Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Best Evidence for Evolution.

    For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).

    What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  • #2
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).

    What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?
    First off, I would change that to "Young Earth Creationists do not understand evolution." There are probably a few that do, but in general it is the case that they are either ignorant of the theory or they intentionally misunderstand it.

    I'd say the best case for evolution is that there is so much coherent evidence from so many different disciplines. Even in Darwin's time I think the case was made, but now we have the molecular evidence which I would consider the best evidence for evolution.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SUTG View Post
      I'd say the best case for evolution is that there is so much coherent evidence from so many different disciplines.
      Care to be a tad more specific?
      Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
      Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bob b View Post
        Care to be a tad more specific?
        Sure. While I mentioned above that I think the molecular evidence was the 'best' evidence for evolution, here is an list of some others:

        -The Fossil Record
        -The nested hierarchy structure of the tree of life
        -Vestigal organs and homology
        -Artifical Selection
        -Geographic distribution of organisms

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SUTG View Post
          Sure. While I mentioned above that I think the molecular evidence was the 'best' evidence for evolution, here is an list of some others:
          Molecular evidence is not able to trace descent back to a single hypothetical primitive protocell. It cannot even determine how DNA arose in the first place as a storage mechanism for the production of proteins. Remember, my definition of evolution requires you to provide evidence that shows that all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

          -The Fossil Record
          The fossils have not illuminated the question of that single hypothetical primitive protocell.

          -The nested hierarchy structure of the tree of life
          There is no requirement in the theory that this should even be the case.

          In addition, there are unfortunately many examples that fall outside this pattern.

          -Vestigal organs
          There is no evidence in this category which throws any light on descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

          and homology
          Similarity in physical structure throws no light on descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

          -Artifical Selection
          Artificial selection throws no light on descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

          -Geographic distribution of organisms
          Geographic distribution of organisms throws no light on descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell.

          -------

          Care to try again?
          Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
          Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bob b View Post
            single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.single hypothetical primitive protocell.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Evoken View Post
              If one extrapolates a procedure backwards without limit (not a very scientific procedure to be sure) then just like the Big Bang one ends up with an obvious absurdity.

              I prefer to believe that the first lifeforms were not all that different in kind than what we see today, and that they were created in multiple different types.

              I did have to "eat crow" in coming to that conclusion, because I had previously written off Genesis in my youth as a bunch of fairy tales written by nomatic sheep herders.
              Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
              Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Take it one step at a time. Would you agree that there is good evidence that certain groups have common ancestors (one that wasn't directly observed)?
                If you reject this evidence, then there is little point in going forward to your protothingamjig.
                "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                "The best things in life aren't things"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bob b View Post
                  If one extrapolates a procedure backwards without limit...
                  We have enough of the puzzle completed to extrapolate. We perform extrapolations like this all of the time - it is an inherent part of the reasoning process. Everyone does it. The only reason it bothers you with the TOE is because you are not very fond of the conclusion.

                  I prefer to believe that the first lifeforms were not all that different in kind than what we see today, and that they were created in multiple different types.
                  I prefer to stick with the evidence.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
                    Take it one step at a time. Would you agree that there is good evidence that certain groups have common ancestors (one that wasn't directly observed)?
                    I might if you were more specific about the groupings as well as the evidence.

                    If you reject this evidence, then there is little point in going forward to your protothingamjig.
                    I will accept or reject the evidence once it is presented.

                    (Actually I rarely reject evidence per se, preferring to concentrate on the conclusions which are drawn once the evidence is given).
                    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Bob B. The fossil record records changes in Creatures over time. This proves Evolution.

                      What isn't proven, is as you so neatly put it, our descent from a hypothetical Primitive Proto-Cell, which has never been observed.

                      Real Life, seems to show that Bacteria are the simplest life-forms capable of independant life.

                      Really, the Proto-Cells are the Atheists version of God. A something that has not got scientific evidence for it existed, but which is invoked due to it solving a likely unsolvable problem.
                      Of course I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but that's theology for you.

                      A Lie requires a reason to exist.
                      The Truth does not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                        We have enough of the puzzle completed to extrapolate. We perform extrapolations like this all of the time - it is an inherent part of the reasoning process. Everyone does it.
                        Part of technical training and experience is to know how far one can safely extrapolate. The naive frequently go too far in this regard.

                        The only reason it bothers you with the TOE is because you are not very fond of the conclusion.
                        Actually I had previously embraced the conclusion before my initial studies of DNA 23 years ago forced me to conclude that mutations were highly overrated as a mechanism for making major transformations of one type of creature into another type of creature, regardless of the timescale involved.

                        Thus, the evidence of DNA forced me to lose my "fondness" for the conventional evolutionary mechanism. Oddly, the situation has grown far worse in this regard over the last 23 years, yet in all that time nobody seems to have been able to come up with any better mechanism which would allow one basic type of creature to give rise to another basic type of creature. If you have such a mechanism don't be shy and please enlighten us.












                        I prefer to stick with the evidence.[/QUOTE]
                        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bob b View Post
                          Part of technical training and experience is to know how far one can safely extrapolate. The naive frequently go too far in this regard.
                          Agreed. How far are you willing to extrapolate, and why? Tell me about your ancestors.



                          Actually I had previously embraced the conclusion before my initial studies of DNA 23 years ago forced me to conclude that mutations were highly overrated as a mechanism for making major transformations of one type of creature into another type of creature, regardless of the timescale involved.
                          How did you arrive at your conclusion?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cliffracer RIP View Post
                            Bob B. The fossil record records changes in Creatures over time. This proves Evolution.
                            My studies of the fossil record indicate that the fossil record disproves major transformations. This was the finding of the evidence by Gould and Eldridge, except that they claimed that major transformations must have occurred so rapidly that they left no record in the fossils.

                            What isn't proven, is as you so neatly put it, our descent from a hypothetical Primitive Proto-Cell, which has never been observed.

                            Real Life, seems to show that Bacteria are the simplest life-forms capable of independant life.

                            Really, the Proto-Cells are the Atheists version of God. A something that has not got scientific evidence for it existed, but which is invoked due to it solving a likely unsolvable problem.
                            You are on the right track except you have not studied the fossil record sufficiently to realize that major transformations among multicelled creatures are as non-existent as ones which go from bacteria to anything else.

                            Gould and Eldridge (and others) gave the game away when they revealed "the trade secret" of paleontology.
                            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                              Agreed. How far are you willing to extrapolate, and why? Tell me about your ancestors.
                              200-300 generations.

                              How did you arrive at your conclusion?
                              Molecular studies. I think you are familiar with them.
                              Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                              Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X