle to Beijing in my mouth. The fact that you are too lazy to look at the evidence or too stubborn to understand it doesn't meant that eviloooshunists are simply assuming.

quote:

---

So everyone is building their house of cards on someone else's shaky foundation. And if you nail each area down to what EXACT evidence they have, all you get is a few shreds of evidence and a lot of assuming.

​

So that is what I've been doing. I just want people to tell me what evidence they actually have without pointing to another area of study.

---

Half a dozen people or so have done just that IN THIS THREAD. Your refusal to read what's written and instead stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Mumumumumumah!" so you don't hear it doesn't make the evidence go away.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Golly. If you came up with that M.Y.T.H. thing yourself, I'll say one thing. It's wittier than "Fish to Gish," even if it is just as ignorant.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If you've read everything in this thread and can still ask the questions you're asking, I'm afraid you are beyond educating.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

(Several people provide information, including Huntard who presents an outline of transitional fossils, but not a complete list of every transitional firm from A to z.) So, we see that the good Doctor wasn't so much putting words in your mouth as accurately predicting where your predictable argument was going.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

i have to once again apologise for the brief replies im about to give.We are visiting my mother in law and ive managed to slip away with the excuse i need to find research material and im at the local library.Im not sure how long i can stay here.

---

Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like an excuse for not actually addressing issues raised, particularly since it seems unlikely that a library would be open late Sunday evening. In any event....In replying to this:

quote:

---

Evolution does not require a single common ancestor.

---

you said:

quote:

---

Strange.I have the ancestors tale sitting right in front of me and the words to describe our initial ancestor is a single celled protozoa.His words in the inside cover talk of a final pilgrimage is taken together by all living things back to the origin of life itself.Thats not a common ancestor or him alluding to a common ancestor?Ok.

---

You are confusing the observed fact of evolutionary change with the part of the ToE that proposes that all life comes from a single common ancestor. Evolution is an observable fact. Part of the ToE describes the mechanisms for descent with modification. Another part suggests the common ancestor. Even if it turns out that there was not a common ancestor, that would not disprove the observed fact of descent with modification, nor the proposed mechanism, natural selection together with genetic mutation.Also, if you had read this entire thread before posting, you would have seen these tips, courtesy of RAZD: In particular, I'll suggest that you use the reply button at the bottom of the message you are replying to as an aid to clarity of communication. This is helpful because there are often multiple lines of debate occurring at any given time in any given thread.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Merely asking for clarification and looking for some sort of agreement from you that the fossil record so far doesnt support the fact of evolution.

---

The fossil record supports the ToE, the observed fact of evolution and the theory of a common ancestor. It is not, however, the only or even the most important supporting evidence.

quote:

---

The amazing single celled magic organism must of existed,for evolution IS FACT

---

Again, you are confusing the observed fact of evolution with the theory of a common ancestor. Not the same thing. Also, just for a bit of fun, you sound like an illiterate third-grader when you say "must of" instead of "must have."

quote:

---

...because T.O.E is infallible ...

---

I daresay you cannot find any credible scientist who has said or ever will say that the ToE is infallible. This is nothing more than more misunderstanding on your part, or a straw man. One way or the other, it has no relation to reality.

quote:

---

only an idiot like myself would dare question it or ask for some sort of tangible evidence.

---

Please. None of us here is naive enough to believe that all you are doing is asking for tangible evidence. You are here to try to poke holes in something you don't even really understand in the first place. Were it otherwise, you'd actually address and discuss the evidence that has been supplied here. Unless and until you actually do that, rather than toss out lame excuses for not doing so, the only natural conclusion to come to is that you are not seeking evidence, but simply being an annoyance. Fortunately, most of us here have considerable experience with annoyances so can tolerate them to one degree or another.Just in case you wanted to dispute my conclusion that you're being an annoyance, I offer this quote:

quote:

---

Maybe i need to read more evolutionary books to be able to visualise this magnificent creature.Maybe only then would it become real to me like it is to you guys.

---

I suspect that the actual existence of a single common ancestor for all life on this planet is not something that people here are conclusively convinced of. Instead, it is something that is tentatively accepted as actually existing based on a certain level of evidence suggesting that such an organism did exist, subject to revision in the event of discovery of contrary evidence.You should try to keep in mind that the scientific mind set is not one of complete conviction of the accuracy of any scientific theory, or even observed fact for that matter. That type of 100% certainty belongs to the realm of religion. Science is instead our best, tentative guess based on the evidence and explanations offered at any particular time.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Plus posters have offered things that deserve better than off the cuff answers.

