Evidence for Evolution

[Orogeny]

Upon visiting an auto graveyard, I was struck by the similarity in designs of various systems in a Ford Model A from the Twenties, a Studebaker from the Fifties, and a Ford Mustang from the Seventies. There were similarities in the electrical systems, the exhaust systems, the fuel systems, and even body construction, although the later model cars showed more sophistication.

Suspicious, I removed samples from various parts of the automobiles in question, and brought them back to the laboratory in my basement. After careful chemical analysis of various samples, I can now say that I have definite proof that the Mustand evolved from the Studebaker, which in turn, evolved from the Model A.

Isn’t science a wonderful thing?

Perhaps you would be surprised to know that you would be correct at least in a sense. That has nothing to do with biological evolution, but it is true none the less.

Peace

Tim

 

[Steve40]

Firstly science does not do “proof”, as you point out alternative explanations are possible. Science goes with the preponderance of the evidence - “beyond reasonable doubt” if you like.

Your bar is too low. When it comes to important things like human safety and saying where all humanity came from preponderance of evidence is not good enough. What you are talking about is faith, your faith, not science.

Emperical science is an understanding of the observable and repeatable. This is the science I want behind the car that carries my children and this will be the science I want behind where I tell my children with proof where they have come from. In the absence of proof my children like all of us must trust in God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your bar is too low. When it comes to important things like human safety and saying where all humanity came from preponderance of evidence is not good enough.

It is what God gave us to learn from. And while it might seem like a poor system to you, it has one saving grace; it works. Better than anything else we can do for understanding nature.

What you are talking about is faith, your faith, not science.

If you honestly believe that, you know nothing at all about faith or science.

Emperical science is an understanding of the observable and repeatable.

This is why science has been so successful. For example, repeatble results in biology and geology led scientists to predict that at one time, whales had functional legs. And because the prediction was based on sound and reproducible evidence, it was later confirmed.

ID/creationism, because it is a religion, cannot do this. It merely asserts things on faith.

This is the science I want behind the car that carries my children and this will be the science I want behind where I tell my children with proof where they have come from. In the absence of proof my children like all of us must trust in God.

It seems you have confidence in neither, if you deny His creation as you do. Let God be God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Michael G, instead of just cutting and pasting sales pitches from websites, how about just posting the link so as to save some bandwidth?

 

[Steve40]

It is what God gave us to learn from. And while it might seem like a poor system to you, it has one saving grace; it works. Better than anything else we can do for understanding nature.

God also gave us the humility to say when we don’t know. God gave us mathematics and statistics. I understand the mathematics and statistics that goes into engineering scientifically for safety. Evolution does not hold up to the mathematics and statistics that God has given us to ensure human safety. It weaken critical thinking logical thought by relying too heavily upon the preponderence of evidence and less upon humility, mathematics and statistics.

Why can’t we just be humble and say we don’t know?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It is what God gave us to learn from. And while it might seem like a poor system to you, it has one saving grace; it works. Better than anything else we can do for understanding nature.

God also gave us the humility to say when we don’t know.

Funny how those who need to remember it, are always the ones least likely to do so.

God gave us mathematics and statistics. I understand the mathematics and statistics that goes into engineering scientifically for safety.

For one employer, I had to obtain my CSP; I was for several years certified for that area, by examination. However, I have also spent considerable time studying population genetics, which is at least as rigorous as systems safety.

Evolution does not hold up to the mathematics and statistics that God has given us to ensure human safety.

I’ve done both, and you’re flat out wrong. Most people who think as you do have never cracked a book on population genetics. Have you?

It weaken critical thinking logical thought by relying too heavily upon the preponderence of evidence and less upon humility, mathematics and statistics.

If you spent any time in the biological sciences, you’d know the evidence is largely mathematical and statistical.

Why can’t we just be humble and say we don’t know?

Beyond me. Have you actually studied any of the math or statistics in evolutionary science?

 

[Steve40]

Barbarian observes:

Funny how those who need to remember it, are always the ones least likely to do so.

I agree.

I’ve done both, and you’re flat out wrong. Most people who think as you do have never cracked a book on population genetics. Have you?

No, but can you prove it? So, population genetics proves evolution? I don’t think so. Proof means a viable observable mechanism for a change in kind. Where is it?

If you spent any time in the biological sciences, you’d know the evidence is largely mathematical and statistical.

Beyond me. Have you actually studied any of the math or statistics in evolutionary science?

No, and perhaps you can take some satisfaction in that. By your reasoning it automatically rules me out and you don’t have to listen to me. When evolution becomes a science perhaps I’ll study it. Some want to study evolution to try and convince you of the missing information. I’m sorry. I could care less. Believe what you want and good luck. In the end we will all know the truth.

I understand that not all evolutionists are aithiests but it is not insignificant that almost all aithiests are evolutionists. Be careful that you aren’t just following a false religion. Many of your co-believers are driven with religious ferver to believe in evolution and can not possibly believe in anything else. This makes for poor science. Many of your co-believers are far from objective. Try not to fall into their religious non-objective way of thinking.

 

[rossum]

Your bar is too low. When it comes to important things like human safety and saying where all humanity came from preponderance of evidence is not good enough. What you are talking about is faith, your faith, not science.

How big a preponderance do you want? 95%, 99%, 99.9% Every piece of scientific evidence comes with error bars, so you can see for yourself just how accurate the evidence is.

Emperical science is an understanding of the observable and repeatable.

Which is precisely why science does not deal with the supernatural, since the supernatural is neither observable nor repeateble. If there were an observable and repeatable way to turn frogs into princes, or vice versa, then science could deal with it. Since the supernatural does not produce miracles observably and repeatably science cannot deal with the supernatural.

rossum

 

[abu_kamoon]

How big a preponderance do you want? 95%, 99%, 99.9% Every piece of scientific evidence comes with error bars, so you can see for yourself just how accurate the evidence is.

Which is precisely why science does not deal with the supernatural, since the supernatural is neither observable nor repeateble. If there were an observable and repeatable way to turn frogs into princes, or vice versa, then science could deal with it. Since the supernatural does not produce miracles observably and repeatably science cannot deal with the supernatural.

rossum

It’s my contention that non-living chemicals becoming a living being is a supernatural event. It cannot be duplicated in a laboratory. That’s why I say that our origins are NOT subject to science. They cannot be duplicated, they were not witnessed. Scientists can speculate, but so can I. Speculation is not science.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian
I’ve done both, and you’re flat out wrong. Most people who think as you do have never cracked a book on population genetics. Have you?

No, but can you prove it?

Prove? No. But you gave me adequate information to know. You clearly had no idea that evolutionary theory was deeply involved in statisics and math.

So, population genetics proves evolution?

It merely validates evolution by evidence.

I don’t think so.

Of course, you have no idea what it is, so that’s understandable.

Proof means a viable observable mechanism for a change in kind.

No. Proof means logical certainty. Not obtainable in science, any more then you can prove there will be another day tomorrow. However, the evidence is overwhelming.

Where is it?

Directly observed macroevolution and evolution of irreducible complexity. Fossil record, genetic data, etc. Would you like to see some of it?

Barbarian observes:
If you spent any time in the biological sciences, you’d know the evidence is largely mathematical and statistical.

Beyond me. Have you actually studied any of the math or statistics in evolutionary science?

No, and perhaps you can take some satisfaction in that.

I’m an educator, so ignorance is never comforting to me. I can only hope that this convinced you that it’s unwise to make assertions about things you don’t know.

By your reasoning it automatically rules me out and you don’t have to listen to me.

Not knowing what you’re talking about has hurt your credibilty, yes.

When evolution becomes a science perhaps I’ll study it.

Too late. About 150 years too late. If you want to be able to criticise it, you will at least have to know what it is.

Some want to study evolution to try and convince you of the missing information.

Every science has many different journals, dedicated to filling in the missing information. If we ever get all of it, then that science will be dead, with nothing left to learn. The point is, you haven’t a clue about what is left to learn in evolution (and there is a great deal of that)

I’m sorry. I could care less.

That is why you didn’t do very well. Learn and your arguments will not be so easily refuted.

