Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

I think the case for evolution has been a little overstated. People on here have said it's as certain as the earth revolving around the sun. I do not get that impression myself.Most of the evidence seems to consist of elimination of possible falsifications (except fossils).

I'm not so sure. Morphological and DNA evidence goes like this: if evolution is true, the morphologccal traits and DNA evidence has to be such and such. Such and such is indeed the case.Fossils are another matter. Evolution might be true with no found fossils but evolution cannot be true if the DNA similarities between related creatures were not as they are.

There are predictions and predictions. The really convincing prediction has to do with something specific that is going to happen. One tests the theory of relativity by predicting the location of some space object at a particular time by doing relativity calculations. Now there's a prediction.That's a different kind of prediction from the sort of thing you get with evolution.

Ok, if you are talking about placement of fossils, ok. If the fossils were in the wrong place, that might be a falsification.But what's important about the fossils is that you actually see snapshots or sculptures of transitionals. That's positive evidence.You don't get that with DNA/morphology.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-08-2006 12:00 PM

No, it's a snapshot of today'S species.

This means that DNA/morphology is not direct evidence as fossils are, and so less convincing.If evolution is true, DNA arrangments among live species would have to be somewhat as they are (example: humans 97% similar to chimps). Such is in fact the case. So evolution is not falsified. It doesn't follow from this that evolution is true. It just might be true.But it's hard to explain those fossils without resorting to some sort of evolutionary explanation.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-08-2006 05:36 PM

This I'm not familiar with. I read a little about a "molecular clock" but didn't understand it. You're using the word "prediction" in an odd way.

You can't "predict" something that you've already found or that you don't know about. All you can say is, if evolution is true, this would likely be the case. Or at any rate, evolution is not falsified.

That kind of prediction doesn't have the convincingness of a real prediction. It really shouldn't be called a "prediction."

There's no problem with it except that it overstates the case for the convincingness of the evidence. The evidence is very indirect except for fossils.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fossils are real snapshots or sculptures of the past. DNA/ morphology is about TODAY'S species (with perhaps the odd exception).So it's indirect.

Don't forget those hominid skulls!And the lizard-cows!This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 09:58 AM

What I "see," or at any rate read about, is a remarkably complete line of reptile-to-mammal transitionals. Also, there's that lizard-bird (8 fossils extant). Hominid skulls--some almost complete.Let's say we didn't have any of that. The DNA arrangement could be explained by special creation just as well: God being economic. Why choose one explanation over another? Is the reasoning that special creation is incredible? Therefore, evolution must be true? That won't do.

You left out the condescending tone from Person B: "Let's take baby steps" (implication: Faith is too stupid to understand the general idea at once). One of many examples.

Yes, a person or two I will not name has used that expression (and other such) with me too. Not that I really gave a damn. It was most amusing.So I understand Faith's emotional reaction--although in my view she overreacted. To say the least.