---

Virtually every post you've replied to in this thread deserves better than off the cuff answers, but that hasn't stopped you.

quote:

---

.I have told huntard and to a lesser extent razd(who has challenged me on certain things) that i will attempt to answer.

---

And Huntard, RAZD, and nearly every other regular poster here has come across countless cdesign proponentists who've trotted in spouting nonsense followed by assurances that they would provide substantive responses to those who reply to them, only to watch them fade away back into teh interwebs, leaving nothing behind but drivel. Your posting pattern is suspiciously similar to that type, so you're going to have to put up with repeated requests for substance unless and until you actually provide some.Also, just in case you missed it, if you're feeling overwhelmed by the flood of responses you're getting, you can go to this thread, where the participation will be limited to you and RAZD. I know RAZD well enough to assure you that he's willing to wait as long as it takes you to put together something more than an off the cuff response, with no pressure whatsoever to meet any time table. So, if you're truly serious about asking real questions and getting real answers, just trot yourself over to that thread and jump right in.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

and therefore must be lying?

---

Oh for fuck's sake, unwad your panties. I never said you "must be lying." I simply said it sounds suspiciously like a lame excuse for not responding to substance. What's more, your sarcastic response does little to disabuse me of my suspicions since you again failed to provide a substantive response to the other points I made in the post.

quote:

---

Ill just have to quit everything else in my life just to concentrate on this forum.

---

Our loss would be the gain of the rest of those involved in your life, I'm sure.{ABE - to reply to your edit}

quote:

---

No im not.Its all the same thing as far as im concerned.I can lump abiogenesis in with the theory of evolution as well.I dont care what special definitions you have for it.Bottom line.No creator is needed here.

---

Well, you are certainly free to argue against any position you care to. However, by refusing to recognize the usages that scientists actually employ, you cease arguing against what scientists say, and drift into the realm of what we call "straw man arguments." That's where you misdescribe the position held by your opponent then argue against that misdescription. It's one way to win an argument, I suppose, but since you're not winning an argument against a real opponent, but instead against a straw man, it's not particularly intellectually satisfying.Edited by subbie, : As noted.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs...???

---

I can do better than that. I can show you living examples of animals with partially formed organs that function quite well.Wiki has a fairly good description of animals with patially formed eyes.Please, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that these animals prove that the human eye actually evolved this way. Given that the eye is soft tissue, fossil evidence of how it actually happened may be impossible to find. However, it does show how different stages in the evolution of the eye can confer a survival advantage before the eye is complete. This of course also puts to rest a well worn bit of cdesign proponentist nonsense; the argument that the eye is irreducibly complex, or that it could not have evolved because a partial eye wouldn't be of any use.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

if the ape men were supposed to have evolved into a more advanced form of previous ape, then how is it that those lower apes, survived and the more advanced apes did not?

---

Others here have commented quite cogently oh your misuse of the terms "more advanced" and "lower." I would like to run you through a quick explanation of how the parent population may well remain the same as the daughter population changes. (Please note that these are the currently accepted terms to use for the different groups of organisms, parent and daughter, rather than lower and more advanced.)Assume there is a parent population of organisms that has reached an approximate stasis relative to the environment such that there is very little change from generation to generation. Next, assume that that population gets divided somehow, such that one portion is isolated from the other for a long period of time, then subjected to environmental pressures different from the parent population. After many generations, the daughter population can become so different from the parent population that the two will not longer be able to interbreed, but both will exist at the same time.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

interestingly The science journal 'Nature' reported in 1997 that almost 40 percent of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God. So where does that put the research of these individuals? Does the fact that they believe in God make their research any less accurate then an athiest/evolutionary scientist??

---

No. I suspect you'd be surprised to learn that the vast majority of those people accept the ToE and have no problem reconciling it with their religious beliefs. There's a tremendous difference between being a creationist and being a scientist who believes in a supreme being. The reason science rejects creationism has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that creationists believe in god. It's because their work doesn't comport with generally accepted principles of science.

quote:

---

I'd be interested to know what you think of these statements...these scientists hold doubts over evolution and some could be creationists...

---

I'd be very interested to see what your source for these quotes is. I suspect you won't say. I also suspect it's a creationism website of some sort or other.I haven't the inclination to investigate all of them, I'll just talk about one, Harold Morowitz. He testified on behalf of plaintiffs who were challenging the Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act in McLean v. Arkansas. You can read all of his testimony, it's not very long. But it's more or less summarized at the end with the following: I strongly suspect that he never actually said anything even close to what you quote. It's difficult to tell for sure if you don't provide a source for your quote.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat