Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 830 (498956)
02-15-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by wardog25
10-25-2008 9:25 AM


In response to The Matt, Agobot, and maybe Huntard (depending on what aspect of genetics you were referring to):
Why is it that microevolution is so often presented as foundational to the theory of evolution when microevolution is both accepted and celebrated by creationists and evolutionists alike?
To me it seems that microevolution is just a matter of interpretation, and cannot be used as evidence for one side or the other.
No. The theory of evolution predicts the existence of "microevolution". If it was never observed, the theory of evolution would be falsified. Hence, it is evidence for the theory of evolution.
The fact that some creationists will admit that it happens doesn't stop it from being evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 9:25 AM wardog25 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 830 (498957)
02-15-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by wardog25
10-25-2008 10:46 AM


But this is my point entirely. No species has ever been shown to change into another species /...
Yes they have.
You would know this if you'd listened to the 50% of creationists who admit this rather than the 50% of creationists who deny it. For example, according to leading creationist website AnswersInGenesis:
New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.
They are right about new species being observed. They are, of course, wrong about "the creationist model": there's no such thing as "the creationist model", which is why what you're saying is completely opposed to what they're saying.
Note once again that just because some creationists admit that this evidence for evolution exists doesn't magically stop it from being evidence for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 10:46 AM wardog25 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 830 (498958)
02-15-2009 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-23-2008 10:21 AM


In the "Is it science" topic, there is a thread for best evidence for creation.
I would like to hear what people consider to be the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.
Genetics; paleontology; morphology; biogeography; behavioral ecology; our ability to directly witness small amounts of evolution happening over small time-scales; and various relevant results in computer science.
To this we might add the fact that creationists have spent 150 years trying to find just one piece of evidence contradicting the theory and have, so far, failed.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 10:21 AM wardog25 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 830 (498965)
02-15-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Engineer
02-15-2009 6:10 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
This is where I have a complaint. How do you test the theory of evolution in a way that is meaningful? You can illustrate fruitfly genetics, mutations, perhaps even speciation, but how do you show that a whole new phylum can come from this?
That it can happen is more or less obvious; a sufficient number of mutations will get you from any genome to any other genome; and so long as the changes involved are adaptive or neutral they can happen. Now, I can't think of any posited evolutionary events leading to the origin of higher taxa that is mal-adaptive, how about you?
To find out whether such changes have happened you look at morphology, genetics, the fossil record, and so forth; i.e. you compare the predictions that you can derive from your phylogenetic tree with the observations that you can make.
In addition, a natural origin to life requires abiogenesis of life from inert materials, I know this is an entirely different subject from evolution, but BOTH abiogenisis and evolution are required for a natural explanation for the origin to life as we know it.
Otherwise, Who among us will say God created life from inert materials, but evolution did the rest? I hate to digress here, and perhaps this should be in another thread.
I'm afraid it probably should, yes.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 6:10 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 43 of 830 (498978)
02-15-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Engineer
02-15-2009 7:12 PM


Two Views Of God
So, as I have already asked, does anyone here believe God started life from inert ingredients, and evolution did the rest?
Perhaps there are some people here that believe that. I am just asking? Is that ok?
Such an opinion, while logically possible, is not popular. I don't recall seeing anyone advocate it. It would also be possible to believe that life arose naturally, and that God then had to cause the genetic changes leading to the present diversity of species, but I don't remember seeing anyone argue for that, either.
Generally, theistic views of creation tend to break down into two models: what we might call the Silly God and the Smart God.
The Silly God wishes to achieve certain ends, such as the origin of stars and planets, the origin of life, the origin of diverse species, the origin of intelligent species, and so on. Therefore, when he created the universe, he made the laws of nature such that it was absolutely impossible for these things to happen. And then he did a series of miracles, supernaturally contravening the laws that he himself had just made, in order to bring these things about.
The Smart God wishes to achieve the same results, but, being Smart, creates a universe in which they will happen, rather than a universe in which they can't happen.
Any theist whose dogma doesn't require God to be Silly in some way tends to go all in for the Smart option.
As an engineer yourself, you will understand this preference. The Silly God is like a man who designs a bicycle with square wheels, and then overcomes this deficit by carrying it around everywhere. And the creationists are like onlookers who say: "How clever he is to design a bicycle! And how strong he is to carry it around!"
But it would be smarter to design a bicycle with circular wheels ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 7:12 PM Engineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 830 (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 replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 830 (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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 830 (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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 830 (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 replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 830 (763423)
07-24-2015 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by justatruthseeker
07-24-2015 2:43 PM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
We observe no evolution by mutation anywhere in the natural world.
Well, you don't. But biologists do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by justatruthseeker, posted 07-24-2015 2:43 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 100 of 830 (763433)
07-24-2015 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
07-24-2015 4:57 PM


Re: Best evidence for TOE? All the evidence.
The theory goes on optimistically asserting that mutation is the source of useful novel traits nevertheless, without any credible evidence for it.
... except direct observation. But what does observable reality count to when compared with the things creationists make up in their heads?
Of course we'll be assured that there's no way to judge if a trait is beneficial or not, won't we ...
No.
I wonder how long it will take before the fraud is generally recognized.
You are Faith and I claim my five pounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 07-24-2015 4:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 104 of 830 (763506)
07-25-2015 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
07-25-2015 9:18 PM


No, 'cos of the asymmetry between confirmation and falsification. If we want to argue that no pigs have wings, it would be fatuous to focus on just one pig: that wouldn't prove anything. But if someone wanted to disprove the proposition, one winged pig would be sufficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 9:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2015 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024