Believe what you want

That is the creationist/ID way. Science follows the evidence.

I understand that not all evolutionists are aithiests but it is not insignificant that almost all aithiests are evolutionists.

I understand that not all people who live in houses are atheists but it is not insignificant that almost all atheists live in houses. Hmm…

Be careful that you aren’t just following a false religion.

I’m a Catholic. Like the Pope, I regard evolution as virtually certain. What religion are you following?

Many of your co-believers are driven with religious ferver to believe in evolution and can not possibly believe in anything else.

If you were right about that, evolutionary theory wouldn’t have been repeatedly modified as new facts appeared. Like most of your post, your assertion is based on ignorance. I doubt if you know any evolutionary biologists.

Perhaps your delusion that scientists “believe in” science is the problem. We believe in God. Scientists accept science based on evidence, not faith.

 

[rossum]

It’s my contention that non-living chemicals becoming a living being is a supernatural event.

I eat csome salt, a non-living chemical. That salt becomes part of me and I am a living being. I do not see anything supernatural there.

You are walking a dangerous path if you rest your belief in God on the hope that science will not find a way to explain abiogenesis. Belief in Thor was predicated on there being no other explanation for thunder. How many people now think that Thor causes thunder?

It cannot be duplicated in a laboratory. That’s why I say that our origins are NOT subject to science. They cannot be duplicated, they were not witnessed. Scientists can speculate, but so can I. Speculation is not science.

We can extrapolate. If there was a global flood then certain things should still be present - such as the fossils of all the humans and cattle killed by it. If life evolved then there should be commonalities between living things like RNA. Science is not certain, but it has a lot more going for it than literalist Biblical interpretations.

rossum

 

[abu_kamoon]

PROOF OF EVOLUTION:

Microevolution (actually variation within species) is proof of macroevolution.

Nice try.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The first directly observed speciation occured in 1904 or thereabouts. The species is still in existence. Another major one was the evolution of a new species of fly observed by Dobzhansky.

Would you like to learn about some of them?

 

[abu_kamoon]

The first directly observed speciation occured in 1904 or thereabouts. The species is still in existence. Another major one was the evolution of a new species of fly observed by Dobzhansky.

Would you like to learn about some of them?

The discovery of a new species or variation is not evolution. It is my understanding that evolution implies one species “evolving” into another. To my knowledge it has never been observed, and it never will, since it is impossible.

Variation describes the limits of a species. All variations of dogs are still dogs. Creating a new variation by selective breeding is not evolution.

This brings up an interesting question. I have heard Creationists ask why if humans evolved from apes, or some similar simian, why are there still apes, monkeys, chimps & c. The Evolutionists usually answer that not all simians “evolved” into humans, hence simians are still in existence.

If this is the case, wouldn’t we see a contiuum of life rather than special separation? Wouldn’t there be a blurring of species with continuous intermediates populating the planet? After all, according to Evolutionary theory, all the intermediates would have to have been successful, or they would have died out before “evolving” into more advanced species.

Why is there such a sharp deliniation between humans and “other animals”? Apes, monkeys and chimps are the same as they were thousands (millions?) of years ago. Why haven’t they advanced? They are supposed to be so close to us, genetically? I don’t dispute that they are physically composed of the same elements as we are. There is commonality in amino acids, but why such a gulf in intellectual developement?

Simians exibit intelligence, but they are unable to build on the accomplishments of previous generations. They have been observed instructing their offspring the signing language taught to them by humans, but this is really just “monkey see, monkey do”. If in fact, the chimps are so close to us, why haven’t they developed technology?

The only answer I have heard from Evolutionists is that they have everything they need. They have no need to develope technology to improve their lot. This dosen’t satisfy me. Every creature is always trying to get more food, be more comfortable & c. Dogs seek shade in the summer. Fish seek out better feeding areas.

So why haven’t chimps built tree houses to shelter them from the rain? Why haven’t they figured out how to build a simple fireplace to keep themselves warm?

We all know that these tasks are beyond chimps. I think this demonstrates that there is a wide gulf between humans and animals. Not our physical composition, but our intellectual capacity. The is just one more indication to me that evolution is a myth.

