Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

Actually, you said "nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!!"Why, exactly should anyone engage in any discussion or debate when you jump in by declaring your close mindedness?Please read your own words above, and realize how they must sound to others.What if, for example, we said, "actually, your statements about probability are wrong, and here is an explanation...(etc)". Would you actually bother to read and understand the explanation? Your quote, with which I opened this post, implies you would not care what we said. Perhaps you should consider taking back that statement...

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
Because they should engage in trying to convince me. Tell me how abiogenesis is possible then, so that I stop having a closed mind.

​

quote:

---

Considering that you entered the discussionb saying "nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!!", engaging in trying to convince you seems rather futile. If you want to engage in debate, it's senseless to enter it in this manner.The actual probability arguments should go elsewhere - this discussion is supposed to be what evidence creationists would accept. You've already answered this with "none". End of discussion. If you want to discuss the probability arguments, look in another thread.

Here is what Borel had to say about the applicability of his "law" to the origin of life:(from the same website as you were previously pointed to:

quote:

---

From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:

​

The Problem of Life.

​

In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach
me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may
have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of
magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments...

---

You can go to the site for the comments, which I omit for space.RE: abiogenesis: Evolution can be true whether or not abiogenesis is true. Let's assume, for discussion, that we know that God created the first life (Darwin implied as much in Origin of Species, actually)What evidence would you accept that this original life has since evolved?

Perhaps you missed where I pointed out that Borel specifically excluded the origin of life from his line of reasoning. I think BOrel might understand his own work better than you.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
The sentence "What would convince you that evolution has happened?" has to do with probability arguments.

---

Wait, if we showed that abiogenesis could happen through naturalistic means, you would then be convinced of evolution?You shouldn't be!Consider my earlier question: Let's assume that life was created by God. Or Aliens. Or whatever.What evidence would convince you that this life has evolved since being created in a simple form?I think this gets the discussion closer to the intended subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
I dont know how it was calculated. In my book is only a reference.

​

"Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, vol 294, 1981, sid 105

---

Ah, great, a reference!I looked this up.First, the reference is a 1/3 page news item about a symposium.Second, there is *NOT A SINGLE CALCULATION OF PROBABILITY IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE*. Hoyle only figuratively and informally states that he thinks the chances of life evolving are too small for ages of the universe derived from "Big Bang" cosmology.third, the number you quote (10 ^40,000) is not a probability for original life, but an estimate of the information content of "higher forms of life". Again, *NO PROBABILITY CALCULATIONS ARE PRESENTED*, nor are any probability *VALUES* given.So either your source is wrong, or you're misreading your source.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
What could cause me to consider the theory of evolution more seriously?

​

Some credible evidence that comes across as something more than a no-option-evolutionist's attempt to support a philosophy with scientific-sounding rhetoric. For example, if fossils could be found that shows fins gradually developing bones and then gradually extending to transform the creature into a land animal.

---

Well, we have that:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1We have fish, fish with limbs but not toes, fish-like amphibians - all in all, pretty good. the transition mentioned before, of land mammals to whales, is even more impressive.the link above is just a starting point. If you still aren't convinced, of course, we can talk in more detail. However, please just don't dismiss this evidence. You said this would convince you, I've provided it, now we can talk about it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[b]The link's rhetoric, composed of its many concessions (that there are still gaps between the groups, the speciation events are not preserved, cousins and uncles exist rather than parents, "we" assume they are closely related to the actual parents, transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible, etc.), comes across as nothing more than typical naturalistic assumptivism. [/QUOTE][/b]Just how complete of a fossil record are you looking for? Also, even given some gaps, etc, how else do you explain the ordering and progression in the fossil record that does exist? Please answer this, as this is the crux of the matter - it's not enough to point to some gaps, you have to have an explanation for the order that exists.
Also, if I had my choice, I'd rather have you actually respond to the information on whale evolution, which I think is a superb example. [QUOTE][b]
I saw nothing that proves or even leads me to believe the claims of naturalists: that creatures have changed macro-evolutionally.
Show me SOMETHING LIKE:
[...]
--a "normal" beetle transforming into a Bobardier Beetle[/QUOTE][/b]
Your information on the bombardier beetle is all wrong, as gene90 has pointed out. [QUOTE][b]
--a "normal" bird transforming into a woodpecker [/QUOTE][/b]
AGAIN, this is all wrong. I've researched the woodpecker's tongue after being confronted with this creationist lie before. The woodpeckers tongue connects to the free floating hyoid bone, just like every other bird. The hyoid is forked, just like in every other birtd. The hyoid is long and curved compared to other birds, but that's just a simple stretching, not a novel anatomical layout. http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/dlevey/avianbio/Lab/IntAnat.htmSearch the page for "hyoid bone". Better yet, get a good book on avian anatomy, like I did. I haven't found any good pictures on the web yet.I see how creationists might have made this mistake - the anatomical diagrams can be hard to read. But if they just READ THE TEXT instead of LOOKED AT PICTURES, this never would have happened. Typical creationist garbage.Actually, if you look at the diagrams that creationist sites provide (always their own modifications of the real diagrams, not the real anatomy), you have to think - how would the tongue work? answer: It wouldn't.

