evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

As Tamara said, science is not the pursuit for truth. Philosophy deals with this. Science looks for explanations for natural phenomena through natural mechanisms. While science does not deny supernatural mechanisms, it does base its inquiry on the basis that every natural phenomena has a natural mechanism. Scientific theories can then be supported or falsified by what we observe, be that in the fossil record or in the genomes of species. It is the predictions that the Theory of Evolution makes on the relatedness of species that is its strength, creationism does not have a testable hypothesis that even approaches evolution in the realm. Perhaps the best layman site on the internet for evidences of evolution is at No webpage found at provided URL: www.talkorgins.org.Perhaps the best question to ask of the other side is this: "Other than the Bible, what evidence is there of special creation." In other words, if the Bible said that life started 3.5 billion years ago and has evolved since from single celled organisms, would bible literalists still have a problem with the theory of evolution? I would think not.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-19-2004]

quote:

---

Under the right conditions Nitroglycerin goes boom.

---

But why does it go boom? The Truth of Nature is the why, not observations. Is it unstable bonds? Why are they unstable? So forth and so on until we come to Atomic Theory, which is a model that is accepted tentatively because we may never know the Truth in regards to the atom. There are even philosophical questions surroundin the existence of the atom, and those are well outside of the purview of science. Science is a tool for constructing accurate models, not for finding the meaning of life.

quote:

---

Science does not exist if there are no immutable facts. A fact is what is true.

---

This is false. This is why science holds all of it's theories tentatively, because there may not be immutable facts. However, science does rely on axioms, statements that are assumed to be true. One axiom is that repeated observations by different individuals are reliable. That is, objective facts (but not Truths) can be derived from repeated experimentation by different investigators. However, axioms are really not accessible to science, but they are accessible to philosophy.

quote:

---

Arithmetic is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.
1 + 1 = 2

---

Science doesn't really investigate math, it only uses math as a tool for investigation. For example, Newton's laws as they were first written were proven wrong by the theory of General Relativity. Now, was it the math that was incorrect, or was it the model that was incorrect? Obviously, math was not correctly applied, and so the model was incorrect. Science assumes that math is correct, that is one of the axioms of science is that math is provable and immutable, just as repeated observations are also another axiom. However, it is still possible that an evil demon is making us think 4 when we add 2 and 2 when in fact the real answer is 5. However, this type of philosophical question is not accessible to science.

quote:

---

With this law in mind, I can say, with certainty that whatever you throw up in to the air will eventually come down. Now you may say, Ya, but there are exceptions to that rule. Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but, no, there aren’t.

---

How do you know that we will not discover anti-gravity? How do we know that there are exceptions to the rule, but they have yet to be discovered? The laws of gravity are still tentative for this very reason.

quote:

---

Here is something else to think about. If there were no absolutes, {say for instance no absolute truths} then there would be no Science, or at least what we call Science today.

​

Why? Because, if a chemist mixes together the exact same amount of exactly the same chemicals, in exactly the same order, under the exact same conditions five time and gets different outcomes each time, or half the time, there would be no way to systematically derive knowledge from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.

---

Then science would conclude that chemistry acts through random processes, just as radioactive decay does. Science is able to model random events through statistics and probabilities. For instance, we are able to calculate the odds of winning the lottery even though we don't know what combinations of numbers will come up. Evolution is able to do the same with random mutations and natural selection in applying science to population genetics.

quote:

---

"1 + 1 = 2" is only true for those people who have assumed that the axioms of mathematics are true.

---

And 1 + 1 = 2 is only true if you assume base 10 math. In binary the answer is 10. Sorry, couldn't help it.

quote:

---

I simply find it hard to see how a mandible can be proof of anything, other than some animal had a mandible. And you say creationists are gullible.

---

I simply find it hard to see how a book can be proof of anyting, other than some guys wrote a book. And you say evolutionists are gullible.

quote:

---

Like so many young people, I actually thought that educators and scientists wouldn't teach as factual [and they do teach that ToE is fact] a theory that appears to have very little, if any, substantiation.