 

[mulligan59]

The reactionary right of the Catholic church upon further research is well documented in any number of books and publications as being a distinct minority. Their joining with fundamentalist baptist churches on the issues of abortion and gay rights is also well documented, mostly revolving around the Bush elections. They part company on most other issues of course, since fundies have little problem with contraception, and several other of the life issues. They are the highest divorcing group in the US as well, and that doesn’t bother our reactionary Catholics one bit.

Spirit Meadow,
I’ve been gone a while so I apologize if this post is a little out of date. Since I am probably the most conservative, “reactionary” person currently alive, I’m wondering to whom you are referring when you say “these reactionary Catholics who condone divorce by the fundies”. The fundies as you say are just another variety of heretic (their faith alone, can’t lose your salvation postion is an illogical joke) as are you and the doctor (the heresy of modernism). None of it can be condoned. There is not a shred of inconsistency in true, tradional Catholicism (the only true Catholicism) as it is centered on God’s perfect truth.

 

[masterjedi747]

Microevolution is proof of macroevolution.

Nice try.

There’s no significant difference between the two.

Evolution over a long period of time = "macro"evolution.
Evolution over a short period of time = "micro"evolution.

The only difference between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution is quantity.

It is my understanding that evolution implies one species “evolving” into another.

Yes, but not as you understand it.
Dogs don’t evolve into caterpillars. Fruit flies don’t evolve into birds.

This brings up an interesting question. I have heard Creationists ask why if humans evolved from apes, or some similar simian, why are there still apes, monkeys, chimps & c.

Humans DID NOT evolve from apes, monkeys, and chimps et cetera. Humans, apes, monkeys, and chimps ALL evolved from a common ancestor, which is not still around today.

If this is your understanding of evolution, then I understand why you think it’s absurd. It is.

The Evolutionists usually answer that not all simians “evolved” into humans, hence simians are still in existence.

Nope. What you have there are either incompetent “evolutionists”, or the opposition misinterpreting/misunderstanding what evolutionists have said.

If this is the case, wouldn’t we see a contiuum of life rather than special separation? Wouldn’t there be a blurring of species with continuous intermediates populating the planet?

That kind of continuum is found in our ancestral lineage only.

Why is there such a sharp deliniation between humans and “other animals”?

…why such a gulf in intellectual developement?

Because God infused us with rational and immortal souls.

Apes, monkeys and chimps are the same as they were thousands (millions?) of years ago.

Millions of years ago, apes and monkeys and chimps did not exist – but their common ancestors did. Compared to only a few thousand years ago, yes, they’re mostly the same. Because evolution takes a long time.

Simians exibit intelligence, but they are unable to build on the accomplishments of previous generations. …If in fact, the chimps are so close to us, why haven’t they developed technology?

So why haven’t chimps built tree houses to shelter them from the rain? Why haven’t they figured out how to build a simple fireplace to keep themselves warm?

The only answer I have heard from Evolutionists is that they have everything they need. They have no need to develop technology to improve their lot. This doesn’t satisfy me.

That doesn’t satisfy us, either. Sounds like you’ve only talked to proponents of atheistic/materialistic evolution. This is theistic evolution – the best of both worlds.

We all know that these tasks are beyond chimps. I think this demonstrates that there is a wide gulf between humans and animals. Not our physical composition, but our intellectual capacity. The is just one more indication to me that evolution is a myth.

You said it – there is a “wide gulf” between humans and animals, but not in our physical composition. The “wide gulf” is a result of the fact that we are rational persons with spiritual souls infused by God, and not a result of the fact that we all share common ancestors way back in history somewhere.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The discovery of a new species or variation is not evolution.

True, but that’s not what I’m talking about. These were observed speciations; a new species evolving from an older one.

It is my understanding that evolution implies one species “evolving” into another. To my knowledge it has never been observed, and it never will, since it is impossible.

Ignorance is the enemy of evolution. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Your question about why there are still other primates has been well handled elsewhere.

If this is the case, wouldn’t we see a contiuum of life rather than special separation?

