|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
And they lost the wings they used to fly to Hawaii too...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined:
|
So to you "seriously" means Pangaea took a few days to break up, koalas evolved from another species on the Ark and all those toads and panthers and penguins and Anami rabbits and Micrixalus and millions of other species had some magical vigor that let them get from Mount Ararat to their particular homes through a landscape ravaged by forty days of mountainous waves?
Wait . . . did you say koalas evolved?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
How long does it take for mature trees to "get established"? Especially if they're "getting established" in a part of the world they are not suited for? How many years of supplies did Noah have in reserve?
What about the fish? How did they get "established"? All the ones who depended on salt water would have been killed by the fresh water of the 40 days and nights of rain. Really, the image of polar bears camping out next to a beached Ark for a few years while they raise families and live off emergency rations until the earth returns to normal from a sodden wasteland and then eventually decide to head back to the part of the world that isn't quite as hot as the middle east is . . . curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
And the glaciers would have advanced (and then retreated, and then advanced again nine or ten times) unconscionably fast, for the same reason Pangaea split up in only a few days? And then, of course, after all that we have to shoehorn in three millennia of dynasties in Egypt before we even get to the time of Cleopatra.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined:
|
Ok, so the geologists are wrong about all those extra ice ages and the archaeologists are wrong about the three millennia of Egyptian history from the first dynasty to Cleopatra and the astronomers are wrong about us being able to see distant galaxies by their light that has been traveling for millions of years and the physicists and chemists are wrong about radiometric dating and the botanists are wrong about this "pre-Flood vigor" that you say made plants grow superfast . . .
OK Disprove this theory: There is no god. Earth was built last month by mice, which are really the manifestations in our plane of existence of a race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings (to replace an earlier version of Earth that had, unfortunately, been destroyed by other alien beings) complete with fake dinosaur skeletons and carefully crafted evidence of continental drift and Carbon-14 decay etc. etc. etc. There is a book that says all this and it sold a lot of copies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
But your view of reality is not falsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Actually, falsifiability is very important in science. Say you have an idea that birds descended from dinosaurs. That idea is falsifiable. A lack of intermediate fossils, or intermediate fossils between birds and something other than dinosaurs, would be evidence for the incorrectness of the idea. Finding intermediate fossils is evidence of the correctness of the idea.
Your claim that Pangaea split up very quickly should have something similar to make it falsifiable, but you don't say what we should look for. Instead, every piece of evidence that shows it to be incorrect, such as the extensive sediments on the floor of the Atlantic, varying from deep near the coasts to shallow near the middle where new land is being formed, you answer with another outlandish statement, something about sedimentation happening extraordinarily fast in earlier years. If you keep "multiplying entities unnecessarily" you are not working with falsifiable ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
You state that it's not falsifiable. Why? I've given you examples.
For example, a claim that the top of a mountain was once much lower, on the bottom of the sea in fact, before plate tectonics pushed it up into the sky is falsifiable. Just look for fossils of sea creatures in the rock, for example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Is it really off topic? Shouldn't the presentation of the best evidence be accompanied by a discussion of that evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
I've been looking for a generic "evolution vs creationism" debate thread, but they all seem to be about narrow subtopics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined:
|
OK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Evolution, like the formation of stars or the motions of plate tectonics, is a reasonably slow process, as scientific processes go, but it has been observed by humans. New species have been observed to evolve, of course, and scientists have used the principles of evolution many times in dealing with things like patterns of disease mutation, drug resistance, pesticide resistance, etc.
On the other hand, if you were to demand that, for example, a new family of arthropod must be shown to evolve over a few weeks in a laboratory, you wouldn't be rational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Two important points here:
1) Your complaint that evolution "hasn't been observed" is a straw man. Evolution is a slow process, claiming that it doesn't happen because the millions of years it took for humans and chimps to evolve from a common ancestor means modern scientists cannot "observe" it doesn't mean it didn't happen. As far as I'm aware, when Darwin and Wallace established evolution nobody had yet observed a new species evolving. Think of plate tectonics: you can't see new continents forming over a weekend! 2) Evolution of new species has been observed. Not in primates, obviously, but in flowers and worms and such. If there are more species of such things now than there were in the past either your deity miraculously created new species or they evolved naturally. Here are some examples; 1. A population of worms separated into two populations (one in a lab) diverged until they could no longer interbreed.
quote: 2. A new species of grass evolved that can tolerate soil contaminated with mine tailings.
quote: 3. Mice brought from Europe to Madeira islands diverge into new species.
quote: 4. Flowers introduced into a new environment produce new species.
quote: Here is an example of humans breeding new species.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
quote:First, this is another example of the ignorance creationists have for science. While it is true that over time more complex organisms have evolved (it could hardly be otherwise considering that the first living organisms were necessarily small in volume and mass) evolution does NOT prescribe that life must evolve unidirectionally to greater size and complexity. Just consider the mammalian forms that went back into the oceans, with descendants having fewer limbs! Second, when you imply the "original Kinds" had a different chromosome count you are implying that modern forms of life have a different number of chromosomes than older forms! If that's not evolution, what is? Are you really saying the "original Kinds" had a different chromosome count?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
quote:Not sure what you mean by this. You say that mutations are changes but then you say they are not anything that changes! Are you perhaps saying that these are changes, changes great enough to produce different species but that isn't enough to provide evidence of evolution to you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024