Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9077 total)
93 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat, xongsmith (5 members, 88 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,031 Year: 5,143/6,534 Month: 563/794 Week: 54/135 Day: 6/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1377 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 830 (486752)
10-24-2008 10:27 AM


The BEST evidence
The best evidence is how the entire theory holds together, with so many facts being explained by the theory of evolution.

And, contrary to creationists' claims, there are no significant facts which contradict the theory. There are certainly gaps to be filled in, but so far the theory provides a cohesive explanation for those millions and millions of facts and allows predictions to be made concerning new facts.

That's all a theory needs to do, and in this the theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories we have.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1377 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 22 of 830 (486917)
10-25-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
10-25-2008 3:19 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
Thus it is the total body of evidence that is foundational to the ongoing study of the process of evolution. But then, that is how science works.

Creationists often ask for the single best piece of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. They are disappointed when one is not forthcoming.

The evidence is housed in thousands of libraries and in tens of thousands of journals, in tens of thousands of books, and in many hundred museums.

Distilling all of this down into one bit of evidence is a fool's errand. In reality there is no "best" evidence, if you are looking for a single fact, such as a date or a fossil.

The "best" evidence we have is that the theory of evolution works, and it is internally consistent; it accounts for all of the known facts, it is not contradicted by any significant facts, and it makes predictions leading to the discovery of previously unknown facts.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2008 3:19 PM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 10-25-2008 3:57 PM Coyote has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1377 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 53 of 830 (499625)
02-19-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2009 1:07 PM


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.


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.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1377 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 830 (499634)
02-19-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2009 1:36 PM


Re: one evidence
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.

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.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 7:13 PM Coyote has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022