quote:

---

Even if you can't provide fossil proof of macro-evolutionary transitional forms that are intimated above, it might be interesting to read your analytical assessment of how these examples came into existence through evolution, one small step at a time

​

---

Considering that two of your three examples are totally fictional, there'd be little point in that. I'm not up on the details of the brachiosaur right now - could you point me to some RELIABLE information on the topic?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
quote:eply:
I have taken note of some items of concern that you had, and I'll have to get back with you regarding them, but I do have one thing to say now.
You say "just how complete of a fossil record are you looking for," as if what now exists supports evolution. The whole reason an order can even be postulated
is because fossils demonstrate distinct creatures abruptly appearing and disappearing. If evolution were true, the record would be a big blur of fossils that
couldn't readily be separated according to "kind."

---

Well, you've sort of answered my question. The only way we would see "a big blur" is if we had an astonishingly high rate of fossilization. Of course, in most cases, we don't. However, in certain cases, we *do* see a big blur, cases in which where one species ends and another begins is up for grabs. This is in certain rare, primarily marine, environments.But disregarding that, let's just work with the following sequence:
Fish
Fish with limb bones
Amphibian with fish like tail and fish like gills and small limbs
Terrestrial amphibianWe have examples of these (in fact, we have more distinct species than this), which by commonly accepted dating methods form a sequence.Even given that gaps exist, how do you explain the order? And the ordering we find of the reverse process, of terrestrial mammals becoming increasingly adapted to the sea (whales and other cetaceans)?I'm not even going to argue, for now at least, that the fossil record is "good enough" to confirm evolution (It is, I believe, but that's not my current point).Where do these sequences come from? Is it purely an accident, over and over again, with the various fossil sequences?****With regards to the other items, I'm not hopeful you will get back to me, based on past experience with others, but we'll see. What I really want you to think about is how reliable your sources of information are. Your beetle and woodpecker examples are simply and undebateably wrong, and seriously wrong. These are [not] minor errors, there are gross misrepresentations. Doesn't that make you worry about your sources?edited by Zhimbo to include the bracketed "not" in the last paragraph.

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 07-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
quote:it's a theory to the extent that it has become synonymous,in the minds of many, with evolutionary speculation

---

The "theory" you mention is "naturalism", which is not a scientify theory but is a philosophy.I personally know people who believe the theory of evolution AND believe in God. I believe there are members of this forum who accept both of these ideas. There are religious biologists. The Pope believes the evidence for evolution is good.While some people equate the philosophy of naturalism and science, and there are those who think that evolution means there is no God, obviously it is possible to accept science as a study of nature, accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life, AND accept the existence of the supernatural.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
quote: If evolution were true, the record would be a big blur of fossils that couldn't readily be separated according to "kind."

---

After re-reading this post, I see a possible point of confusion about what evolution predicts.I agree that evolution would produce "a big blur", under the extremely unrealistic circumstance of nearly continuous fossilization. However, this "blur" would ONLY be longitudinal - meaning, following a given lineage through time. (Also, the blur would show periodic increases of the rate of evolution. Indeed, this is exactly the type of positive fossil evidence that exists for punctuated equilibrium).It would NOT, however, be a blur in cross-section - "kinds" in the taxonomic sense would be crystal clear at any single point in time.I mention this because I've heard creationists insist that evolution predicts that ALL life would be a big blur without clear borders between kinds. That's a gross misunderstanding - given a "tree of life", such as predicted by evolution, seperate branches would be seperate, even if a single branch is continuous along its length.