If every organism that ever lived was known to us, there would be a smooth continuum. But where the fossil record is abundant, yes, that’s what we see.

Wouldn’t there be a blurring of species with continuous intermediates populating the planet?

Yes, but because of disruptive selection, the intermediates tend to die out, and the more evolved ones tend to continue.

After all, according to Evolutionary theory, all the intermediates would have to have been successful, or they would have died out before “evolving” into more advanced species.

Fitness only counts in terms of the environment, including competiton from other species.

Again, your remaining questions have already been very ably dealt with.

 

[abu_kamoon]

True, but that’s not what I’m talking about. These were observed speciations; a new species evolving from an older one.

Ignorance is the enemy of evolution. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Your question about why there are still other primates has been well handled elsewhere.

If every organism that ever lived was known to us, there would be a smooth continuum. But where the fossil record is abundant, yes, that’s what we see.

Yes, but because of disruptive selection, the intermediates tend to die out, and the more evolved ones tend to continue.

Disruptive selection? If we were to find recordings of the audio spectrum running the range of audible sound, we might think it to be a natural phenomenon, but if we were to find it composed of the same twelve tones repeated in integers of an octave, we could pretty well establish that it was based on the Western Twelve Tone Scale. How could a continuum of evolving species be represented by the same series of fossils? Why would we expect the “missing links”, those intermediates which shold theoretically vastly outnumber the fossils of species we find be missing? Obviously, according to evolutionary theory, they were sucessful. They survived to reproduce. Then they vanished without a trace! Where is the evidence for this?

Fitness only counts in terms of the environment, including competiton from other species.

Again, your remaining questions have already been very ably dealt with.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Originally Posted by abu kamoon
It is my understanding that evolution implies one species “evolving” into another.

Yes, but not as you understand it.
Dogs don’t evolve into caterpillars. Fruit flies don’t evolve into birds.

That’s not what I said. I said that my understanding is the evolution implies one specific species “evolves” into another specific species. When has that ever been observed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by abu kamoon
This brings up an interesting question. I have heard Creationists ask why if humans evolved from apes, or some similar simian, why are there still apes, monkeys, chimps & c.

Humans DID NOT evolve from apes, monkeys, and chimps et cetera. Humans, apes, monkeys, and chimps ALL evolved from a common ancestor, which is not still around today.

If this is your understanding of evolution, then I understand why you think it’s absurd. It is.

Ok. Let’s assume that humans, apes, monkeys and chimps all "evolved from some un-named common ancestor. Why are the apes, monkeys and chimps still swinging through the trees or dragging their knuckles on the floor of the jungle, while humans have traveled to the moon? According to evolution, animals and evne humans continue to evolve. But humans build on the accomplishments of previous generations, Animals don’t. How could we all have a common ancestor?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The discovery of a new species or variation is not evolution. It is my understanding that evolution implies one species “evolving” into another. To my knowledge it has never been observed, and it never will, since it is impossible.

Variation describes the limits of a species. All variations of dogs are still dogs. Creating a new variation by selective breeding is not evolution.

Not that barbarians examples are worth much – as that original bird Darwin observed has some serious holes in it! But, anyway, “species” is a construct of man’s mind in classifying creatures.

Speciation, or perhaps hybridization, is observed in nature. For example there are new “weeds”, whose genetic makeup comes from different species and after reduplication of the genetic material (polyploidy) they are fertile and reproduce.
However, this is still a plant to plant sexual mutation which would still follow under the objection you raise about variation – although technically, the plant is a new “species”.

I would agree that variation within a species is a very interesting problem, since even selective breeding programs tend to have so much difficulty with reverts to the common or mixed form. Purebred cats are notorious for this…

Also, survival of the “fittest” is a rather simplified idea. Often predators appear to increase the diversity of life found in the area rather than decrease it as one might expect. A fit creature is not necessarily the dominant one, or the most able to hunt, or any other commonly understood measure – so the idea of survival of the fittest is a bit misleading to the common person in how to interpret “evolutionary” pressures. The hunter can overhunt, and kill off it’s food chain… etc.