---

Evolution is both, it is fact and theory.The Facts of Evolution:
--natural selection has been observed to cause changes in allele frequencies.--the formation of new species has been observed first hand.--life changed over millions of years.The Theory of Evolution:--the reason that life changed over millions of years, and that all life shares a common ancestor, is due to the observable mechanisms (ie facts) that we observe now. Namely, mutation and natural selection result in change and speciation over time.The substantiation that you say is lacking is in fact quite voluminous. Perhaps the largest block of data is DNA, which supports the trees of life that were onced constructed by morphology alone. Also, DNA supports common ancestory in a way that no fossil was ever capable of doing. Your refusal to face up to this evidence is not the theorie's fault.

quote:

---

Even these examples I've given claim to be proof.

---

Nothing is ever given as proof. Proof is for math and alcohol. The word you are looking for is evidence.

quote:

---

Which new species has formed over the last hundred years?

---

Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events

quote:

---

Life changed over millions of years? By that do you mean many species that once lived are now extinct?

---

By that I mean that at one time only single celled organisms were on earth. Then multicellular life was around. After that, vertebrates populated the seas. After that, vertebrates were found on land . . . etc. The type of life living on the Earth changed drastically over several million years.

quote:

---

Proof or evidence, I've yet to see either posted here. that doesn't negate my statement that those sites claim to provide proof.

---

Check out my thread "ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory". No creationist has tackled this thread. Maybe you can be the first?

quote:

---

However there are many instances of fragmentary [by that I mean a very small portion of the animal as in the partial mandible example]evidence touted as the foundation for an entire genus. Let us not forget Nebraska Man.

---

It seems that the creationist propoganda machine is in full gear lately. Nebraska man, or rather the tooth, was soundly debunked in the SCIENTIFIC literature. Not one scientific paper ever supported this tooth as evidence of hominids in north america. The only scientist who claimed otherwise was the discoverer of the fossil and a lay newspaper (ie non-peer reviewed, non-scientific newspaper). Why is it that the only misrepresentations of Nebraska man come from the creationist ranks?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-18-2005 12:51 AM

quote:

---

Last time I checked they were still fruit flies.

---

Last I checked, apes and humans were still mammals. So I guess you don't have a problem with human's sharing a common ancestor with apes?

quote:

---

No, since the banana has similar DNA, I believe we are descended from bananas. They exhibit many characteristics similar to modern man.

---

Actually, we share a common ancestor with bananas, namely the basal eukaryotes. This is a common creationist misconception of evolution. We did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with apes. Apes are our cousins, not our grandfathers, just as you share a common ancestor with your cousins, your grandfather. Learning what evolution says does not mean that you accept it. If you claim to be an xevolutionist, you claim so without ever knowing what evolution says.

quote:

---

I was just wondering how mutation of bacteria which replicate at an incredible rate, compared to the mammals, can be applicable?

---

Because mutations in DNA cause the same fundamental changes in bacteria as they do in mammals. When you change the DNA you may change the protein it codes for. If you change the protein, you may change the characteristics of the organism. This is true of bacteria and mammals.The rate of mutation is different in humans and bacteria, as is the generation time. You, yourself, have about 100 mutations that neither of your parents had. Bacteria, because their generation times can be measured in minutes instead of years and their smaller genome, can not withstand 100 mutations/generation. So their mutation rate is usually between 0 and 1 mutation per generation, if that high. The mutation rates and generation times differ, but the source of change is the same, changes in DNA.

quote:

---

You mean we can't ask for one single piece of evidence that proves absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, the germ theory of disease?

---

The biggest question is whether or not the disease causes the bacteria. It takes more than a single piece of evidence to refute this counterargument.

quote:

---

Given that they have such a short generation time, is there evidence of bacteria evolving into new, more complex, life forms?

---

No, and they never did. However, they did form a commensal relationship with other unicellular species to form eukaryotes somewhere in our past.Also, there are bacteria that form multicellular colonies in response to starvation. From http://141.150.157.117:8080/prokPUB/chaphtm/188/01_00.htm : There is also the example of C. vulgaris mentioned earlier, the formation of a mutlicellular colony that breeds true.

quote:

---

The mosquitos are still mosquitos

---

Apes and men are still primates . . .
Primates and marsupials are still mammals . . .
Mammals and reptiles are still land vertebrates . . .
Land vertebrates and sea squirts are still chordates . . .I guess you must not have a problem with large scale changes, given you can classify the two species with the same name.

quote:

---

In conclusion, despite all National Geographic’s best efforts, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with their own particular features has not changed.

---

These fossils shared characteristics with land mammals and sea mammals. That, by definition, makes them transitional.

quote:

---

Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales.[7]

---

How does this quote from Carroll refute whale evolution?